Discussion
Not much to add to this, but I’ll be opting out of my company car scheme this year and a used M135 / 140 is top of the list. I’ve had an extended test drive in an M140 and really liked it the engine and auto box really suited each other and it was bloody quick compared to my vRS.
Fuel economy for the 48hours I had it wasn’t great but I probably drove it a bit harder than I’d normally drive. The suspension is pretty soft for the performance and I didn’t like the more severe throttle settings but other than that it was great. I’ve looked at S3’s and Golf R’s which are probably more sensible being better packaged but I just don’t want either of them.
Fuel economy for the 48hours I had it wasn’t great but I probably drove it a bit harder than I’d normally drive. The suspension is pretty soft for the performance and I didn’t like the more severe throttle settings but other than that it was great. I’ve looked at S3’s and Golf R’s which are probably more sensible being better packaged but I just don’t want either of them.
Court_S said:
Not much to add to this, but I’ll be opting out of my company car scheme this year and a used M135 / 140 is top of the list. I’ve had an extended test drive in an M140 and really liked it the engine and auto box really suited each other and it was bloody quick compared to my vRS.
Fuel economy for the 48hours I had it wasn’t great but I probably drove it a bit harder than I’d normally drive. The suspension is pretty soft for the performance and I didn’t like the more severe throttle settings but other than that it was great. I’ve looked at S3’s and Golf R’s which are probably more sensible being better packaged but I just don’t want either of them.
I’ve got a manual 235 convertible, so the worst of all from an economy perspective Fuel economy for the 48hours I had it wasn’t great but I probably drove it a bit harder than I’d normally drive. The suspension is pretty soft for the performance and I didn’t like the more severe throttle settings but other than that it was great. I’ve looked at S3’s and Golf R’s which are probably more sensible being better packaged but I just don’t want either of them.
The 40 engine seems much more economical than the 35, the auto ‘box is more economical than the manual and the convertible must be the heaviest of the lot! But, I like it...it’s a fun 8/10ths kind of a car that works brilliantly for me. But, I live in West Sussex, my commute is 10 or 12 miles of countryish roads mainly and I’m the only one in it usually. It’s averaged 27.2 mpg over 2.5 years and 30k fairly hard driven miles, and has had the roof down most months since it was delivered. We did however take it to France for New Year, and I age to say the noise and poor fuel economy was tiresome on the autoroute... should have taken the MINI
So if you do a lot of motorway driving definitely don’t buy a manual one, and probably not the convertible either...
Actually to be discussing fuel consumption in respect of performance cars is in fact a non discussion. They are not economical and not purchased for that reason. If the fuel consumption is reasonable then that is a bonus.
We have a Citroen DS3 Hdi that in its 115,000 miles has averaged over 70 mpg, and is ideal for its intended purpose, but the performance and handling is not worthy of discussion!
A 125 D makes more sense than a 140 for economy over long distances and offers lots of performance.
The 140 is for me in reality an indulgence, but good value and interesting, others such as the Golf R, Audi RS3, RS Focus etc may be better, but I bought one for all the things it isn’t as well as what it is.
Kindest
Steve.
We have a Citroen DS3 Hdi that in its 115,000 miles has averaged over 70 mpg, and is ideal for its intended purpose, but the performance and handling is not worthy of discussion!
A 125 D makes more sense than a 140 for economy over long distances and offers lots of performance.
The 140 is for me in reality an indulgence, but good value and interesting, others such as the Golf R, Audi RS3, RS Focus etc may be better, but I bought one for all the things it isn’t as well as what it is.
Kindest
Steve.
SouthHamsGaz said:
Thanks for that guys.
Working in construction she is up early and at work before the roads get busy. She will also be lodging away during the week, thanks to the new site from next week being 2 hours from home.
Given the E91 gets around 40mpg, and with fuel now costing 10p less for petrol, one of these is a real possibility.
I agree the M140i offers decent fuel consumption given the performance on offer but the tank is smaller than an E91 335d and hence the range won't be anything like as good; not sure if that matters to your good lady but perhaps something to bear in mind?Working in construction she is up early and at work before the roads get busy. She will also be lodging away during the week, thanks to the new site from next week being 2 hours from home.
Given the E91 gets around 40mpg, and with fuel now costing 10p less for petrol, one of these is a real possibility.
PSRG said:
I’ve got a manual 235 convertible, so the worst of all from an economy perspective The 40 engine seems much more economical than the 35, the auto ‘box is more economical than the manual and the convertible must be the heaviest of the lot! But, I like it...it’s a fun 8/10ths kind of a car that works brilliantly for me.
But, I live in West Sussex, my commute is 10 or 12 miles of countryish roads mainly and I’m the only one in it usually. It’s averaged 27.2 mpg over 2.5 years and 30k fairly hard driven miles, and has had the roof down most months since it was delivered. We did however take it to France for New Year, and I age to say the noise and poor fuel economy was tiresome on the autoroute... should have taken the MINI So if you do a lot of motorway driving definitely don’t buy a manual one, and probably not the convertible either...
I'll definitely be getting the auto because I want an easy life in the traffic in my daily commute. The 40 engine seems much more economical than the 35, the auto ‘box is more economical than the manual and the convertible must be the heaviest of the lot! But, I like it...it’s a fun 8/10ths kind of a car that works brilliantly for me. But, I live in West Sussex, my commute is 10 or 12 miles of countryish roads mainly and I’m the only one in it usually. It’s averaged 27.2 mpg over 2.5 years and 30k fairly hard driven miles, and has had the roof down most months since it was delivered. We did however take it to France for New Year, and I age to say the noise and poor fuel economy was tiresome on the autoroute... should have taken the MINI
So if you do a lot of motorway driving definitely don’t buy a manual one, and probably not the convertible either...I'm happy to pay for a bit more fuel to drive a car that I like / want - my vRS is a really really good car because it's so damn easy to live with (swallows mountain bikes, gear, dog, child and his assorted crap with ease) but it does nothing for me as someone who likes cars and the BIK is now eye watering. If I buy a second-hand 135/235 I'm hoping to save enough money to help offset some of he additional fuel bills.
I had a facelifted M135i manual 3dr and now a M140i Shadow auto 5dr. The later car is a little more polished than the M135, and the chassis (both are adaptive) a little more capable, along with more mid-range pull. They both still have the M-lite weaknesses; crap steering and performance is traction limited as soon as there's any moisture around or the road surface is anything other than perfect. But with a layer of road grime, de-badged, steel wheels and a non-current plate its a perfect Q-car and suits me just fine.
I find fuel economy similar for both at early 30s, I don't do many motorway miles, but the auto box still shows in its inability to predict the road ahead the limitations of its type. Its often in the wrong gear.
SS7
I find fuel economy similar for both at early 30s, I don't do many motorway miles, but the auto box still shows in its inability to predict the road ahead the limitations of its type. Its often in the wrong gear.
SS7
The Motorist said:
Actually to be discussing fuel consumption in respect of performance cars is in fact a non discussion. They are not economical and not purchased for that reason.
Not picking on you personally as it gets rolled out on virtually every thread that discusses fuel economy of higher performing cars but I do hate this argument. 
If picking a weekend warrior car then totally agree that fuel economy shouldn't be given a second thought but for most these kind of cars are used daily and need to do lots of things as well as go fast, so when making car choices one of the considerations is undoubtedly fuel economy. I love the performance of my M240 and by choosing it I accepted sacrifices in economy compared to say a diesel 2 Series for the extra performance I'd have, but fact is the fuel economy it can achieve meant the M240 fell within my limits of what I'd consider acceptable for a daily use car that I do 10-15k a year in. If it struggled to do 20mpg regardless of how it was driven it simply wouldn't have been on the shortlist to start with so absolutely they are to a degree purchased because they're (relatively) economical.
LocoBlade said:
The Motorist said:
Actually to be discussing fuel consumption in respect of performance cars is in fact a non discussion. They are not economical and not purchased for that reason.
Not picking on you personally as it gets rolled out on virtually every thread that discusses fuel economy of higher performing cars but I do hate this argument. If picking a weekend warrior car then totally agree that fuel economy shouldn't be given a second thought but for most these kind of cars are used daily and need to do lots of things as well as go fast, so when making car choices one of the considerations is undoubtedly fuel economy. I love the performance of my M240 and by choosing it I accepted sacrifices in economy compared to say a diesel 2 Series for the extra performance I'd have, but fact is the fuel economy it can achieve meant the M240 fell within my limits of what I'd consider acceptable for a daily use car that I do 10-15k a year in. If it struggled to do 20mpg regardless of how it was driven it simply wouldn't have been on the shortlist to start with so absolutely they are to a degree purchased because they're (relatively) economical.
Most people don't have an unlimited budget and therefore fuel cost (and hence mpg) is something many have to consider even if they'd prefer that wasn't the case. This thread is about an M140i as a daily driver and I'd venture to suggest most have to think about fuel consumption for a car they're intending to use every day. That doesn't mean it will be the most important factor influencing any purchasing decision but for many there will be a level below which they're not prepared to go and therefore nothing wrong in seeking opinions as to what (in this case) an M140i is likely to return in real world driving.
JNW1 said:
I agree the M140i offers decent fuel consumption given the performance on offer but the tank is smaller than an E91 335d and hence the range won't be anything like as good; not sure if that matters to your good lady but perhaps something to bear in mind?
This is a really good point. If she has a significant commute, she might be filling up 2 - 3 times a week (I had to with my M135i) which meant refueling became too much of a factor in the ownership of the car.I found myself driving like a granny just to stretch the tank out, rather than to save money on fuel.
Ran a 65 plate LCI 5 door M135i as my daily for 34 months. Thoroughly enjoyed ownership, averaged 22 mpg over the whole time but only did 17800 miles so not too much of a pain with the regular top ups that come with the small fuel tank.
Decent spec, adaptive dampers and reversing camera, Pro nav, Auto, but would definitely spec HK sound if I was looking at one now. Great cars and much better imo than the 4 pot alternatives which left me cold when test driving them. Only changed as a great deal came up on a M4 CP.
Decent spec, adaptive dampers and reversing camera, Pro nav, Auto, but would definitely spec HK sound if I was looking at one now. Great cars and much better imo than the 4 pot alternatives which left me cold when test driving them. Only changed as a great deal came up on a M4 CP.
It’s b*ll*cks that fuel economy shouldn’t be considered..... I even thinking about it in my westfield .... it’s one of the main reasons I’m getting an M135i - because of how much of an alrounder they are and fuel economy was one of the main things to research due to me now living 50mile round trip from work where as before it was just 27mile round trip .... I would probably be looking at a 370z otherwise or maybe something even gutsier.
I even considered what my westfield would do to the gallon before buying it, what’s the point if it does 5mpg that’s blo*dy hopeless to the average petrolhead no matter how good it is. I would get halfway to work and start adding up the ££$$
For me, the engine (sound throught it’s Rev range - especially the gutsy idle from tailpipes on a nice bmw 6), handling will be somewhere near for me, the looks are growing on me fast (couldn’t see the appeal before), quality and reliability too!
It’s a case of me previously looking at less powerful stuff as a daily like the gti & mk3 Focus st and then realising on most days i’d Probably get similar mpg’s to those cars but when I needed the power it would be 30% up on those cars..... that’s a hell of a lot more!
I even considered what my westfield would do to the gallon before buying it, what’s the point if it does 5mpg that’s blo*dy hopeless to the average petrolhead no matter how good it is. I would get halfway to work and start adding up the ££$$
For me, the engine (sound throught it’s Rev range - especially the gutsy idle from tailpipes on a nice bmw 6), handling will be somewhere near for me, the looks are growing on me fast (couldn’t see the appeal before), quality and reliability too!
It’s a case of me previously looking at less powerful stuff as a daily like the gti & mk3 Focus st and then realising on most days i’d Probably get similar mpg’s to those cars but when I needed the power it would be 30% up on those cars..... that’s a hell of a lot more!
Buying a performance car and basing one’s purchase on the highest MPG possible is not a great idea.
If the best figure is say 40 and a realistic average is say 28 then base the calculations on that surely.
Not a criticism of the poster who asked the question at all. but it would be disappointing to buy a car, then be disappointed in the fuel costs and then think about changing it.
That being said in Eco Pro mode, which only requires a prod of the throttle to bring on the power when required so it’s not as ghastly as I have read elsewhere, on a motorway cruise at 70 the trip computer does read 40mpg.
In town it’s 29.7 today.
Very versatile car I have to say.
If the best figure is say 40 and a realistic average is say 28 then base the calculations on that surely.
Not a criticism of the poster who asked the question at all. but it would be disappointing to buy a car, then be disappointed in the fuel costs and then think about changing it.
That being said in Eco Pro mode, which only requires a prod of the throttle to bring on the power when required so it’s not as ghastly as I have read elsewhere, on a motorway cruise at 70 the trip computer does read 40mpg.
In town it’s 29.7 today.
Very versatile car I have to say.
Another datapoint on fuel consumption: I do an 8 mile commute, 50/50 urban/motorway in fairly heavy traffic, currently averaging 22mpg. This is just gentle driving in normal mode, no opportunity to use any of the revs or horsepower. This is very similar to my old LS400 doing exactly the same journey, and noticeably worse than my Leon Cupra 290 which got about 28mpg.
It's worse than I had hoped for, and I made a real effort this week to drive it as gently as possible, but it's a short enough commute that it's not a big problem for me. I have no doubt that better numbers would be achievable on a longer run but maybe my info is relevant to someone out there with a similar daily grind.
(Obviously not a comparable vehicle, but on the same run, same driving style, in the same traffic I was getting 50mpg last month in an Aygo automatic, and getting to work in exactly the same time!)
It's worse than I had hoped for, and I made a real effort this week to drive it as gently as possible, but it's a short enough commute that it's not a big problem for me. I have no doubt that better numbers would be achievable on a longer run but maybe my info is relevant to someone out there with a similar daily grind.
(Obviously not a comparable vehicle, but on the same run, same driving style, in the same traffic I was getting 50mpg last month in an Aygo automatic, and getting to work in exactly the same time!)
My experience of various BMWs in terms of MPG/range
E91 325d 3.0 M57 manual. 620 mile range. 48 mpg (best 51 mpg, worst 44 mpg)
E91 325d 3.0 M57 auto. 560 mile range. 44 mpg (best 47 mpg. worst 40 mpg)
M135i manual. 360 mile range. 34 mpg (best 40 mpg. worst 31 mpg)
130i manual. 320 mile range. 31 mpg (best 37 mpg. worst 28 mpg)
All figures obtained on the same 80 mile (each way) commute. 70% motorway. 20% A/B road. 10% city. And all are calculated rather than OBC.
The diesel cars didn't vary as much with usage. For example my current 325d seems to settle at 47.8 mpg on the trip no matter what. I have to try very hard (cruising at 60) to get it up to 50 mpg, but even cruising at outside lane speeds it doesn't drop too much.
The petrol cars react much better to light usage. The 130i in particular suffers with high town usage, or sitting above the speed limit. The MPG drops through the floor. Yet it also reacts much better to economical driving, seeing a genuine 37 mpg on one tank, but it was hard work. The M135i was similar, with cruising at sensible speeds showing 40+ mpg on the live trip computer, but town usage and thrashing it make the MPG dive.
I'm loving the range of the big diesel cars, and the fact that you can sit at high speeds without denting fuel economy too much, but they aren't a patch on a big petrol engine.
Sadly i've just crashed my 325d into a wall, so it'll be on ebay soon and i'll be reverting to the 130i, and it's frequent visits to the forecourts!
E91 325d 3.0 M57 manual. 620 mile range. 48 mpg (best 51 mpg, worst 44 mpg)
E91 325d 3.0 M57 auto. 560 mile range. 44 mpg (best 47 mpg. worst 40 mpg)
M135i manual. 360 mile range. 34 mpg (best 40 mpg. worst 31 mpg)
130i manual. 320 mile range. 31 mpg (best 37 mpg. worst 28 mpg)
All figures obtained on the same 80 mile (each way) commute. 70% motorway. 20% A/B road. 10% city. And all are calculated rather than OBC.
The diesel cars didn't vary as much with usage. For example my current 325d seems to settle at 47.8 mpg on the trip no matter what. I have to try very hard (cruising at 60) to get it up to 50 mpg, but even cruising at outside lane speeds it doesn't drop too much.
The petrol cars react much better to light usage. The 130i in particular suffers with high town usage, or sitting above the speed limit. The MPG drops through the floor. Yet it also reacts much better to economical driving, seeing a genuine 37 mpg on one tank, but it was hard work. The M135i was similar, with cruising at sensible speeds showing 40+ mpg on the live trip computer, but town usage and thrashing it make the MPG dive.
I'm loving the range of the big diesel cars, and the fact that you can sit at high speeds without denting fuel economy too much, but they aren't a patch on a big petrol engine.
Sadly i've just crashed my 325d into a wall, so it'll be on ebay soon and i'll be reverting to the 130i, and it's frequent visits to the forecourts!
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff