[Kiernan]

I'm still running my car in (should hit 1,000 miles this weekend) but I think the economy is pretty good for what it is - a heavy 4x4 with quite a bluff fronty end. I'm only using the car for communiting at the moment (around 8 miles each way) and I'm currently returning around 38mpg. I expect it will improve over time, but for how I use the car, anything over 40mpg will be a miracle.

This is on a 20d Manual MSport running on 19" run flats. I've never turned the A/C off either, and have only played with the ECO PRO mode a couple of times just to see what it does - not a lot is the answer other than to dull the throttle reponse and reduce the effectiveness of the heater.

As you can see from my signature, I also have an M3 and that does just over 20mpg however I drive it, so the economy in the X3 is brilliant in comparison!

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by sfax

I think people would be much happier if the advertised combined mpg was about 45. It's the realms of fantasy that produce figures of 56mpg extra urban that should be reviewed as they are misleading. I think it's a combination of BMW using a certain optimum setup (17" low rolling resistance tyres for example) for the test car and the test cycle itself not really being anything like real driving patterns

If the official figures were more realistic, then there would be massive implications for CO2 targets across Europe. Current tax on emissions (BIK) would be much more expensive. So in one way there is not much will to sort this issue out.

The other issue, I sense the extra-urban figure is the one car sales and users are enticed by, "the car can do up to ---mpg", all sounds impressive but in reality, when has it had any serious part in judging real world economy?

Even the combined figure is a misleading figure, as it means nothing to most users, it isn't reflective of any particular driving mode, not even something like motorway driving. Not many cars will even give the combined figure at 70mph, more like 60mph as a rule of thumb, for an average sized car with average size engine. But again so many variables, which means something like a Smart Fortwo with a combined figure of 85.6mpg will return 48.5mpg at 70mph. Whereas a BMW 520d saloon will be over 50mpg at 70mph, just 5mpg below its combined figure. But something like a Ford Focus ST will return several mpg more at 70mph, than the official combined figure.

But unless you really understand all the smaller details of what makes a fuel efficient model, the official figures are all we have to compare with.

When we factor in the official tests will be on base specification of a model/engine combination, we have to add in the penalties for power hungry options and extra weight items, as all these eat away at the figures. But who is doing that, when they option the panoramic sunroof, heated seats, or big rims with power sapping tyres?

HighlandPete

[troggy1969]

I've attached some screen shots from some of my trips. Granted I wasn't in a real hurry and I have 17" wheels but the car is a 3.0D auto and generally I get 45+ mpg on the trip computer once out of town (sub 40 in town). Checking when I fill up it is usually out by only 1 - 2 mpg .

[gaz26]

2.0d M Sport on 18 inch Auto box and 5000 miles. I am getting av of 42mpg from mixed driving. Happy with this and similar to what I got from a 2.0d F11 5 series Touring.

[sfax]

That iDrive screen needs a wipe Troggy

[sfax]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

If the official figures were more realistic, then there would be massive implications for CO2 targets across Europe. Current tax on emissions (BIK) would be much more expensive. So in one way there is not much will to sort this issue out.

The other issue, I sense the extra-urban figure is the one car sales and users are enticed by, "the car can do up to ---mpg", all sounds impressive but in reality, when has it had any serious part in judging real world economy?

Even the combined figure is a misleading figure, as it means nothing to most users, it isn't reflective of any particular driving mode, not even something like motorway driving. Not many cars will even give the combined figure at 70mph, more like 60mph as a rule of thumb, for an average sized car with average size engine. But again so many variables, which means something like a Smart Fortwo with a combined figure of 85.6mpg will return 48.5mpg at 70mph. Whereas a BMW 520d saloon will be over 50mpg at 70mph, just 5mpg below its combined figure. But something like a Ford Focus ST will return several mpg more at 70mph, than the official combined figure.

But unless you really understand all the smaller details of what makes a fuel efficient model, the official figures are all we have to compare with.

When we factor in the official tests will be on base specification of a model/engine combination, we have to add in the penalties for power hungry options and extra weight items, as all these eat away at the figures. But who is doing that, when they option the panoramic sunroof, heated seats, or big rims with power sapping tyres?

