11-23-2012, 09:04 AM | #23 |
Private First Class
17
Rep 103
Posts |
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!
__________________
2017 Porsche 911 Carrera GTS and 2019 BMW X3M Competition
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 10:07 AM | #24 | |
Lieutenant General
6545
Rep 15,857
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 11:57 AM | #25 |
Lieutenant
54
Rep 554
Posts
Drives: 335D MSport 2016
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ludlow
|
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 .
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 11:57 AM | #26 |
Major
632
Rep 1,333
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 12:02 PM | #27 |
Brigadier General
94
Rep 3,855
Posts |
That iDrive screen needs a wipe Troggy
__________________
F25 xDrive20d SE __ professional multimedia package | dynamic package | climate package | 309s | xline | xenons | electric seats | folding mirrors | business speakers |
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 12:10 PM | #28 | |
Brigadier General
94
Rep 3,855
Posts |
Quote:
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
__________________
F25 xDrive20d SE __ professional multimedia package | dynamic package | climate package | 309s | xline | xenons | electric seats | folding mirrors | business speakers |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 12:12 PM | #29 |
First Lieutenant
8
Rep 332
Posts |
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
__________________
it's here!!!
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 01:09 PM | #30 | |
Lieutenant
54
Rep 554
Posts
Drives: 335D MSport 2016
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ludlow
|
Quote:
Doesn't seem to be much between any of the X3 engines, anyone heard any feedback for 18D owners? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 01:11 PM | #31 |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 41
Posts |
I am only disappointed because of the figures that BM put out are miles away
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 02:38 PM | #32 | ||
Lieutenant General
6545
Rep 15,857
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 03:07 PM | #33 | |
Lieutenant General
6545
Rep 15,857
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 04:31 PM | #34 | |
Major
77
Rep 1,179
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 04:44 PM | #35 | |
Brigadier General
94
Rep 3,855
Posts |
Quote:
http://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showpo...24&postcount=5
__________________
F25 xDrive20d SE __ professional multimedia package | dynamic package | climate package | 309s | xline | xenons | electric seats | folding mirrors | business speakers |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 04:53 PM | #36 |
Lieutenant Colonel
941
Rep 1,649
Posts |
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 04:54 PM | #37 | ||
Brigadier General
94
Rep 3,855
Posts |
Moved quote above into this thread...
Quote:
http://www.savefuelsavemoney.co.uk/carsaveintro.htm My comments on it from other thread Quote:
__________________
F25 xDrive20d SE __ professional multimedia package | dynamic package | climate package | 309s | xline | xenons | electric seats | folding mirrors | business speakers |
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 05:10 PM | #38 | |
Lieutenant General
6545
Rep 15,857
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 05:24 PM | #39 | |
Brigadier General
94
Rep 3,855
Posts |
Agree with Highland Pete. I would love to know if anyone can follow this plan for urban
Quote:
__________________
F25 xDrive20d SE __ professional multimedia package | dynamic package | climate package | 309s | xline | xenons | electric seats | folding mirrors | business speakers |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 05:29 PM | #40 | |
Lieutenant General
6545
Rep 15,857
Posts |
Also posted in the other thread...
Quote:
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 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 05:35 PM | #41 | |
Lieutenant General
6545
Rep 15,857
Posts |
Quote:
But they can't set it up any other way, or comparisons will be less accurate. HighlandPete |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 05:43 PM | #42 | |
Brigadier General
94
Rep 3,855
Posts |
Quote:
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
__________________
F25 xDrive20d SE __ professional multimedia package | dynamic package | climate package | 309s | xline | xenons | electric seats | folding mirrors | business speakers |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2012, 05:55 PM | #43 | |
Lieutenant General
6545
Rep 15,857
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2012, 12:55 AM | #44 |
Lieutenant
54
Rep 554
Posts
Drives: 335D MSport 2016
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ludlow
|
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|