| Author |
Message |
AdrianHi
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:48 pm Post subject:
New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
Official combined fuel consumption figures for a 2005 320d Touring is
47.9 mpg.
On my cars first tank of fuel (engine not run in) I got about 40 mpg on
mixed open road and town driving. I guess this is pretty good for the
first tank, I wondered what other owners were actually getting. Does
economy improve with more miles on the clock? How much?
Which car do you have with this 2.0d 163bhp engine (120d, E90/91 320d
Saloon/Touring, 520d Saloon/Touring).
Are you driving mostly urban, mostly open road or mixed?
Anyone with other engines (3.0d for example) who wants to post, that
would be intersting too.
Thanks in anticipation...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sam Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:15 pm Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
"AdrianHi" <adrian.hilder@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133268510.735793.60750@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Official combined fuel consumption figures for a 2005 320d Touring is
47.9 mpg.
On my cars first tank of fuel (engine not run in) I got about 40 mpg on
mixed open road and town driving. I guess this is pretty good for the
first tank, I wondered what other owners were actually getting. Does
economy improve with more miles on the clock? How much?
Which car do you have with this 2.0d 163bhp engine (120d, E90/91 320d
Saloon/Touring, 520d Saloon/Touring).
Are you driving mostly urban, mostly open road or mixed?
Anyone with other engines (3.0d for example) who wants to post, that
would be intersting too.
Thanks in anticipation...
|
Economy should always improve as you run your car in and you look after it.
My car at new started at just over 27 Mpg on average and is now doing just
over 29.
I'm afraid my 3.4 petrol Alpina engine isn't very much use for your stats
though. ;) It would be interesting to see the new Alpina 2.0 diesel though.
---
Sam |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:35 pm Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
"Sam Smith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dmhka8$i7q$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
| Quote: | "AdrianHi" <adrian.hilder@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133268510.735793.60750@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Official combined fuel consumption figures for a 2005 320d Touring is
47.9 mpg.
On my cars first tank of fuel (engine not run in) I got about 40 mpg on
mixed open road and town driving. I guess this is pretty good for the
first tank, I wondered what other owners were actually getting. Does
economy improve with more miles on the clock? How much?
Which car do you have with this 2.0d 163bhp engine (120d, E90/91 320d
Saloon/Touring, 520d Saloon/Touring).
Are you driving mostly urban, mostly open road or mixed?
Anyone with other engines (3.0d for example) who wants to post, that
would be intersting too.
Thanks in anticipation...
Economy should always improve as you run your car in and you look after
it. My car at new started at just over 27 Mpg on average and is now doing
just over 29.
I'm afraid my 3.4 petrol Alpina engine isn't very much use for your stats
though. ;) It would be interesting to see the new Alpina 2.0 diesel
though.
---
Sam
My (old) 530D automatic 194 bhp UK touring used to give about 39 mpg |
overall, best being 51mpg on a 70 mph motorway journey and frequently mid
40s with my generally spirited driving - then I chipped it to 231 bhp / 370
ft lbs and it if anything got slightly better! and no doubt would have been
if the get up and go wasn't so addictive....
Nick
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dotcom Computers Ltd
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:26 am Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
In news:aj0jf.915$Y7.273@newsfe3-win.ntli.net,
Nick <a@b.com> typed:
| Quote: | "Sam Smith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dmhka8$i7q$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
"AdrianHi" <adrian.hilder@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133268510.735793.60750@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Official combined fuel consumption figures for a 2005 320d Touring
is 47.9 mpg.
On my cars first tank of fuel (engine not run in) I got about 40
mpg on mixed open road and town driving. I guess this is pretty
good for the first tank, I wondered what other owners were actually
getting. Does economy improve with more miles on the clock? How
much? Which car do you have with this 2.0d 163bhp engine (120d,
E90/91 320d Saloon/Touring, 520d Saloon/Touring).
Are you driving mostly urban, mostly open road or mixed?
Anyone with other engines (3.0d for example) who wants to post, that
would be intersting too.
Thanks in anticipation...
Economy should always improve as you run your car in and you look
after it. My car at new started at just over 27 Mpg on average and
is now doing just over 29.
I'm afraid my 3.4 petrol Alpina engine isn't very much use for your
stats though. ;) It would be interesting to see the new Alpina 2.0
diesel though.
---
Sam
My (old) 530D automatic 194 bhp UK touring used to give about 39 mpg
overall, best being 51mpg on a 70 mph motorway journey and frequently
mid 40s with my generally spirited driving - then I chipped it to 231
bhp / 370 ft lbs and it if anything got slightly better! and no doubt
would have been if the get up and go wasn't so addictive....
Nick
|
My E91 is getting about 40/gallon as well, but i expect this to improve once
I have fully mastered the gearbox (esp coming out of 6th into......3rd!)
and taken it on a longer run. Mind you, I always run the climate control.
--
Jason Russell
Dotcom-Computers Ltd
t: 01403 784340
f: 01403 786698
e: dotcom AT dotcom-computers.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AdrianHi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
Climate control should make very little difference since
cooling/heating only happens "as required" rather than "permanently on"
as with regular air conditioning/heating. As its winter the heaters
might be using a bit of extra fuel. On my last car (Mitsubishi Galant)
I could not measure a difference between climate control permanently on
and permanently off even in the summer heat.
Half way through second tank, looks like heading for 42/43mpg this
time. At least partly down to me getting better with the gears too! A
6th gear is taking a bit of getting used to.
If I reset the mpg counter while doing 70mph with a warm engine its
around 63-67mpg, which quickly drops in the first traffic jam :(
39mpg is really impressive for a 530d, especially with an auto box.
I guess we have been talking UK/Imperial gallons so far, if anyone in
the US posts let us know its US gallons you are quoting. Litres/100KM
will be OK too!
Cheers
Adrian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Janne Himanka
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:23 pm Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
AdrianHi wrote:
| Quote: | I guess we have been talking UK/Imperial gallons so far, if anyone in
the US posts let us know its US gallons you are quoting. Litres/100KM
will be OK too!
|
In our E90 330d, after about 1500 km, it's been about 5.7 l/100 km on the
highway and about 6 litres all together. This is 41 and 39 mpg
respectively. This is with Finnish winter conditions (mild winter this
year), studded tyres and fairly slow-paced driving.
Janne
--
Never trust a man with a blue trench coat
never drive a car when you're dead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AdrianHi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:13 am Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
According to http://www.onlineconversion.com/fuel_consumption.htm 5.7
L/100 km is 41 miles per US gallon and 49 miles per UK/Imperial Gallon.
I guess this must be slow-paced in top gear driving, a very impressive
low fuel consumption.
I'll post what I'm getting when I have done 2000+ km / 1250+ miles
Cheers
Adrian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BeerMonkey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:43 am Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
I get 53mpg imperial @ 75mph, 2 passengers. Best 64mpg @ 75mph.
"AdrianHi" <adrian.hilder@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133426656.365546.157090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | According to http://www.onlineconversion.com/fuel_consumption.htm 5.7
L/100 km is 41 miles per US gallon and 49 miles per UK/Imperial Gallon.
I guess this must be slow-paced in top gear driving, a very impressive
low fuel consumption.
I'll post what I'm getting when I have done 2000+ km / 1250+ miles
Cheers
Adrian
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Perry
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:30 pm Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:43:07 -0000, "BeerMonkey"
<REPLYTOGROUPONLY@spam.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I get 53mpg imperial @ 75mph, 2 passengers. Best 64mpg @ 75mph.
Wow, my 14 month old E46 2.0D gave me just over 40MPG at the start, |
but it stabilised out at 45mpg after 14 months. But in the last month
the consumption has worsened by 5%, and I am not sure why. This is
measured on the same trip and conditions.
--
John Perry
http://www.redoak.co.uk
http://www.eze-buy.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BeerMonkey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
Cold air will give 5-10% worse fuel economy.
Also you'd be surprised at how a very smal gradient will affect fuel
economy.
Use cruise control - it uses less fuel to accelerate.
"John Perry" <JPNews@redoak.co.ukNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:qqs2p15orev4ob147tvge0oihsijf3imtu@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:43:07 -0000, "BeerMonkey"
REPLYTOGROUPONLY@spam.com> wrote:
I get 53mpg imperial @ 75mph, 2 passengers. Best 64mpg @ 75mph.
Wow, my 14 month old E46 2.0D gave me just over 40MPG at the start,
but it stabilised out at 45mpg after 14 months. But in the last month
the consumption has worsened by 5%, and I am not sure why. This is
measured on the same trip and conditions.
--
John Perry
http://www.redoak.co.uk
http://www.eze-buy.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BeerMonkey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
Cold air will give 5-10% worse fuel economy.
Also you'd be surprised at how a very smal gradient will affect fuel
economy.
Use cruise control - it uses less fuel to accelerate.
"John Perry" <JPNews@redoak.co.ukNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:qqs2p15orev4ob147tvge0oihsijf3imtu@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:43:07 -0000, "BeerMonkey"
REPLYTOGROUPONLY@spam.com> wrote:
I get 53mpg imperial @ 75mph, 2 passengers. Best 64mpg @ 75mph.
Wow, my 14 month old E46 2.0D gave me just over 40MPG at the start,
but it stabilised out at 45mpg after 14 months. But in the last month
the consumption has worsened by 5%, and I am not sure why. This is
measured on the same trip and conditions.
--
John Perry
http://www.redoak.co.uk
http://www.eze-buy.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dizzy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:25 pm Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:46:29 -0000, "BeerMonkey"
<REPLYTOGROUPONLY@spam.com> top posted:
| Quote: | Cold air will give 5-10% worse fuel economy.
|
I don't know why that would be the case. Cold are is more dense, but
that just meams you need less throttle to get X amount of power (and
burn X amount of gas). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:30 am Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:25:23 GMT, against all advice, something
compelled dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid>, to say:
| Quote: | On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:46:29 -0000, "BeerMonkey"
REPLYTOGROUPONLY@spam.com> top posted:
Cold air will give 5-10% worse fuel economy.
I don't know why that would be the case. Cold are is more dense, but
that just meams you need less throttle to get X amount of power (and
burn X amount of gas).
|
Cold air is the holy grail of power. One of the problems with a
turbo/supercharger is that it heats the air as it's compressed.
That's why god made the intercooler.
Some guys set a land speed record for a naturally aspirated
engine, and used four NOS bottles, not to inject nitrous into the
system (which would have invalidated the record), but to cool the
intake manifold during the run.
Cold dense air is good.
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:53 am Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
"Steve Daniels" <sdaniels@gorge.net> wrote in message
news:06d6p1tncl62tps73am4v45uonpge3i34h@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:25:23 GMT, against all advice, something
compelled dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid>, to say:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:46:29 -0000, "BeerMonkey"
REPLYTOGROUPONLY@spam.com> top posted:
Cold air will give 5-10% worse fuel economy.
I don't know why that would be the case. Cold are is more dense, but
that just meams you need less throttle to get X amount of power (and
burn X amount of gas).
Cold air is the holy grail of power. One of the problems with a
turbo/supercharger is that it heats the air as it's compressed.
That's why god made the intercooler.
Some guys set a land speed record for a naturally aspirated
engine, and used four NOS bottles, not to inject nitrous into the
system (which would have invalidated the record), but to cool the
intake manifold during the run.
Cold dense air is good.
--
Yes - for power ! But the guy was claiming it is not good for economy - if |
warm air promotes better atomisation
and burning , then economy will be better...
IMHO, just my two cents worth, YMMV etc etc
Nick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AdrianHi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:35 pm Post subject:
Re: New 2.0d fuel consumption |
|
|
I have also noticed that cruise control uses less fuel maintaining a
constant speed on the flat and up hill, and also when accelerating back
up to cruise speed. It is all to easy to push the accelerator pedal
more than is neccessary to maintain speed, but not enough to actually
accelerate using fuel needlesly in the process. This is particularly
true up hill.
I would guess that the cold air is dissapating engine heat faster
through the radiator (and also running the heaters inside the car),
that heat must be replaced to maintain the engines operating
temperature. Only place the heat energy can come from is burning fuel.
More fuel would also be used getting the engine to operating
temperature in the first place and shifting cold engine oil around
(more viscous).
If warm air means better atomisation wouldn't that mean better
combustion and therefore better fuel economy and performace?
Warm weather means higher ambient air pressure. I once had a 50cc
moped which used to have 1 to 2 mph higher top speed in the summer, no
fuel injection or turbos here, just carburettors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in