HighlandPete

I agree which is why I like my own personal suggestion of quoting a 20 minute drive at a constant speed of 50, 60, 70, 80 (same course, some hills) and a round town stop-start route and then taking an average for basic comparisons from one model to another, and if someone wants to get more detail they can drill into the individual speed tests.

If the implications of "correcting" the mpg on CO2 are so grave, then that only goes to prove how that the CO2 figures are misleading too

[cooldude00]

man... i would be happy to get what you folks are getting... done about 11k and am getting 33.9mpg from a 2.0d auto... mainly town driving so hardly surprised

[troggy1969]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

If the official figures were more realistic, then there would be massive implications for CO2 targets across Europe. Current tax on emissions (BIK) would be much more expensive. So in one way there is not much will to sort this issue out.

The other issue, I sense the extra-urban figure is the one car sales and users are enticed by, "the car can do up to ---mpg", all sounds impressive but in reality, when has it had any serious part in judging real world economy?

Even the combined figure is a misleading figure, as it means nothing to most users, it isn't reflective of any particular driving mode, not even something like motorway driving. Not many cars will even give the combined figure at 70mph, more like 60mph as a rule of thumb, for an average sized car with average size engine. But again so many variables, which means something like a Smart Fortwo with a combined figure of 85.6mpg will return 48.5mpg at 70mph. Whereas a BMW 520d saloon will be over 50mpg at 70mph, just 5mpg below its combined figure. But something like a Ford Focus ST will return several mpg more at 70mph, than the official combined figure.

But unless you really understand all the smaller details of what makes a fuel efficient model, the official figures are all we have to compare with.

When we factor in the official tests will be on base specification of a model/engine combination, we have to add in the penalties for power hungry options and extra weight items, as all these eat away at the figures. But who is doing that, when they option the panoramic sunroof, heated seats, or big rims with power sapping tyres?

HighlandPete

Usually the cars that come closest to the official figures are large diesels. Small petrol are the worst, look at road test figures for the fiat twin air or the ford 1l ecoboost and they are both mid 30's

Doesn't seem to be much between any of the X3 engines, anyone heard any feedback for 18D owners?

[kennygee]

Originally Posted by clivem2

I'm not sure why you are disappointed. That's good for a 4x4 with the aero of brick!

I am only disappointed because of the figures that BM put out are miles away

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by sfax

I agree which is why I like my own personal suggestion of quoting a 20 minute drive at a constant speed of 50, 60, 70, 80 (same course, some hills) and a round town stop-start route and then taking an average for basic comparisons from one model to another, and if someone wants to get more detail they can drill into the individual speed tests.

If the implications of "correcting" the mpg on CO2 are so grave, then that only goes to prove how that the CO2 figures are misleading too

EPA in the USA revised their test regime, for the same reason as we have issues over here. But when you see all the data and how they arrive at the results it a complex exercise. Problem is it still has to be done in controlled conditions to get exact data, as it is based on a “composite” calculation of all five tests. To quote a part of ththe EPA explanation...

.....external conditions impact fuel economy on a trip-to-trip basis, they do not change the laboratory test result. Therefore, a repeatable test provides a level playing field for all vehicles, which is essential for comparing the fuel economy of one vehicle to another. Finally, EPA must preserve the ability to confirm the values achieved by the manufacturers’ testing, and this can only be achieved with a highly repeatable test or set of tests. No other fuel economy test program provides the level of repeatability as the EPA program.

The European test is also a level playing field, but it just doesn't have the scope to reflect real world driving. Something like a simple motorway 70mph constant speed test, albeit controlled for repeatability of any vehicle, would add a very useful bit of data for determining what each vehicle achieves on the typical motorway cruise. Would show up the "good and bad", compared to the existing combined published figure, which many feel they should achieve.

The problem with CO2 levels, the manufacturers are working to targets for average levels by fixed dates, any change to the test regime will completely blow those targets away, or the politicians will need to review and amend the whole target structure. No one wants mud on the face, so it seems to get put on the back burner, even though there are noises to make the tests more realistic.

HighlandPete

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by troggy1969

Usually the cars that come closest to the official figures are large diesels. Small petrol are the worst, look at road test figures for the fiat twin air or the ford 1l ecoboost and they are both mid 30's

Even with the big diesels, the latest figures which seen to be "too good to be true" for a 3.0d usually are, when in the real world.

