owners of MY05 3.0- gas mileage?

[martz]

My wife owns a sports package model with the 18in wheels and averages a horrible 15-16 MPG in city driving. Would downgrading to 17 inch tires increase in mileage consumption? And for others what sort of averages are you getting? TIA....

[AzNMpower32]

I don't believe downsizing would do much to reduce unsprung weight and reduce fuel consumption. Make sure your cold tire pressures are high enough (At least 230kPa or 33psi), get rid of excess weight in the trunk. Learn more efficient driving techniques like more gradual acceleration. 16 US mpg isn't too unusual for heavy urban driving (stop-and-go only) simply because the vehicle weighs so much.

In suburban driving, I average about 19 to 20 US mpg, and on freeways I can yield anywhere from 26 to 29,2 US mpg. I don't really subject my X3 to the tortures of urban traffic, there aren't any big cities around here

[JCL]

Ours is a 2007, with the 3.0si engine (updated one generation from yours).

We get 12 litres/100 km in the city, stop and go, which is 23.6 mpg (Imperial) or 19.7 mpg (US gallons)

We can get up to 8 litres/100 km on the highway, which is 35.5 mpg (Imperial) or 29.6 mpg (US gallons) but you have to be taking it very easy to achieve that.

32 psi, manual transmission, no extra weight in the car. Adding our roof rack reduces the mileage as well.

[martz]

I would love to have a manual transmission X3. I recall one of the members of this forum tracking the e83 and loved the handling of the SAV.

Originally Posted by JCL

Ours is a 2007, with the 3.0si engine (updated one generation from yours). manual transmission, .

[AzNMpower32]

Originally Posted by JCL

Ours is a 2007, with the 3.0si engine (updated one generation from yours).

We get 12 litres/100 km in the city, stop and go, which is 23.6 mpg (Imperial) or 19.7 mpg (US gallons)

We can get up to 8 litres/100 km on the highway, which is 35.5 mpg (Imperial) or 29.6 mpg (US gallons) but you have to be taking it very easy to achieve that.

Haha I actually had to do a reverse conversion to get the US mpg figures, ever since I had the Board Computer units changed. I got 8 l/100km on the mountain drive back on Sunday, and now I have to force myself to NOT look at the average consumption during the weekday (cold engine, short trips).

[JCL]

Originally Posted by AzNMpower32

Haha I actually had to do a reverse conversion to get the US mpg figures, ever since I had the Board Computer units changed. I got 8 l/100km on the mountain drive back on Sunday, and now I have to force myself to NOT look at the average consumption during the weekday (cold engine, short trips).

So we can both achieve 8 l/100 km by driving conservatively on the highway, pretty good numbers for a petrol SUV. Thing is, you have a 2.5 automatic (184 hp?) and we have a 3.0 si manual (265 hp). I pick the new one. I don't think the transmission makes much of a difference, so it comes down to the DI design offsetting the 80 hp advantage. nteresting.

[AzNMpower32]

Originally Posted by JCL

So we can both achieve 8 l/100 km by driving conservatively on the highway, pretty good numbers for a petrol SUV. Thing is, you have a 2.5 automatic (184 hp?) and we have a 3.0 si manual (265 hp). I pick the new one. I don't think the transmission makes much of a difference, so it comes down to the DI design offsetting the 80 hp advantage. nteresting.

My understanding is that NA models do not receive direct injection except in the case of the N54 motor. Although most other markets (Australia excepted) receive the N53 DI motor, we don't.

I think it has to do a lot with the Valvetronic and likely the fact your motor does not have to work quite as hard to maintain momentum. That recent consumption figure was recorded on a 65km stretch of interstate that involved crossing the Blue Ridge mountains. And a whole lot of high revs like this in 4th gear:



As you can see, instant consumption was 13,6 l/100km and thats because I was careful on the throttle. If I maintained a 120km/h speed like on flat land, it would be more like 19 or 20 litres. That's the disadvantage of a less powerful motor on the highway; consumption can suffer because it's gotta work hard!

[mlx52]

Downtown Chicago, I get 14.9 on my 05 X3 3.0.

My E92 335xi get's 16 in the city. Both horrible, but I only drive in the city, and rarely on the highway.

[martz]

I guess I am not alone!

Originally Posted by mlx52

Downtown Chicago, I get 14.9 on my 05 X3 3.0.

My E92 335xi get's 16 in the city. Both horrible, but I only drive in the city, and rarely on the highway.

[Ishniknork]

I get about the same 15-16 mpg/city in my '05 Sport. The biggest thing that impacts my mileage is the poor traffic light timing here in Fort Worth. We've been ranked one of the WORST cities in the whole country for traffic light synchronization. Basically, you can expect to stop at EVERY light on a 'supposedly' MAIN THOROUGHFARE no matter what!

The X3 is able to achieve rather good mileage considering the size and weight of the vehicle. If the lights were better synced to match traffic on the main roads throughout our city I'd bet I could get 18 mpg/city easy. I try to drive conservatively most of the time but the light timing is actually preventing me from being efficient. I did get 17.2 mpg on one tank by learning the light timing on my everyday commute but I was pissing off a whole bunch of other drivers for doing 15 mph in a 35 or 25 mph in a 40 to give the light time to change red and back to green again. A few fellow commuters on the same daily route actually caught on and started doing the same thing, but then Ft. Worth Traffic Control somehow got wind of what was happening and changed the timing on us! Apparently we were not following the wasteful practices they had designed into the traffic system to increase tax revenue from gasoline sales.