diesel economy

[bigwave2255]

as i,m on a roll....

here are my fuel use numbers

for my 2005 3.0d, all peak hour stop start freeway miles

32mpg (imperial gallons) or 26mpg (US gallons)

actual 947 km between refills, used 84 litres

[powers1]

Originally Posted by bigwave2255

as i,m on a roll....

here are my fuel use numbers

for my 2005 3.0d, all peak hour stop start freeway miles

32mpg (imperial gallons) or 26mpg (US gallons)

actual 947 km between refills, used 84 litres

I am getting regular combined 30 mpg IMP,but mine is an Auto box!Whats yours?

[X5Sport]

Combined 32mpg (Imp) on an 05 3.0d Sport Auto (6spd). Have seen as high as 37mpg.

[bigwave2255]

mines an auto as well.

37mpg is amazing, i,m planning an interstate trip over the christmas break

so maybe i can nudge that figure,

its fun to try

[micky2guns]

iv a manual 3.0d 2004 iv just been on holiday in it and it managed 36mpg on motorway with cruise set at 80mph and its averaging round 30mpg around normal run which i was pretty impressed,

[bigwave2255]

my previous car was a 4cyl Mazda 6, and while wanting a bigger car i was also concerned about fuel economy, as i travel about 3000- 3500 km per month.

the Mazda used around 8.2 litres per hundred and i was prepared to sacrifice some economy, but that said i am real pleased with what i,m getting

i also have a Jeep cherokee, and it is disgusting on fuel, and so i was concerned that another bulky all wheel drive vehicle may be closer to it in economy, wow thankfully its not.

[powers1]

Originally Posted by bigwave2255

my previous car was a 4cyl Mazda 6, and while wanting a bigger car i was also concerned about fuel economy, as i travel about 3000- 3500 km per month.

the Mazda used around 8.2 litres per hundred and i was prepared to sacrifice some economy, but that said i am real pleased with what i,m getting

8.2 ltrs/100 kms equates to 36 mpg from the Mazda ..which is very similar to the 34 mpg you getting now out of the X5 and some owners are getting 37 mpg +
I am getting 30 mpg but I am riding on the 20" staggered,so on 17-19" s pretty sure upto 37 mpg is easily attainable.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by powers1

8.2 ltrs/100 kms equates to 36 mpg from the Mazda ..which is very similar to the 34 mpg you getting now out of the X5 and some owners are getting 37 mpg +
I am getting 30 mpg but I am riding on the 20" staggered,so on 17-19" s pretty sure upto 37 mpg is easily attainable.

As a matter of interest why do you feel your 20" setup is causing you to loose so much economy? I know your tyres are wider than the standard 235s' fitted on the 17" rims, but that should not hammer your consumption that much? I would have thought rolling resistance is biggest factor affecting fuel economy, and that is a lot to do with the type of tyre fitted rather than its width. i.e. a partly off road ATR 235/65/17 tyre will probably have a higher rolling resistance (due to the knobbly tread pattern) than a hi performance semi slick 285/40/20.

[powers1]

Originally Posted by Cole

As a matter of interest why do you feel your 20" setup is causing you to loose so much economy? I know your tyres are wider than the standard 235s' fitted on the 17" rims, but that should not hammer your consumption that much? I would have thought rolling resistance is biggest factor affecting fuel economy, and that is a lot to do with the type of tyre fitted rather than its width. i.e. a partly off road ATR 235/65/17 tyre will probably have a higher rolling resistance (due to the knobbly tread pattern) than a hi performance semi slick 285/40/20.

Aerodynamics/Rolling resistance/drag /weight of a 20" wheel/tyre set up is always superior than 17" set up,irrespective of tyre tread..
I noticed an immediate increase in fuel consumption when I went up from my standard 19"s!

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by Cole

A i.e. a partly off road ATR 235/65/17 tyre will probably have a higher rolling resistance (due to the knobbly tread pattern) than a hi performance semi slick 285/40/20.

I was pleased to find that when I swapped the OEM Michelin Energy tyres for Pirelli Scorpion ATRs (both 235/65R17s) my fuel consumption suffered no measurable change. Admittedly, the Scorpion ATR's aren't really all that aggressive but they still give far better performance on gravel/dirt/mud than OEM Michelins. BTW, my consumption is around 8.6 litres/100km or 27mpg (US) / 33mpg (Imperial). Most of my driving is rural/country and the horses are rarely spared, if you get my drift.