Often the engines that exceed the figures are the big petrol engines. My 330d touring just matched the combined figure over 55k miles, in my relatively light conditions. My 540i touring exceeded the combined figure by over 30% long term, over 45k miles. But that started from a figure which put many off, but in reality was quite an economical car for a 4.4-litre V8, at around 28mpg. My latest car, the F11 535i touring, will not quite match the combined figure for the car. For one, the figure looks too good to be true at 33.2mpg. Where is all this 'extra' economy coming from for a heavier car than my 540i, plus it is loaded with power hungry options, so I must expect a bit of shortfall. But driving it very light I've still seen over 38mpg on the OBC. 34mpg driving with the traffic on A roads and at motorway speeds over 200 miles.

HighlandPete

[Ant Man]

Originally Posted by halfalife

Hi, I've have a 2.0 D Auto for 10 weeks, and after 2000 miles have only returned an average of 36mpg. These miles have been been driven mostly by my wife who is a stick to the speed limit type of gal.
Does anyone else feel slightly aggrieved that BMW keep quoting 50.4 mpg for this engine ??? Do they live in the real world ???
I know car manufacturers tend to exaggerate the mpg claims, but this is way off !
I feel ever so slightly peeved off with these numbers, it takes the shine away from a great car.
Anyone else getting similar returns ?

Getting near to the official MPG is not just a matter of sticking to speed limits. It's also about advanced driving techniques such as raising one's vision, anticipation of hazards, etc so that less braking is required and forward momentum obtained as opposed to stopping. Also the official figures use a large amount of 56mph travel for their readings.

I got 55mpg in the E90 320d when I used one for 2 weeks back in 2010.
I get 23.2mpg in the M3 and I use it's performance.

[sfax]

Originally Posted by Ant Man

Getting near to the official MPG is not just a matter of sticking to speed limits. It's also about advanced driving techniques such as raising one's vision, anticipation of hazards, etc so that less braking is required and forward momentum obtained as opposed to stopping. Also the official figures use a large amount of 56mph travel for their readings.

I got 55mpg in the E90 320d when I used one for 2 weeks back in 2010.
I get 23.2mpg in the M3 and I use it's performance.

Although I agree with driving style comment, the 56mph is not true according to this:

http://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showpo...24&postcount=5

[mtmcgavock]

I know this is a bit off topic, but i've got the first gen X3, but a 2010 model, xDrive 20d Manual, 16,000 miles on clock. Not sure if it's the same engine (I think it is?) But I easily get 39Mpg just knocking about town, that's averaged over a couple of thousand, with the A/C on. We don't really try to get good Mpg either, and very rarely do motorway runs.

You'd of thought the newer car would easily get more than ours. Now in my experience i'd of thought if we were doing more long runs, we'd get more mpg? Please correct me if i'm wrong.

[sfax]

Moved quote above into this thread...

Urban fuel consumption (mpg) (cold) defined as: The urban test cycle is carried out in a laboratory at an ambient temperature of 20oC to 30oC on a rolling road from a cold start, i.e. the engine has not run for several hours. The cycle consists of a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerations and idling. Maximum speed is 31mph (50 km/h), average speed 12 mph (19 km/h) and the distance covered is 2.5 miles (4 km).

Extra-urban fuel consumption (mpg) defined as: The extra-urban cycle is conducted immediately following the urban cycle and consists roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder accelerations, decelerations and some idling. Maximum speed is 75mph (120 km/h), average speed is 39mph (63 km/h) and the distance covered is 4.3 miles (7 km).

Combined fuel consumption (mpg) defined as: The combined figure presented is for the urban and the extra-urban cycle together. It is therefore an average of the two other parts of the fuel consumption test, Urban and Extra-urban cycles, weighted by the distance covered in each part.

Taken from:
http://www.savefuelsavemoney.co.uk/carsaveintro.htm

My comments on it from other thread

Note in particular that average speed on extra urban is 39mph and this is all done on a rolling road with a drag coefficient applied to represent wind resistance. The same drag coefficient is applied to all cars as I understand it which, if true, isn't a fair reflection. Its mpg over 200 miles on a motorway at 70mph would be much more meaningful.

