E46 petrol engines
Discussion
Cars the same shape which weigh the same amount and have similar engines/drivelines will tend to have the same fuel consumption in normal driving regardless of engine capacity.
A lot of the engine choices in cars come down to "marketing" more than "engineering". It's even becoming common to find the same capacity engine at a different state of tune in different priced models.
A lot of the engine choices in cars come down to "marketing" more than "engineering". It's even becoming common to find the same capacity engine at a different state of tune in different priced models.
It's not true I'm afraid, although there certainly isn't a huge difference there is still a difference.
The 2001+ E46 318i was actually a 2.0 4 cylinder engine which was surprisingly good, not a ball of fire, but for an average driver it was fine. It delivered about 30mpg around town and a fair bit more on a run.
The 325i and 330i both deliver pretty similar economy, probs to a max of about 25mpg around town, mid to high 30's on a run.
Like I say, not a huge difference by any means but definitely still a difference. Add on the tax, servicing and insurance costs and there is a financial difference between 330i and 318i, although a price that I feel is worth paying
The 2001+ E46 318i was actually a 2.0 4 cylinder engine which was surprisingly good, not a ball of fire, but for an average driver it was fine. It delivered about 30mpg around town and a fair bit more on a run.
The 325i and 330i both deliver pretty similar economy, probs to a max of about 25mpg around town, mid to high 30's on a run.
Like I say, not a huge difference by any means but definitely still a difference. Add on the tax, servicing and insurance costs and there is a financial difference between 330i and 318i, although a price that I feel is worth paying
There are 2.2, 2.5, 3 and 3.2 (M3) litre varieties. I would say that these engines offer a wide range of choice.
What do you mean 'practical'? If you mean fuel efficient, then they aren't that bad for what they are.
Edit- 2.2 litre, not 2 litre
What do you mean 'practical'? If you mean fuel efficient, then they aren't that bad for what they are.
Edit- 2.2 litre, not 2 litre
Edited by STW2010 on Sunday 11th September 22:52
steve_bmw said:
a car of the same weight with a 1.8 engine will have to work alot harder than a car with a 3.0 engine.
To get anywhere in a 1.8 e46 your going to have to put your foot down alot more than you would in a 330 or 325, thus using more fuel to get the same performance.
steve bmw To get anywhere in a 1.8 e46 your going to have to put your foot down alot more than you would in a 330 or 325, thus using more fuel to get the same performance.
the e46 318 was never a 1.8Maybe you should change your forum name
Blue Oval84 said:
The 2001+ E46 318i was actually a 2.0 4 cylinder engine which was surprisingly good, not a ball of fire, but for an average driver it was fine. It delivered about 30mpg around town and a fair bit more on a run.
I think you are being kind to it TBH, I found mine far too thirsty for its performance. I wouldn't say it was "surprisingly good", I'd say it was just about adequate.The 2-litre diesel lump (at the 20d level) in my 1er used to return silly mpg, something like 50mpg combined and over 60mpg on the motorway. Conversely, the 3.2 i6 in my M3 can't really get coaxed to anything over 24mpg.
Who cares though, if you've got a lovely rasp from the engine and a nice surge, that's money well spent.
Who cares though, if you've got a lovely rasp from the engine and a nice surge, that's money well spent.
sebhaque said:
The 2-litre diesel lump (at the 20d level) in my 1er used to return silly mpg, something like 50mpg combined and over 60mpg on the motorway. Conversely, the 3.2 i6 in my M3 can't really get coaxed to anything over 24mpg.
Who cares though, if you've got a lovely rasp from the engine and a nice surge, that's money well spent.
The M3 would be 3 times the fun though! I used to think of it in smiles per gallon when I had my RX8, and this was thirstier than an M3 (and didn't match the performance either Who cares though, if you've got a lovely rasp from the engine and a nice surge, that's money well spent.
)Urban Sports said:
steve_bmw said:
a car of the same weight with a 1.8 engine will have to work alot harder than a car with a 3.0 engine.
To get anywhere in a 1.8 e46 your going to have to put your foot down alot more than you would in a 330 or 325, thus using more fuel to get the same performance.
steve bmw To get anywhere in a 1.8 e46 your going to have to put your foot down alot more than you would in a 330 or 325, thus using more fuel to get the same performance.
the e46 318 was never a 1.8Maybe you should change your forum name
yer my bad, sorry, I just never had a small engined bmw before Why would you want something in between the 318i and 330i running costs wise? It's not as if the 318i is a Nissan Micra in terms of running cost and the 330i is an AMG Merc is it?
