-
Read the WELCOME ALL BMWFANATICS post.
Out with the old and in with the (not so) new.
- Thread starter DangerD
- Start date
DangerD
Member
Update on fuel economy:
I’ve been driving this car for two weeks now. My expectation was that my fuel economy would be better than the pre-LCI 320D that was on 250 000km.
Unfortunately, the economy has been slightly worse! It isn’t cause for alarm but a little disappointing. To top it off, I’ve been very conservative with my driving style (way more than ususal).
Anybody else have a similar experience?
The car is booked in for a filter service tomorrow, hopefully things improve after this.
My figures were as follows:
05’ 320D (Manual)
- Daily driving (mixed between urban / highway – somewhat spirited driving)
7.0 l/100km
- Long distance
4.0 – 4.2 L/100km (Jhb - Dbn) (best was 3.8!!)
4.8 L/100km (Dbn – Jhb)
11’ 320D LCI A/T
- Daily driving (mixed between urban / highway – conservative driving)
7.4 l/100km
- Long distance (will be updated after this weekend)
:dunnoanymore:
I’ve been driving this car for two weeks now. My expectation was that my fuel economy would be better than the pre-LCI 320D that was on 250 000km.
Unfortunately, the economy has been slightly worse! It isn’t cause for alarm but a little disappointing. To top it off, I’ve been very conservative with my driving style (way more than ususal).
Anybody else have a similar experience?
The car is booked in for a filter service tomorrow, hopefully things improve after this.
My figures were as follows:
05’ 320D (Manual)
- Daily driving (mixed between urban / highway – somewhat spirited driving)
7.0 l/100km
- Long distance
4.0 – 4.2 L/100km (Jhb - Dbn) (best was 3.8!!)
4.8 L/100km (Dbn – Jhb)
11’ 320D LCI A/T
- Daily driving (mixed between urban / highway – conservative driving)
7.4 l/100km
- Long distance (will be updated after this weekend)
:dunnoanymore:
Unfortunately it doesn't make sense to compare them, since one was a manual and the other is an automatic, not to mention that the newer car has a more powerful engine.
The auto-box can add up to a litre or more per 100km, depending on the route/driving style. Direct comparison between an E90 320i manual and automatic, the automatic used 2l/100km more, with a similar driving style. The fact that an automatic will shift up early or outside the powerband, then you kickdown to get it back into the powerband - this all uses extra fuel, which contributes to a higher consumption.
That said, the ZF6 is still one of the earlier automatics, that 'use' fuel to function. It's only the newer ZF8's that offer fuel efficiencies from the gearbox.
The auto-box can add up to a litre or more per 100km, depending on the route/driving style. Direct comparison between an E90 320i manual and automatic, the automatic used 2l/100km more, with a similar driving style. The fact that an automatic will shift up early or outside the powerband, then you kickdown to get it back into the powerband - this all uses extra fuel, which contributes to a higher consumption.
That said, the ZF6 is still one of the earlier automatics, that 'use' fuel to function. It's only the newer ZF8's that offer fuel efficiencies from the gearbox.
Those claim figures are a big 'LOL', achieved in a controlled environment at xx degrees, with xx amount of throttle, at xx speed, on a xx incline, with xx wind speed... You get my drift.
Those claimed figures are just that, I tend to not pay attention to that and go on what the average is from real owners.. When it comes to pre-2012 BMW's, manual was always the clear winner for frugality, especially since you had all the control you needed in the palm of your hand.. You can manipulate driver inputs to decrease fuel consumption, whereas the automatic box does the 'thinking' for you.
My 335i manufacturer claimed fuel consumption was around 9l on a mixed cycle, it was closer to 12l with that autobox and moderate driving :fencelook:
Those claimed figures are just that, I tend to not pay attention to that and go on what the average is from real owners.. When it comes to pre-2012 BMW's, manual was always the clear winner for frugality, especially since you had all the control you needed in the palm of your hand.. You can manipulate driver inputs to decrease fuel consumption, whereas the automatic box does the 'thinking' for you.
My 335i manufacturer claimed fuel consumption was around 9l on a mixed cycle, it was closer to 12l with that autobox and moderate driving :fencelook:
DangerD
Member
KPM_330 said:
I suppose the test conditions for a manufacturer has to be as consistent as possible, for the purposes of validity and reliability of scores across all vehicle types.
And... assuming all testing conditions are the same, all the manufactuer specs I have read, point to the LCI being more frugal than the pre-LCI, for both box types. Even though we know that the real world figures are higher for both, based on the manufacturer claim of the LCI being lighter on fuel, I would expect a real world figure on the LCI to be less than the real world figure of the pre-LCI.
But I hear you, how it translates into the real world is questionable. At the end of the day, a 0.3l/100km increase is nothing to complain about when I don't have to stick my clutch in every 5 seconds.
Would be nice to hear what other 320D owners have experienced when upgrading to other models.
maleven-GP
Well-known member
KPM_330 said:
I'm actually on 9.2 to 9.5 with mixed driving on a 335i manual (Jozi traffic).. The newer 8-speed auto box is tops though..