Would love to do a real life urban test to compare mpgs but don't know the full schedule

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Ant Man

Getting near to the official MPG is not just a matter of sticking to speed limits. It's also about advanced driving techniques such as raising one's vision, anticipation of hazards, etc so that less braking is required and forward momentum obtained as opposed to stopping. Also the official figures use a large amount of 56mph travel for their readings. .

Driver definitely plays a large part in the mpg equation, up to 30% variation according to studies.

As already mentioned the old 56mph figure has nothing to do with the current test regime.

The key problem with the quest for more economical figures in the official test, even economy minded drivers, using all the best techniques cannot achieve the good averages we once could, when there was slack in the system. We'll still get good figures but not the same percentage improvement over official, compared to a few years back.

As a general point mpg shortfall (as an average) is climbing, the more the official figures impress, the worse shortfall is getting. The 'eco' models are even worse for shortfall, than the average models. Hence why there are so many users seeing the figures as a complete farce.

HighlandPete

[sfax]

Agree with Highland Pete. I would love to know if anyone can follow this plan for urban

Urban fuel consumption (mpg) (cold) defined as: The urban test cycle is carried out in a laboratory at an ambient temperature of 20oC to 30oC on a rolling road from a cold start, i.e. the engine has not run for several hours. The cycle consists of a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerations and idling. Maximum speed is 31mph (50 km/h), average speed 12 mph (19 km/h) and the distance covered is 2.5 miles (4 km).

and get 46.3mpg??? So to recap, cold start, only 2.5 miles never exceeding 31mph, accelerating and decelerating and idling, average speed 12mph. Can you smell something?

[HighlandPete]

Also posted in the other thread...

Originally Posted by sfax

Note in particular that average speed on extra urban is 39mph and this is all done on a rolling road with a drag coefficient applied to represent wind resistance. The same drag coefficient is applied to all cars as I understand it which, if true, isn't a fair reflection. Its mpg over 200 miles on a motorway at 70mph would be much more meaningful.

Would love to do a real life urban test to compare mpgs but don't know the full schedule

There is a bit more to it than one drag coefficient, frontal area and other data is calculated into the mix. The actual test procedure is available to read. I've scanned it in the past and probably have it downloaded and backed up somewhere on one of my drives.

The problem with an actual motorway test, you can't repeat it accurately enough. It has to be controllled, hence would have to be in a simulator type environment. Too many variables for an on the road test, if it were to be a benchmark test for comparison.

HighlandPete

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by sfax

and get 46.3mpg??? So to recap, cold start, only 2.5 miles never exceeding 31mph, accelerating and decelerating and idling, average speed 12mph. Can you smell something?

Remember the car is also 'conditioned', several hours at the testing temperature, so everything can be in favour of optimal tuning for the test.

But they can't set it up any other way, or comparisons will be less accurate.

HighlandPete

[sfax]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

Remember the car is also 'conditioned', several hours at the testing temperature, so everything can be in favour of optimal tuning for the test.

But they can't set it up any other way, or comparisons will be less accurate.

HighlandPete

They can't change it now because they're stuck with a badly designed test that is absolutely nothing like real driving and any changes will mean you can't compare models over time .

IMO what people need is a table of factors that you apply to the official combined figure to get something more realistic for each model. I know some websites provide their own mpg figures. I would put the X3 factor at about .87 which is achievable if you drive like Miss Daisy

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by sfax

IMO what people need is a table of factors that you apply to the official combined figure to get something more realistic for each model. I know some websites provide their own mpg figures. I would put the X3 factor at about .87 which is achievable if you drive like Miss Daisy

It has been reckoned you should knock off about 11%, but now I see 15% being used by some. But that is simply averages across the board. As you say, an adjustment factor for each model/engine combination would be more representative.

I suppose Honest John's site is trying to do that with a percentage ratio. But even that is flawed, as there are variables where consumption revisions occur for that model, and that skews the true average percentage.

HighlandPete

[troggy1969]

Have a look at this German site for real fuel economy, lots of feedback

http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overvi...ml?powerunit=2

The mean for the 2.0D is 38.7mpg and 3.0D 36.5mpg.