Neither are particularly cheap on account of how old they are now getting but I can't imagine why you'd want something that costs more to run than a 318i but not as much as a 330i.
Neither are particularly cheap on account of how old they are now getting but I can't imagine why you'd want something that costs more to run than a 318i but not as much as a 330i.
Urban Sports said:
I think you are being kind to it TBH, I found mine far too thirsty for its performance. I wouldn't say it was "surprisingly good", I'd say it was just about adequate.
Maybe I am, I say that from the point of view of a former E36 318i driver, the E46 certainly felt more spritely. Although it still felt flat compared to the 6 cylinder ones steve_bmw said:
Urban Sports said:
steve_bmw said:
a car of the same weight with a 1.8 engine will have to work alot harder than a car with a 3.0 engine.
To get anywhere in a 1.8 e46 your going to have to put your foot down alot more than you would in a 330 or 325, thus using more fuel to get the same performance.
steve bmw To get anywhere in a 1.8 e46 your going to have to put your foot down alot more than you would in a 330 or 325, thus using more fuel to get the same performance.
the e46 318 was never a 1.8Maybe you should change your forum name
yer my bad, sorry, I just never had a small engined bmw before 
Thanks for the comments, really interesting.
I guess the 318 is a good choice for someone then. Although i did think the 318 was the '1.4' of BMW's from some of the comments i read but the more powerful 318's look decent. (wasn't there something about the 318 engine being the worst engine in terms of reliability? A certain engine number i think it was)
Another reason i asked is because with cars with a 1.4/1.6/1.8 engine, the 1.6 seems like the best of both worlds. And i'm guessing in the E46's case the 318 would be the 1.4? (but a very good 1.4)
I guess the 318 is a good choice for someone then. Although i did think the 318 was the '1.4' of BMW's from some of the comments i read but the more powerful 318's look decent. (wasn't there something about the 318 engine being the worst engine in terms of reliability? A certain engine number i think it was)
Efbe said:
possibly because you are getting your figures from parkers, and it's about as accurate as the bible?
Various forums actually. Usually when someone asks about a 325/328/320 they're told to go for the 330 as the running costs were negligible with big difference in performance.Another reason i asked is because with cars with a 1.4/1.6/1.8 engine, the 1.6 seems like the best of both worlds. And i'm guessing in the E46's case the 318 would be the 1.4? (but a very good 1.4)
Edited by beatngu on Sunday 11th September 23:27
The difference in running costs from 325i to 330i really are negligible.
In my opinion, the only two E46 worth considering if you have a totally free choice is either 318i 2.0 for economy, or 330i for power. No point deliberately looking for a 325i or even 320i as it really won't save any cash.
In my opinion, the only two E46 worth considering if you have a totally free choice is either 318i 2.0 for economy, or 330i for power. No point deliberately looking for a 325i or even 320i as it really won't save any cash.
I don't see the point in a 318i anymore. If you are going to saddle youself with a 10 year old BMW and all the faff and hassle this involves then you might as well get a decent one rather than a 318i. Most of the stuff that'll break on it or require replacement will do so be it a 318i or a 330i.
beatngu said:
Another reason i asked is because with cars with a 1.4/1.6/1.8 engine, the 1.6 seems like the best of both worlds. And i'm guessing in the E46's case the 318 would be the 1.4? (but a very good 1.4)
Nope, there was a 316i available as well which would be the entry level, or to use your analogy, "the 1.4" of the range.Edited by beatngu on Sunday 11th September 23:27
The 318i delivered similar running costs and a little wedge more power, hence my opinion that the only two petrol engines worth having were 318i for economy, 330i for power.
Blue Oval84 said:
The difference in running costs from 325i to 330i really are negligible.
In my opinion, the only two E46 worth considering if you have a totally free choice is either 318i 2.0 for economy, or 330i for power. No point deliberately looking for a 325i or even 320i as it really won't save any cash.
This was the reason for the thread, i didn't understand why it was either a 318 or 330, no middle best of both worlds. I also thought it might of been something to do with marketing. Maybe people thought the 325 would of been a bit cheaper to run, same with the 320.In my opinion, the only two E46 worth considering if you have a totally free choice is either 318i 2.0 for economy, or 330i for power. No point deliberately looking for a 325i or even 320i as it really won't save any cash.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff