|
Xoutpost server transfer and maintenance is occurring.... |
Xoutpost is currently undergoing a planned server migration.... stay tuned for new developments.... sincerely, the management |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Economy New 3.0D and 3.0SD
To back this up I looked at the Autocar's test results for the 5 series 3.0d and 535d (ie very similar engines as X5) and found that they got 33.6 and 27.7 respectively against BMW's own urban cycle for these cars of 32.8 and 31.4. Therefore extrapolating these figures to the new engines on the X5 I estimate that a realistic day to day figure for the 3.0D will be 28.5 and 24 for the SD. I would be interested in other peoples thoughts on this. |
Sponsored Links | |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I have decided that I will still go for the SD just for the extra poke I will have, and it will come in really handy when towing a trailer etc. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
My 218bhp E53 3.0d Sport Auto should (according to BMW) turn in around 35mpg but I have only ever seen this once on a long motorway run at 56mph (soooo boring!!). Normal driving usually returns around 28-31mpg and I'm a careful driver (most of the time). I would expect at least a 10-15% difference between ideal world and real world.
There have been ongoing discussions and comments in the press for years as to how unrealistic the manufacturers stated economy figures as the tests that they are required to use are equally unrealistic. No car I have owned in the last 10 years has ever matched it's claimed figures no matter how carefully I have driven. And yet the governments in Europe and elsewhere do nothing to generate a more realistic set of tests. I have found that turning the climate control off makes very little difference on a diesel. It may be that the extra torque available just shrugs off the compressor load. There are reports in the British press suggesting that we all turn our aircon off and help save the planet. I seem to remember that if you don't use your system, the seals dry up and the gas leaks out - and it's a much worse greenhouse gas. That does not seem to have been mentioned in the press - convenient? At least one manufacturer was recently told to revise all their claimed and published economy figures downwards as their claimed mpg was too high. Been trying to find the story but can't - sorry.
__________________
Me: Current: 2011 E71 40D Vermilion Red/Beige Nappa Wifey: Current: 2012 R80 Countryman SDX Green/Cream |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Sorry for my ignorance but I've been meaning to ask... europe's MPG such as "42MPG"... is that actual 42 miles per gallon ? I know you're referring to diesel but still that seems remarkably good and we only see that in the econo 4-cylinders around here. I'll take 30MPG in an SUV either way but I may be dreaming. Are we talking about the same "MPG" ?!
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The engine has 163 BHP and car has 0 - 62MPH of 7.9 seconds |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
UK gallons are bigger than US so do give a higher MPG, I think roughly 10% higher.
Back to the original question. I have a 535d which say doing a constant 80 mph on a motorway gives somewhere between 36 and 38 mpg.....giving a range of around 550 to 600 miles. In town is a different story though with low to mid 20's mpg being normal. I do an awful lot of my driving in London and get an avergae around 26 or 27 mpg over 000's miles. For comparison to the X5 my 535d is three years old so it doesn't have the benefits that the latest generation of gearboxes give in terms of fuel efficiency and now with the Efficient Dynamics technology there are further gains. I think the current 3.0d twuin turbo engine and transmission is maybe 20% more fuel efficient that what I have in my car but the X5 is obviously a heavier car....they probably compensate for each other to a large extent. Hope that helps. What real world figures are people getting for the 3.0d in thecurrent X5 ? Though of course these cars don't have ED which makes a difference. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
I tested the X5 3.0D and X3 3.0sd last week. They were on dealer test tour, meaning they get very hard driving when people are testing the power. Anyway, for both of them the computer showed 9.6-9.7 L/100 km, appx. 24 MPG. So I would say that it's pretty decent consumption, and in normal driving the MPG gets better when you don't do just short sprints.
Have to say that the X3 was a beast Lots of low end torque and plenty of power in upper rpm. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In day-to-day driving my 3.0d SE returns 29.6 mpg.
__________________
Fastbuck 2009 F01 7 Series 3.0D SE Saphire Black/ Oyster 2008 E83 X3 2.0D SE Montego Blue/ Black 2007 E70 X5 3.0D SE Space Grey/ Beige - SOLD 2006 Land Rover Freelander Sport TD4 Zambezi Silver/Black - SOLD 2005 W203 C200K Sports Coupe Jasper Blue/Artico Black - SOLD 2004 W211 E320 CDI Avantgarde Brilliant Silver/Alpaca Grey - SOLD 2001 E39 530i SE Crystal Green/ Beige - SOLD |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
We're struggling to get better than 27.1mpg (according to the OBC). Driving is roughly 50% country roads, 30% motorway 20% town, including the obligatory School run - so probably pretty good all in.
However, I'm a bit dissapointed with 27.1mpg, it has improved very slightly since picking the car up (26mpg) and we have done just over 2000miles. I was hoping for more but I guess I'm kidding myself. Does anybody know if the DMS chip would improve mpg as well as performance? Clutching at straws here to try and justify the power gains My main gripe is with BMW for announcing the efficiency dynamics pack (and the lower tax group) just months into the new model being released. Shocked to see that even the sd benefits from the lower tax band. I can't help but question whether these cars will pass their MOT emisions test in 3 years time though... Lexus put a £5000 premium on the RX400 hybrid, what is BMW going to charge extra for their attempt at the Synergy drive? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
|