Real World Milage

[amk2912]

I once calculated the difference between hyper-miling and fanging it in my 130i was worth the equivalent to the cost of a flat white or espresso a week. Probably two flat whites now but it wasn't worth compromising F-U-N!

[123D-M]

All I really want to know is if it is possible to get close to the claimed consumption. Then I won't be so pissed off with BMW marketing department. If I find that even with hyper-miling it uses way more than they say then I will be writing one of my patented strongly-worded-letters-of-complaint to BMW Customer Service.

[AussieRacer]

Did a 560km run from Melb to Gippsland on Sunday. Mainly highway driving at the limit and overtaking at EVERY possible opportunity :biggrin: Averaged 8.7 for the trip, with two adults and air-con on. Fairly happy with that. 120i used to average 6.5 on the same trip, but without so much overtaking and fun!

[amk2912]

I think the methodology car manufacturers use to calculate fuel consumption needs to change. You NEVER hear of a car's real world consumption being better than the manufacturer.

So what is going to happen with KRUDD's LCT cut off? Cars that come in at or slightly below the cut off may in real life be exceeding the cut off - doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of introducing the so-called fuel efficiency penalty?

I have read some variations between actual and stated consumption can vary by up to 30%.

[Guran]

Originally Posted by amk2912

I think the methodology car manufacturers use to calculate fuel consumption needs to change. You NEVER hear of a car's real world consumption being better than the manufacturer.

So what is going to happen with KRUDD's LCT cut off? Cars that come in at or slightly below the cut off may in real life be exceeding the cut off - doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of introducing the so-called fuel efficiency penalty?

I have read some variations between actual and stated consumption can vary by up to 30%.

You too can replicate the placard fuel consumption figures ... if you have a dyno in a temperature-controlled room and equipment to measure emissions from the exhaust pipe. It only takes 11km and 20 minutes!

Seriously! That's how the official ADR81-01 fuel consumption is measured. They stick the car on a dyno, drive a standard range of acceleration, coast and deceleration runs (see graph), and monitor the emissions out the exhaust. The emissions are then converted to fuel consumption using a complicated equation.They don't even measure how much fuel is actually used in the test!

Given all that, I think it's a miracle that the official fuel consumption figures are even remotely close to what anyone achieves in the real world.

It's interesting to see that the test cycle includes a brief squirt to 120km/hr ... um ah ... that's speeding! Tsk tsk tsk.

[imported_Dodgy]

Lovely work Guran!

[Brissie]

After 3500 km of mostly city stop start driving, my manual 135 is returning 16l/100km. Efficient dynamics?? How can BMW claim that? I know I am not driving a hybrid, but this sort of fuel economy is mediocre at best.
For comparison, my 2 ton X5 diesel gets 12l/100k, and my old VW with 2.0 litre turbo engine used to do 12l/100k. Is my fuel consumption to be expected or is it unusually high?

[BMW86]

After my 15,000km service i'm getting way better fuel consumption... I can't work out why. I just hit 24,000km.

[amk2912]

Originally Posted by bmw135fan

After 3500 km of mostly city stop start driving, my manual 135 is returning 16l/100km. Efficient dynamics?? How can BMW claim that? I know I am not driving a hybrid, but this sort of fuel economy is mediocre at best.
For comparison, my 2 ton X5 diesel gets 12l/100k, and my old VW with 2.0 litre turbo engine used to do 12l/100k. Is my fuel consumption to be expected or is it unusually high?

I used to get about 10.6 to 12.5L/100km when I had the 135. My M3 sits around 14L/100km. And I'm no nanny driver either...those shift lights were put there for a reason!!

[Taymaishu]

7.8L/100 on the freeway.

~10L/100km city driving.

[Taymaishu]

Originally Posted by bmw135fan

After 3500 km of mostly city stop start driving, my manual 135 is returning 16l/100km. Efficient dynamics?? How can BMW claim that? I know I am not driving a hybrid, but this sort of fuel economy is mediocre at best.
For comparison, my 2 ton X5 diesel gets 12l/100k, and my old VW with 2.0 litre turbo engine used to do 12l/100k. Is my fuel consumption to be expected or is it unusually high?

I know it's a 135, but my 125 dropped from about 13l/100 to about 9/100km at around the 5000km mark.

[mac135i]

Originally Posted by Taymaishu

I know it's a 135, but my 125 dropped from about 13l/100 to about 9/100km at around the 5000km mark.

That's good to know. I've only done 600km in mine so far so I'm not expecting it to be at its best - either in terms of performance or economy at this stage but I've just edged the economy down below 17's in the last couple of days with a freeway run or two.

That's with me not revving past 4K (running in etc) though I am enjoying the instant urge. I've just come from a GTI which was usually pulling 11l/100km so I expect the 135 would be higher than that plus its an auto so again not so economical as the DSG I suppose.

I'd like to think I could get a bit more economy out of the car, if not for the sake of my pocket then for not having to stop at Shell so often. If I could get 12 or 14l per 100km that would at least give me a 400km range instead of the current 300km.

[Zuzu]

On 17K Km's and averaging 11.8L/100km

[Taymaishu]

Originally Posted by mac135i

That's good to know. I've only done 600km in mine so far so I'm not expecting it to be at its best - either in terms of performance or economy at this stage but I've just edged the economy down below 17's in the last couple of days with a freeway run or two.

That's with me not revving past 4K (running in etc) though I am enjoying the instant urge. I've just come from a GTI which was usually pulling 11l/100km so I expect the 135 would be higher than that plus its an auto so again not so economical as the DSG I suppose.

I'd like to think I could get a bit more economy out of the car, if not for the sake of my pocket then for not having to stop at Shell so often. If I could get 12 or 14l per 100km that would at least give me a 400km range instead of the current 300km.

Jesus, that's nasty..

I'm running the F3 every morning and afternoon for a few days while i do some sports coaching. I'm getting ~7.6L/100km doing 120km/h.

[MickyD]

averaging 5.2L/100k.
sitting at 100(ish) on the freeway, the instantaneous readout usually sits between 2.0 and 4.0.....

[Bimmerle]

With ~4500km on the clock, my average consumption is 8.5L/100km. This is mainly Brisbane urban driving to and from work (against the flow of the city commuters) plus some driving up and down the coast. It also includes a 2000km round trip to the Hunter Valley right after we took delivery. For that first trip, the average consumption was 7.4L/100km.

To put it into perspective, I would get ~12.5L/100km in the RX-8 I traded on the same home-work commute, and get about 10L/100km on highway cruising. Those of you who know about the legendary ability of the RX-8 to drink fuel will recognize I'm a pretty light driver - not a nanny, but I do drive with anticipation.

So, my perception of my 125i M-Sport is that with the same driving style, this is quite an economical vehicle, given that there's a 3L straight 6 sitting under the bonnet.

BTW, my car is a manual, and I really use those gears.

[BBK]

I have an auto 135i, 23k on the clock. In winter with no air con I averaged consistent 9.6L. Now with air con it's up to about 10.1L/100km. I drive to the conditions in all sorts of traffic with the occasional squirt.

Thing is, I think I get better economy because of the auto. I can change to a higher gear with the flick of the paddle anytime. If I were driving manual, I'd be more lazy and stay in a lower gear, which means more rpm which is more fuel.

[mac135i]

Originally Posted by Zuzu

On 17K Km's and averaging 11.8L/100km

That's a result I'd be happy with once the car is run in.

I would of bought a Mini D (or something like that) if I was very concerned about consumption. I guess you could say I was looking for benefits other than fuel economy when buying the 135.

Nonetheless I'd be pleased if I were to become a less frequent visitor the nearby Shell station.

[x5mad]

Originally Posted by Guran

You too can replicate the placard fuel consumption figures ... if you have a dyno in a temperature-controlled room and equipment to measure emissions from the exhaust pipe. It only takes 11km and 20 minutes!

Seriously! That's how the official ADR81-01 fuel consumption is measured. They stick the car on a dyno, drive a standard range of acceleration, coast and deceleration runs (see graph), and monitor the emissions out the exhaust. The emissions are then converted to fuel consumption using a complicated equation.They don't even measure how much fuel is actually used in the test!

Given all that, I think it's a miracle that the official fuel consumption figures are even remotely close to what anyone achieves in the real world.

It's interesting to see that the test cycle includes a brief squirt to 120km/hr ... um ah ... that's speeding! Tsk tsk tsk.

+1000

These ADR fuel consumption figures are hopeless and not true to life. It is done in a lab, there is no real life load on the engine or components, no air resistance etc etc.

And remember these are government rules and regs, so it is not fair to solely blame the manufacturer for their qouted consumption figures. However they are partly to blame, the reason being that they know the rules and so can ''manipulate'' their figures. The way they do this is by gearing and drive ratios - some have been known to adjust some gears so as to get ''better'' fuel consumption figures. Important for the manufacturer in this day and age of global warming where there are figures to be met and penalties that apply if not met.

So, in short you will never get these unrealistic fuel consumption figures as they do not represent real life.

[Blader]

I guess the point of all this is that it is a standard test and so it gives you a means to compare one vehicle to another or different models of the one vehicle to each other as far as fuel consumption goes.

The differences should generally hold true for real world consumption as well.

Interesting to note in the recent green challenge I believe that the HSV Marloo Ute came first as it beat it's official consumption figures by the largest margin.

[Brissie]

I am just wondering if my poor fuel consumption is a reflection of my driving and the generally stop-start traffic that I am in, or if my car likes a drink more than others' cars. 16l/100km seems a bit high to me. May be it will get better with more k's.

[mac135i]

At the moment that's my thinking - a combination of driving style and city driving. Consumption average is edging its way down and the car is still very new so I'm hoping some more K's will help a bit too.