XBimmers X1   XBimmers X1
  XBimmers X1

Go Back   XBimmers | BMW X1 Forum > BMW X1 Forums > General BMW X1 (E84) Forum

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-25-2012, 02:36 PM   #45
Grovsnus
Flight Lieutenant ≛
 
Drives: Le Mans blue X1 35i
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: CT

Posts: 829
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish-Texan View Post
Here's my reference point on our 28i X1 xDrive MSport.
1200 miles in and getting just shy of 28mpg in mostly highway driving.
Given that you're in TX, you can probably get 91 octane gas?
If using 89, you'll get worse fuel economy, due to the engine readjusting to avoid knocking.

Also, depending on where you live, you may be able to get ethanol-free fuel, which will also improve mileage (E10 has around 5-8% less energy than ethanol-free fuel)
Grovsnus is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      12-28-2012, 03:21 AM   #46
miataken
New Member
 
Drives: 2012 X1, White, Xenon, Leather
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Canada

Posts: 28
iTrader: (0)

Mine is 2012 xDrive with no Eco Pro has over 12,000km, it's running ~20% worse that what promised in the catalog. Also, i found the on board computer number presents a better case than actual calculation (trip distance/amount of gas put in).
miataken is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-28-2012, 11:59 AM   #47
Tabbulous
New Member
 
Drives: 2013 X1 s28i
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: USA

Posts: 7
iTrader: (0)

The sticker said 28mpg for my s28i and I noticed it said 24 or 26 on the xDrive models on the lot. Maybe they've gotten a little more realistic now?
Tabbulous is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-28-2012, 10:39 PM   #48
Lucky13
Lucky13
 
Drives: E93 335i
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Columbia, S.C.

Posts: 943
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbulous View Post
The sticker said 28mpg for my s28i and I noticed it said 24 or 26 on the xDrive models on the lot. Maybe they've gotten a little more realistic now?
No the sdrive is rated higher than the Xdrive, all wheel drive will always get 1-2 mpg less.
__________________
1995 325i,1996 328ci,1997 528i,1997 Z3 2.8,
2001 X5 3.0,2001 330i Conv,2002 M3 Conv,
2003 M3 Coupe,2004 M3 Coupe,2004 Z4 3.0,
2004 X3 3.0,2007 X3 3.0,2007 335i Conv.,
2013 X1 28 sdrive M Sport, 2014 M235 on order
Lucky13 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-28-2012, 10:56 PM   #49
conceyted
Private
 
conceyted's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 X1
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New Orleans, LA

Posts: 80
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbulous View Post
The sticker said 28mpg for my s28i and I noticed it said 24 or 26 on the xDrive models on the lot. Maybe they've gotten a little more realistic now?
Pretty odd. I have yet to see any EPA Estimate changes published. Can you take a picture of your sticker?
conceyted is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-29-2012, 12:18 AM   #50
kychungkevin
Private
 
Drives: BMW X1 xdrive28i
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NJ

Posts: 62
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbulous View Post
The sticker said 28mpg for my s28i and I noticed it said 24 or 26 on the xDrive models on the lot. Maybe they've gotten a little more realistic now?
24, 26 and 28mpg you mentioned are combined mpg which is the estimate average between city/hwy. It's the same number since the beginning and that's what I am getting too (26mpg average on my x28); however I never see 33mpg on pure hwy driving yet.
kychungkevin is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-29-2012, 11:23 AM   #51
stgunther
Registered
 
Drives: 02 M5, 11 328ci, 12 X1, 13 X3M
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bonita Springs Florida & Excelsior, MN

Posts: 3
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2002 BMW M5  [0.00]
Send a message via Skype™ to stgunther
My wife drove a 2006 325 manual 6 speed for years and averaged 29 mpg. We are definitely disappointed with our mileage of about 24 on our X1 28 AWD. Expected a little drop off with the AWD/automatic but not 5 mpg. Disappointed.
stgunther is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-29-2012, 12:43 PM   #52
Grovsnus
Flight Lieutenant ≛
 
Drives: Le Mans blue X1 35i
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: CT

Posts: 829
iTrader: (0)

Again, what gasoline are you guys using? The newer more efficient engines are more finicky than the older ones, and when BMW says 91 (US/Canada) or 95-96 (Europe), they really mean it.
A problem is that 91 is unavailable in large parts of the US, and mixing 89 and 93 is a hassle.
While you can certainly drive it on 89, the engine will adjust by delaying the spark, which gives worse fuel economy and somewhat reduced power output. So if you have been filling with 89, worse fuel economy is expected. If you've used 91 as recommended, the reason is elsewhere.
Grovsnus is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      12-29-2012, 07:15 PM   #53
conceyted
Private
 
conceyted's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 X1
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New Orleans, LA

Posts: 80
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grovsnus View Post
Again, what gasoline are you guys using? The newer more efficient engines are more finicky than the older ones, and when BMW says 91 (US/Canada) or 95-96 (Europe), they really mean it.
A problem is that 91 is unavailable in large parts of the US, and mixing 89 and 93 is a hassle.
While you can certainly drive it on 89, the engine will adjust by delaying the spark, which gives worse fuel economy and somewhat reduced power output. So if you have been filling with 89, worse fuel economy is expected. If you've used 91 as recommended, the reason is elsewhere.
The quote in the manual is actually:

Recommended fuel quality
BMW recommends AKI 91.

Minimum fuel grade
BMW recommends AKI 89.

I always understood that to mean you should run AT LEAST 89, but the higher the better. You mention the unavailability of 91 and mixing 89 and 93 together. For me, if 93 is available I am going with that. And on the rare occasion that something like 95 is available, that is what I would choose.

I can't think of any reason the car would rather 91 over 93.
conceyted is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-29-2012, 11:36 PM   #54
Grovsnus
Flight Lieutenant ≛
 
Drives: Le Mans blue X1 35i
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: CT

Posts: 829
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by conceyted View Post
The quote in the manual is actually:

Recommended fuel quality
BMW recommends AKI 91.

Minimum fuel grade
BMW recommends AKI 89.
Correct - and with the minimum non-recommended octane rate, the engine will adjust by delaying the ignition to avoid knocking, and this gives less complete burning and increased fuel consumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by conceyted View Post
I always understood that to mean you should run AT LEAST 89, but the higher the better. You mention the unavailability of 91 and mixing 89 and 93 together. For me, if 93 is available I am going with that. And on the rare occasion that something like 95 is available, that is what I would choose.

I can't think of any reason the car would rather 91 over 93.
In earlier days, you could get increased sooting and catalyst clogging by running on too high octane rated fuel. This should be no problem today, but there are a couple of reasons:
  • Some unscrupulous gas providers increase the octane rating in "premium" fuels by increasing the amount of ethanol. Yes, it does increase the octane rating because ethanol ignites less quickly than gasoline, but it also reduces the efficiency. If you buy from "top ranked" vendors on BMWs list, this should not be a problem.
  • 93 doesn't give you any improvement (whereas 89 gives you a detriment), and 91 costs less.

Anyhow, don't run on 89 unless you're willing to live with increased fuel consumption and less power, and don't run on 87 except in emergencies (or you can't get 91, in which case you can use one part 87 octane plus two parts 93 octane or one part each of 89 and 93).
Grovsnus is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      12-29-2012, 11:46 PM   #55
nospam
Captain
 
Drives: X1 x28i; 128i; S2000
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orange County, CA

Posts: 672
iTrader: (0)

Here in California 91 octane is the max at the pump but our gas can be as high as 10% ethanol. I believe the ethanol blends are the reason few will be able to achieve the EPA estimates.

Last edited by nospam; 12-30-2012 at 12:25 AM. Reason: moved edited comments to new post
nospam is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-29-2012, 11:52 PM   #56
Red Bread
Brigadier General
 
Drives: My wife's car
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,002
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by nospam
Here in California 91 octane is the max at the pump but our gas can be as high as 10% ethanol. I believe the ethanol blends are the reason few will be able to achieve the EPA estimates.
Oddly, I saw no difference in CA 91 octane and TX 93 in either BMW I had in both states.
Red Bread is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-30-2012, 12:00 AM   #57
Grovsnus
Flight Lieutenant ≛
 
Drives: Le Mans blue X1 35i
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: CT

Posts: 829
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nospam View Post
Here in California 91 octane is the max at the pump but our gas can be as high as 10% ethanol. I believe the ethanol blends are the reason few will be able to achieve the EPA estimates.
I'm sure it's at least part of the problem.
1: Ethanol in the fuel makes it less efficient
2: Using 89 octane instead of 91 makes it less efficient.
3: Related to 1 and 2, winter blends give less fuel efficiency in the North and high altitude areas.
4: It's the entry level BMW. The "look, I have a BMW" effect surely makes at least some drivers step on it more than they would have done in a Toyota.
Grovsnus is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      12-30-2012, 12:25 AM   #58
nospam
Captain
 
Drives: X1 x28i; 128i; S2000
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orange County, CA

Posts: 672
iTrader: (0)

I'm fairly certain that BMWs since the N54 are adaptive and will advance timing on higher octanes (93+) and environmental factors). I know there will be performance gains, not sure about gas mileage impact.

I just read that ethanol is often used to increase octane so that 91/92/93 gas may have more ethanol than 89 and perhaps lower mileage will result.
nospam is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-06-2013, 02:11 PM   #59
Irish-Texan
BannerMan
 
Irish-Texan's Avatar
 
Drives: X3 35i MSport / X1 28ix MSport
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West of the Westoplex, (Republic of) Texas

Posts: 102
iTrader: (0)

Topped up yesterday morning with 93 octane, drove highway miles most of the day 65/70 along with two mall visits doing the mall crawl, and needed to fill up before heading home. Topped up again at the same pump at $3.32 per gallon for 93 octane. 2 adults, no cargo and heat on. Actual fuel usage (not on board computer figure) of 30.22 mpg from the 28i XDrive (just past 1,500 miles).
Irish-Texan is offline   Ireland
0
Reply With Quote
      02-10-2013, 07:52 PM   #60
bosstones
Major
 
Drives: o_0
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Suburbia

Posts: 1,056
iTrader: (0)

bump
__________________
bosstones is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-16-2013, 09:37 PM   #61
MSportX1
Private
 
Drives: X1
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bay Area

Posts: 58
iTrader: (0)

Today, I had a "long" trip for the first time since I got my X1 xDrive28i three weeks ago. The trip is one hour highway drive, back and forth. Two persons, my wife and I, sit in the car. I kept the speed around 70 mph, without Eco Pro. Going forth, I got 32.2 mpg, and going back 33.1 mpg. Both numbers are per onboard trip computer display. It is quite impressive. My X1 can achieve the EPA number (33 mpg for xDrive28i), at least per onboard computer.
MSportX1 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-17-2013, 09:49 AM   #62
CIWS
Moon Parasite
 
CIWS's Avatar
 
Drives: X1 35i Sport (was)X6 50i Dinan
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: D/FW

Posts: 336
iTrader: (0)

Had to do a long escort mission earlier in the week about 200 miles and still averaged 23mpg in the 35i. That's with start stops, sometimes running 40 or sometimes because of an accident that got us separated up to 100mph.




For me only 93 octane fuel. 91 if I go to OK.
__________________
CIWS is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-18-2013, 09:36 PM   #63
hkgunther
Registered
 
Drives: 2013 X1
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Posts: 1
iTrader: (0)

Thumbs down

I drove a 2006 325i rear wheel drive 6 speed (6 cyl)and exceeded the EPA estimates, averaging just under 29 mpg driving a combination suburban/highway miles. I used 87 octane fuel. I am now driving the same routes with my X1 and only averaging 24 mpg using 89 octane, which is the fuel I am told I can use. I never would have bought the X1 if I thought the gas mileage would be so bad. The EPA estimates were higher with the X1, yet I am getting worse gas mileage. Same driver, same roads, under performing. I have friends with larger vehicles with 6 cyl engines getting the same gas mileage. Something is wrong with these vehicles, or BMW lied about the gas mileage.
hkgunther is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-18-2013, 10:12 PM   #64
Tirpitz
Private
 
Drives: 2013 X1 sDrive28i
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: California

Posts: 82
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkgunther View Post
I drove a 2006 325i rear wheel drive 6 speed (6 cyl)and exceeded the EPA estimates, averaging just under 29 mpg driving a combination suburban/highway miles. I used 87 octane fuel. I am now driving the same routes with my X1 and only averaging 24 mpg using 89 octane, which is the fuel I am told I can use. I never would have bought the X1 if I thought the gas mileage would be so bad. The EPA estimates were higher with the X1, yet I am getting worse gas mileage. Same driver, same roads, under performing. I have friends with larger vehicles with 6 cyl engines getting the same gas mileage. Something is wrong with these vehicles, or BMW lied about the gas mileage.
Keep in mind the EPA changed the rating rules between your 2006 BMW and your current X1.
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/...timates-column

Perhaps what is happening now is that the manufacturers have figured out how to game the new tests just like they probably did the old ones. Gaming is probably easier now than it used to be thanks to all the computer controls on modern cars.

Some day I'll have to find a flat and level road and run my X1 down it in EcoPro with the climate control off. I bet then I'll be right on the EPA numbers. I suspect we all underestimate how much a bit of elevation, running the AC, and beating the other guy off the line really cost in terms of fuel economy.
Tirpitz is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:41 AM.




xbimmers
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST