Sure. It isn't actually a European gallon, since they use litres (and the Brits don't often like to be referred to as European :) ) Anyway, the US gallon is 5/6 the size of the Imperial gallon. So, the figures are:

3.0si 25.9 mpg Imperial = 21.6 mpg US
3.0d 32.5 mpg Imperial = 27.1 mpg US
4.8i 22.6 mpg Imperial = 18.8 mpg US

Remember that the figures quoted are for the UK Combined cycle test, which is not the same test protocol as the published US figures. It is a data point, though, and may start some discussion.

Jeff

Do you have similar UK Combined Cycle test results for the E53 3.0i (Steptronic) and E53 4.4i (Steptronic)? It would be a good way to compare the E70 and E53 as I don't want to compare the E70's UK Combined Cycle test results with the E53's US EPA results.........as you said they probably don't use the same test methods.

A good question, but I am not sure that this will tell us a lot. Since the E70 numbers are preliminary, they likely haven't been officially tested yet. But in the interest of continuing the discussion:

All figures in Imperial gallons, UK combined cycle, from BMW published figures (www.bmw.co.uk)

E53 3.0 Step 21.9 mpg
E53 4.4 Step 21.6 mpg

The 3.0 is the 225 hp version. The new 3.0 has more hp. BMW has previously stated that there is an 18% fuel consumption improvement between the two engine designs. That is consistent with the difference noted here (21.9 to 25.9).

4.8 is slightly better than the 4.4, even with more power and displacement. Only slightly, since the 4.4 was already using Valvetronic technology.

Jeff

Thanks for the info Jeff :thumbup:.

I don't get it....according to that brochure, the 4.8i is 355hp, 0-60 6.5secs.

the current X5 4.4i is 315hp, 0-60 6.7secs.....I for sure thought the new 4,8i X5 e70 would be closer to 0-60 6sec times?!! :confused:

According to BMW 05 brochure on the X5

The 4.4i V8 is 320HP 440NM

7 secs 0- 62 (Auto)

Will the diesel engine be offered in the US?

that;s what I'm saying....my car ('04 4.4i) does 0-60 in 6.7 (I believe the official was 6.9secs back in '04), so how is it that they only shaved off .2-.4secs while adding 35 more ponnies? :confused:

I haven't really studied the specs yet, but 35 ponies really isn't that much for such a heavy vehicle so shaving just a bit on 0-60 sounds about right to me. Is the new X heavier too? BTW - always enjoy looking at your sig. pic... :thumbup: