LCI X5 3.0D Fuel Economy
 

I am getting 8.5l/100kms open road and about 11.5l/100kms around town.

This is a long way off BMWs claimed 7.4l/100kms

Car has done 3500kms

What is everyone else getting?

Can i expect the fuel economy to get a bit better as the engine runs in?

RE: FUEL ECONOMY
 

I have 2 Turbo diesel vehicles and both improved noticeably once they started clocking up the ks, so be patient unless your X5 has a problem it will reward you as promised.

You need to understand that the fuel figure quoted by BMW is what the model in question gets according to the federal government's ADR 81/02 test procedure. It's usually about 20 to 30% optimistic compared to real-world results, regardless of whether the test is applied to an X5 or a Commodore. Blame the bureaucrats for a dopey choice in adopting an EC regulation test. Note that in doing the ADR test, the vehicle isn't even driven on the road but is tested on a rolling-road dynamometer.

However, your fuel consumption will get a little better as your X runs in, but it could take up to 10,000km, depending on your driving regime.

Has your fuel economy improved since your last post?

Maybe a little.

I expect that it will get slightly better over the next 5,000kms, but we are probably talking 3-5% at best.

BMW are full of shit with the figures that they are advertising

You need to read my post above. The figure that BMW quotes is what the car gets when subject to the federal government's ADR 81/02 test procedure. Regardless of the vehicle being tested, the test procedure yields an optimistic figure. The problem is not BMWs (nor any other manufacturer for that matter), but with the test procedure adopted by the government.

I am aware of the testing methods used to test fuel efficiency for the purposes of the advertised combined l/100km figure. I was never expecting to get 7.4/100kms on a combined cycle from a 2 tonne + SUV.

However, in this case, there is such a difference between the advertised and real world economy - that i think it is a joke.

And they are full of shit.

The test is not for advertising as such. All vehicle manufacturers and/or importers are obliged by federal government law to test their vehicles to the ADR 81/02 standard and make public the results. The fault lies with the government's test procedure, not the vehicle manufacturer. Can't see how you can blame BMW, or any manufacturer, on reporting on what they are required by law to report on. All ADR figures are optimistic, regardless of the manufacturer.

I think inspite of quoted vs actual fuel figures our diesels are delivering economy results that petrol owners can only dream about :p: and the best aspect is we haven't had to compromise performance to acheive it. My E53d delivers around the 7.5l/100 highway if I maintain the 100-110 kph even with 10'' fr & 11'' re wheels, I know the remap decreased the fuel consumption probably by the amount the bigger wheels added, so it remains as it was. The exhaust system that BMW fitted to the 3.0d is very restrictive and as a result creates back pressure on the turbo, once I modified my mufflers the engine ran much freer and had more power. POWERS1 on the general forum has just modified his the same way, and posted me to say how much better it was. I've had a brief look at an E70 3.0d exhaust and it also looks very restrictive at the muffler not sure on the 40d.

I couldn't agree more.

And, further to this, petrol X5s appear to blow out their real-world fuel consumption figures from the official ADR figures more so than the X5 turbo diesels.