FUEL CONSUMPTION ON 3.0I X5 E53

janpaulweaper · #1 10-11-2010, 01:53 PM

Hi, i was just wondering what sort of mpg is right for a 3.0i e53, around town. And what mpg to expect on the motorway. Any way to increase mpg?? I have heard of remapping the ecu but i don't know if thats the way to go. Also any of you out there with k&n filters fitted to their x5's, do you really notice that much of a difference?? thanks for your time

Sponsored Links

motordavid · #2 10-11-2010, 02:15 PM

"Around town" is a difficult comparo to make; driving in London, is like NYC or Tokyo,
but not necessarily like driving in metro Atlanta or, around my little town.

Fwiw, our '01 3.0 tends to get 15-17 in serious "around town" driving, including to and fro,
up and down our steep mtn roads. My overall mpg, via computer, is 20.4 for the last 30-40
thousand miles, much of that is "combined" and lots of highway.

I have seen tanks of less than that 15-17 average is seriousazz stop and go...

I don't recall any mapping that will improve mpg, and the K&N filter is ok, but not worth it over
the stock filter/intake system, imo.

Mpg and improving mpg topic(s), along with the K&N myths, have been "Threaded" to a pulp;
try Search Tab for pages of mind numbing posts.
GL, mD

JCL · #3 10-11-2010, 05:10 PM

My 2003 3.0 (steptronic, not a manual gearbox like MD's) had several best tanks of 27 mpg on the highway. That is what you can aim for, by keeping the speed down, steady throttle, etc. This is measuring using imperial gallons, same as you (you should be able to beat MD's figures for the smaller US gallons by 20%, the conversion is *6/5).

Around town I was at 21-22 mpg (Imperial). Continuous stop and go traffic would bring that down to 20. If I really beat on it I could get it down to 19, never got worse than that.

K&N filter will not change mileage IMO. Remapping will have no effect either, as it is a petrol model. Biggest difference is the driver. No jackrabbit starts, plan ahead, conserve momentum, etc.

Foose · #4 10-11-2010, 05:54 PM

I'm getting a consistent 16.0-16.8 in my '06 3.0i 15,000 miles. I am not an aggressive driver either. There is no way to get better mileage. It's a little 6 cylinder hauling a heavy awd truck.

The only reason why I haven't gone insane with the low MPG is the handling

no other suv drives like it.

c4racer · #5 10-12-2010, 02:37 AM

that's why I got a 4.6is. My long term average is 15. I bet it would be 17 with a 3.0. At today's gas prices that is a difference of about $300 or so per year. I bet I spend more than that at Starbucks and I brew my own coffee most of the time!

xnsf · #6 10-12-2010, 02:53 AM

Last highway trip was 75 miles 60% flat, 40% hilly and averaged 25.5 mpg. Around hilly and congested San Francisco, about 15. Currently 18.2 mpg over last ~1000 miles 60% city. I do drive very very conscious of my fuel economy though, so ymmv literally

02 with 121,000 miles

TheGodfather · #7 10-12-2010, 03:38 AM

Well this weekend I drove 500km (90% of it was 110+ speeds) and I managed to get 12.2 l/100km (19.44 mpg US, 23 mpg UK)

I have achieved 10.5 l/100km (26mpg UK) using cruise control the whole way and not going over 110 km.

My regular drive back and forth from the Uni really guzzles gas. I never go more than 60km, and its all stop and go. The distance is only around 6km one way.

I am sometimes impressed with the highway milage, but its rare to drive 2hrs straight with cruise control on a single speed.

I am not sure if the conversions are correct I used this: http://www.markporthouse.net/rangie/...onversion.htm#

janpaulweaper · #8 10-12-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c4racer

that's why I got a 4.6is. My long term average is 15. I bet it would be 17 with a 3.0. At today's gas prices that is a difference of about $300 or so per year. I bet I spend more than that at Starbucks and I brew my own coffee most of the time!

I was looking for a 4.6is after i sold my rangie. I settled for the 3.0i because a lot of reviews said they suffer from cracked heads and engine probs. They also said not to go for the 3.0d as they suffer from turbo failures. I agree that people who own the 3 litre x5s are better off buying the v8 engines instead considering the mpg. The truth will only come from owners with v8 engine spec bmw x5s, so lets hear the truth please

amacman · #9 10-12-2010, 11:37 AM

maybe the older M60 and before V8 had problems , you know how muck sticks .
I have a M62 TU V8 X5 and a M62 V8 740 i . they can wear prematurely , just yer luck I suppose as any engine can suffer same . how many miles do you intend putting in a car anyway .
my X5 indicates 20 - 21 mpg . the 740i indicates 22-23 mpg . both cars doing the same running mixed rural / city driving .
rural only driving hill and dale will return average 15% more mpg .
city only driving is 17-18 mpg .
the insides of the exhausts are clean and shiny , not at all like the filthy diesels .

motordavid · #10 10-12-2010, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janpaulweaper

I was looking for a 4.6is after i sold my rangie. I settled for the 3.0i because a lot of reviews said they suffer from cracked heads and engine probs. They also said not to go for the 3.0d as they suffer from turbo failures. I agree that people who own the 3 litre x5s are better off buying the v8 engines instead considering the mpg. The truth will only come from owners with v8 engine spec bmw x5s, so lets hear the truth please

It didn't seem like we 3.0 owners were not factual...

If you are looking for anecdotal posts on V8 mileage or, V8 longevity,
I suggest again to hit the Search Tab, as there are pages and pages
of threads on your question; assuming I understand your "question".

GL, mD

Sponsored Links