123d or 320d coupe - and MPG :(
Discussion
hello
i have a bit of a dilemma, I've just got rid of my 2011 a3 14o tdi (Black edition) and when driving from Bath to Swindon i was get around 50MPG on total for the journey, and say about 46/48 at a steady 80
i have done some investigation and seen that a 123d at around 80 will give about 42MPG, does anyone know what the 320d will give at 80?
i do about 35k miles a year so need to make the right choice, oh and to all the diesel haters, i agree and my other car is a Tvr Cerbera 4.5 v8!
thanks
GP
i have a bit of a dilemma, I've just got rid of my 2011 a3 14o tdi (Black edition) and when driving from Bath to Swindon i was get around 50MPG on total for the journey, and say about 46/48 at a steady 80
i have done some investigation and seen that a 123d at around 80 will give about 42MPG, does anyone know what the 320d will give at 80?
i do about 35k miles a year so need to make the right choice, oh and to all the diesel haters, i agree and my other car is a Tvr Cerbera 4.5 v8!
thanks
GP
Patrick Bateman said:
The BMW engines are usually a bit more efficient like for like are they not?
I wouldn't expect any less than the Audi.
I think a 320d will match the Audi but from experience with my own car you won't get 50mpg as an overall average out of a 123d (45 to 46 is more where it's at). I don't think that's anything to do with the engine as such - for smoothness and refinement the twin-turbo in the 123 sets the standard for 4 pot diesels IMO - but unfortunately the 123d has relatively low gearing and that hurts fuel consumption on motorway running. I also find the ride quality in the 1 series a bit fidgety and hence for the mileage the OP's doing I'd say the 320d is the better bet.I wouldn't expect any less than the Audi.
Edited by JNW1 on Saturday 18th February 16:15
I would expect the 320d to be about 5% better on the motorway due to the gearing. Looking at that, 42mpg in the 123d and 45mpg in the 320d over 35,0000 miles is a difference of £350per year. Just bear this in mind when making your decision.
I think the 320d is the better looking car and more specious. But the 123d is quite close to 330d in performance so it all depends on what you want in a car.
I think the 320d is the better looking car and more specious. But the 123d is quite close to 330d in performance so it all depends on what you want in a car.
Check the final drive ratio / gearing on the automatic 123d vs the manual 123d.
I know on the 130i the auto turns over less RPM per MPH in top gear than the manual. Same might apply to the 123d and if so you might get a couple of MPG more in steady state cruising.
I've just sold a 1 series as I was doing long motorway drives and it is just not designed for that type of work. A 3 series is going to be a little more comfy so I would give some consideration to how many miles you do.
I think you would find a LCI 330d returns pretty good MPG at a constant 75-80mph too, from what I have read they are geared so that the MPG sweetspot is at that kind of cruising speed at 48-49mpg achieveable. Maybe worth doing some research into those too?
I know on the 130i the auto turns over less RPM per MPH in top gear than the manual. Same might apply to the 123d and if so you might get a couple of MPG more in steady state cruising.
I've just sold a 1 series as I was doing long motorway drives and it is just not designed for that type of work. A 3 series is going to be a little more comfy so I would give some consideration to how many miles you do.
I think you would find a LCI 330d returns pretty good MPG at a constant 75-80mph too, from what I have read they are geared so that the MPG sweetspot is at that kind of cruising speed at 48-49mpg achieveable. Maybe worth doing some research into those too?
I tend to only get between 40-44mpg out of my 123d (manual).
I do quite a varied amount of driving. My commute is 16 miles each way on a mixture of 30 and 50 zones and I also do motorway blasts of around 70-80 miles 2-3 times per week. I don't tend to give it the beans a lot and even if I drive like an OAP I can't get it above 44mpg over a full tank.
The gearing on the 123d isn't what I'd call great but I didn't buy it just to do motorway miles where in 6th it always feels like it's sat too high up the rev range (almost needs a 7th gear for cruising).
I do quite a varied amount of driving. My commute is 16 miles each way on a mixture of 30 and 50 zones and I also do motorway blasts of around 70-80 miles 2-3 times per week. I don't tend to give it the beans a lot and even if I drive like an OAP I can't get it above 44mpg over a full tank.
The gearing on the 123d isn't what I'd call great but I didn't buy it just to do motorway miles where in 6th it always feels like it's sat too high up the rev range (almost needs a 7th gear for cruising).
I have had the following....
2005 120d auto
2005 320d manual
2007 320d auto (ED 57 plate)
2008 123d auto
120d was terrible really for mpg, 26 round town and 33average, 38 at the very, very best on a run.
2005 320d manual. 33mpg round town, 35ish average and 44 on a run.
2008 123d was pretty much 44mpg all the time, never really changed.
57 plate 320d was very good, 39mpg round town, 47mpg average and would see about 55mpg on a steady 80mph cruise.
Saw high 60's on steady 60mph runs on bank holidays etc.
The other thing worth mentioning is my mpg dropped by just over 5mpg average when I went from the 17" sport alloys/tyres to 19" wider Falken FK452s.
Also, the gearing on the 120d/320d is far better than the 123d, that doesn't like 80mph.
Have you considered a facelift 320d Efficient Dynamics?
May are seeing 60+ average from that and getting 800-1000 miles a tank.
Higher price but newer and the fuel saving may cover the cost.
2005 120d auto
2005 320d manual
2007 320d auto (ED 57 plate)
2008 123d auto
120d was terrible really for mpg, 26 round town and 33average, 38 at the very, very best on a run.
2005 320d manual. 33mpg round town, 35ish average and 44 on a run.
2008 123d was pretty much 44mpg all the time, never really changed.
57 plate 320d was very good, 39mpg round town, 47mpg average and would see about 55mpg on a steady 80mph cruise.
Saw high 60's on steady 60mph runs on bank holidays etc.
The other thing worth mentioning is my mpg dropped by just over 5mpg average when I went from the 17" sport alloys/tyres to 19" wider Falken FK452s.
Also, the gearing on the 120d/320d is far better than the 123d, that doesn't like 80mph.
Have you considered a facelift 320d Efficient Dynamics?
May are seeing 60+ average from that and getting 800-1000 miles a tank.
Higher price but newer and the fuel saving may cover the cost.
Patrick Bateman said:
If you're only averaging 35mpg from a 320d then you're either driving with a lead foot, do most of your driving around town or something is wrong with the car.
44mpg on a run? Were you sitting at 90?
Perhaps illustrates the difference between the pre and post Efficient Dynamics cars as the 47mpg average from the 320d auto touring he had doesn't sound too bad? I suspect a manual ED 320d coupe would be capable of hitting the 50mpg average the OP was after and for the miles he's doing I think that would be a better bet than the 123d.....44mpg on a run? Were you sitting at 90?
JNW1 said:
Perhaps illustrates the difference between the pre and post Efficient Dynamics cars as the 47mpg average from the 320d auto touring he had doesn't sound too bad? I suspect a manual ED 320d coupe would be capable of hitting the 50mpg average the OP was after and for the miles he's doing I think that would be a better bet than the 123d.....
I could average 45mpg comfortably in my old 320td, a proper run would see that a fair bit higher.To average only 35mpg out of of a manual one indicates a lot of town driving or something not quite right with the car, maybe a knackered thermostat?
I can average over 30mpg on my 330ci!
My 2008 120d coupe did 49-52 mpg with a lot of motorway use, cruising usually at 70 mph actual (say 75 mph indicated according to the GPS). My 2009 320d touring, which is over 100 kg heavier, returns around 49-50 mpg with the same type of use. No car is going to achieve the official 'combined mpg figure' unless it is driven at 45 mph all day.
I would expect a twin turbo car to be just slightly less economical.
I would expect a twin turbo car to be just slightly less economical.
baggiebird said:
No car is going to achieve the official 'combined mpg figure' unless it is driven at 45 mph all day.
I would expect a twin turbo car to be just slightly less economical.
I can exceed it in mine quite easily without doing so.I would expect a twin turbo car to be just slightly less economical.
I'm not sure if it's turbocharged engines or just diesels that struggle to get near the figure.
baggiebird said:
No car is going to achieve the official 'combined mpg figure' unless it is driven at 45 mph all day.
If you mean no diesel car is going to achieve the official combined mpg figure unless driven gently I would agree based on personal experience. However, that same personal experience also tells me that petrol cars will often exceed the combined figure without driving for economy (especially on a run). Therefore, the conclusion I've reached is that diesels are more economical than their petrol equivalents but not by as much as the official figures would have you believe (and that's one of the reasons why I'm looking for a 335i not a 335d!).Patrick Bateman said:
baggiebird said:
No car is going to achieve the official 'combined mpg figure' unless it is driven at 45 mph all day.
I would expect a twin turbo car to be just slightly less economical.
I can exceed it in mine quite easily without doing so.I would expect a twin turbo car to be just slightly less economical.
I'm not sure if it's turbocharged engines or just diesels that struggle to get near the figure.
My (Company) 320ED does around 60mpg with my normal thrashing about. That's with a Fuel Card, so I'm not really worried about mpg.
However last week on a Hertfordshire to Bristol run (on the company's time) sitting at the speed limit the computer was reported 78 mpg for the trip.
The return journey (on my time) was about 65mpg.
However last week on a Hertfordshire to Bristol run (on the company's time) sitting at the speed limit the computer was reported 78 mpg for the trip.
The return journey (on my time) was about 65mpg.
I have had a 123D for over 2 years and my OBC shows 43.4, whilst my real tracked fuel is 40.9 as you can see from fuelly, so the OBC overestimates by 2.5mpg.
https://www.fuelly.com/driver/garreth64/123d?fu=22...
My journey to work is 16 miles each way, mostly B roads with a bit of A road and town driving. I don't do many long journeys, but when I do I get high 40's if keeping it to around 80.
I also have a TVR in the garage, to combat the diesel dullness, but having said that I still like my 123D and think it is a very good car. Oh, and it is remapped of course
https://www.fuelly.com/driver/garreth64/123d?fu=22...
My journey to work is 16 miles each way, mostly B roads with a bit of A road and town driving. I don't do many long journeys, but when I do I get high 40's if keeping it to around 80.
I also have a TVR in the garage, to combat the diesel dullness, but having said that I still like my 123D and think it is a very good car. Oh, and it is remapped of course
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff