|
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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sponsored Links | |
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
here's a few scenarios...
"old car" = 4.8 "new car" = 35d 350miles used since it's about 1 tank for the 4.8. The difference is there, but slight per tank... but over the long run, it's a good amount. As for offsetting the cost, it looks like diesel will need to be $2 more than premium gas to basically save nothing by having a diesel.
__________________
'08 X5 3.0si - Alpine White / Saddle Brown interior Specs: Sport Pkg, Premium Pkg, Tech Pkg, Comfort Access, Aero Kit, Style 433 staggered 20s on Conti DWS Mods: Carbon 35 tint, LED angel eyes, GP Thunder 7500k fogs, H&R 20mm/25mm spacers, clear reflectors, gunsmoke-tinted taillights Coded: Digital speedo, windows/sunroof/tailgate close via keyfob X5 pics at Flickr Last edited by rh71; 01-05-2010 at 09:46 PM. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Pretty cool.
I used the current national average, AAA Fuel Gauge Report and your numbers but for a year, e.g. premium $2.93 15 15,000 (yearly average) diesel $2.83 22 15,000 The savings was $990/year in favor of diesel. If I then use the numbers from 1 year ago when the diesel was more but not above $4 (couldn't find the numbers quickly but the delta looks about right from what I remember) premium $1.84 15 15,000 (yearly average) diesel $2.40 22 15,000 The savings dropped to $210/year Seems like a false savings to me. That doesn't even factor in the cost of urea and the problems some are having w/the weird cold weather urea consumption. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What do you mean by "that kind of performance"? Does the 4.8 not have sufficient power? From what people are saying, seems that the trade off for the big power boost in the TT8 (as seen in the X6) is the even worse mpg than the 4.8. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
I average 13.5 around town. If I drive any highway, e.g. mall/downtown that goes up to 15+. Have not taken any long trips (mostly highway) yet.
The X5 has plenty of power to speed up or pass. The performance is fine and I'm comparing 0-60 mph times of the X5 (6.1 secs) to a C32 (4.6 secs). No hard data but I'm guessing that 6.1 seconds is 90% faster than most cars out on the road. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I average 15.2 in my 4.8. I couldn't disagree more about a discontinued (from the X5 maybe but not BMW) V8 having a higher maintenance cost VS a TTV8. Even if I did get 12MPG...this is a 4WD heavy V8 powered truck. What should we expect |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
My wife was about to kill me, and that damn drive took forever. We were being passed by grandmas in Honda Accords. Yes, I'll admit under ideal circumstances (like downhills, tailwinds, drafting behind a tractor truck, being towed for 50% of your trips distance) it is possible to "see" 20 miles per gallon on the trip computer. But it's so rare that you might as well take a picture of it. Anyway, I fully expect Diesel will hit highs of close to $8 or $10.00. I also expect that some companies, perhaps BMW even, will introduce Diesel Hybrids. Perhaps, part diesel part fuel cell. I'm utterly unconvinced that battery powered cars will be the way of the long-term future. A client of mine is having a fuel cell installed in his home as I write this. It's no larger than a 40-gallon water heater. The thing, literally, powers the 7,000 sqft./w pool home that it's being installed in, and also tosses enough energy back into the grid to power 2 other homes. The problem is that it's far too powerful! It only cost $35k and is guaranteed for 10-years! Fuel cells make far more sense, and once costs come down, I think we'll see them overtake batteries. Eitherway, Diesel and Gasoline is going nowhere but up. I don't think anyone here can logically expect gasoline and fossil fuels to remain at current prices for years to come. The highs of 15-18 months ago were just a taste of what is to come. We all know that. Of course, there is the argument that you only live once and part of the reason I bought a BMW (a large part) was to have fun. So, in that regard buying a faster SAV is going to give you a lot more pleasure. But, from a cost standpoint and an environmental standpoint, it's not a great idea to buy a vehicle that "for most" only averages about 12 to 13 miles per gallon combined: IF YOU'RE PLANNING ON KEEPING IT FOR close to a decade as the original poster has indicated. Either way, carry on. |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
[QUOTE=ABMW;698068]
Yes, I'll admit under ideal circumstances (like downhills, tailwinds, drafting behind a tractor truck, being towed for 50% of your trips distance) it is possible to "see" 20 miles per gallon on the trip computer. But it's so rare that you might as well take a picture of it. Actually, I was on I-95 which is basically a level road, no tailwind to speak of and certainly not drafting any tractor trailers. Plus the X was loaded with suitcases, tools,, dog and two adults. I don't think 20 mpg is all that rare for strictly highway driving.
__________________
2007 X5 4.8i Space Gray 2001 X5 3.0 Titanium Silver |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
[QUOTE=Paydirtdog;698305]
Quote:
But, no one here can say they're averaging 20 miles per gallon without consciously thinking about doing so. If you're okay with being passed (not advisable according to every defensive driving manual in the world) and you take the "turtle vs. the hair" approach to driving you can see 20 miles per gallon. If you drive the 4.8 as a normal vehicle, accelerate and decelerate, and are moving at just over the speed of traffic, which requires accelerating and decelerating there's no way you'll see 20 miles per gallon. As a motorcyclist and pilot enthusiast for close to 20 years, I've taken more safety classes and read more safety manuals than I care to talk about. Driving at the speeds required to reach 20 miles per gallon, and in the style required to attain 20 miles per gallon is appropriate on on the most select of roads. I agree there are low traffic volume roads in certain parts of the country where you can take the X5 out for a leisurely 300 mile drive, at 65 or 70 miles per hour, without any concern for your arrival time. But, if you drive in a city environment, and you look at the lifetime of the vehicle you're not going to average 20 miles per gallon under any circumstances. One should truly average out their mileage over 5,000 to 10,000 miles to get a picture of what their going to get. In doing so, you're not going to see many 4.8 owners obtaining 20 miles per gallon. Rather there will be a bell curve starting at combined driving average of 9.5 miles per gallon heading up 15 miles per gallon. Compare that to the 35d, in which drivers are obtaining 22 to 24 in combined driving, and therein lies a massive difference. I don't mean to insult your driving style by any means, but from a strict standpoint of defensive driving, it is always safest to maintain a speed that equates to being the fastest vehicle in the particular flow of traffic you're traveling within. That is not to say that you are to keep up with the idiot who passes you without his turn signal on at 110 miles per hour, but to be constantly passing other vehicles is far safer than being passed or maintaining your position within a group of 15 vehicles. That is defensive driving, and the reasons for doing so are for another topic. What is important in this thread, is to simply note that expecting a long-term average of 20 miles per gallon from the 4.8 is not realistic by any stretch of the imagination. Limited and specific trips really should be taken as "hypotheticals" at best. Real world, multi-month averages are very important and therein lies what the 4.8 truly attains: between 12 to 15 miles per gallon. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is a consideration if you're going to be keeping the vehicle for the next 8 years, as the original poster has stated. In effect it's roughly 50% of the mileage per gallon I've attained during "highly spirited" driving over the first 3,000 miles of ownership heading from sea level to 7000 feet, down to 2,000 feet, then back up to 7,000 feet, and then back to sea level or in other words: a mountainous route over 45-hours of driving, averaging 54.6 miles per hour equating to close to 24 (23.6 actual) miles per gallon covering 2,800 and change miles, according to the onboard computer. As you can see 54.6 miles per gallon over 2,800 miles is pretty darn quick, when you factor in the trips route which took me through Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, Sedona, Tucson, and then back through Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Hence, the 35d's miles per gallon is easily twice that of the 4.8 in my experience. But, of course, if your figures differ I'll be happy to retract my statements, as long as we're comparing apples to apples, i.e. mountainous routes to mountainous routes, etc. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
|