12-25-2012, 01:36 PM | #45 | |
Flight Lieutenant ≛
18
Rep 918
Posts |
Quote:
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) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2012, 02:21 AM | #46 |
New Member
1
Rep 28
Posts |
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).
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2012, 09:39 PM | #48 |
Lucky13
219
Rep 1,765
Posts |
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, 2000 528i, 2001 X5 3.0, 2001 330i Convertible, 2002 M3 Convertible, 2003 M3 Coupe, 2004 M3 Coupe, 2004 Z4 3.0, 2004 X3 3.0, 2007 X3 3.0, 2007 335i Convertible, 2013 X1 28 sdrive, 2014 M235 manual, 2020 X3 30i Xdrive
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2012, 09:56 PM | #49 |
Private
9
Rep 81
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2012, 11:18 PM | #50 |
Private First Class
19
Rep 100
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2012, 10:23 AM | #51 |
Registered
0
Rep 4
Posts
Drives: 12 X3M, 18 X3, 18 330xi
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bonita Springs Florida & Excelsior, MN
|
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2012, 11:43 AM | #52 |
Flight Lieutenant ≛
18
Rep 918
Posts |
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2012, 06:15 PM | #53 | |
Private
9
Rep 81
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2012, 10:36 PM | #54 | ||
Flight Lieutenant ≛
18
Rep 918
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
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). |
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2012, 10:46 PM | #55 |
Captain
19
Rep 675
Posts |
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; 12-29-2012 at 11:25 PM.. Reason: moved edited comments to new post |
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2012, 10:52 PM | #56 | |
Major General
4457
Rep 9,160
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2012, 11:00 PM | #57 | |
Flight Lieutenant ≛
18
Rep 918
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2012, 11:25 PM | #58 |
Captain
19
Rep 675
Posts |
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-06-2013, 01:11 PM | #59 |
BannerMan
67
Rep 108
Posts
Drives: X3 35i MSport / X1 28ix MSport
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West of the Westoplex, (Republic of) Texas
|
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).
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-10-2013, 06:52 PM | #60 |
Lieutenant Colonel
1226
Rep 1,584
Posts |
bump
__________________
- Jeff
bosstones' flickr |
Appreciate
0
|
02-16-2013, 08:37 PM | #61 |
Private
0
Rep 58
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-17-2013, 08:49 AM | #62 |
Moon Parasite
655
Rep 1,336
Posts |
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.
__________________
2020 X4M Comp. (currently stock) - Was 2015 335 MSport -MPPK -Borla ATAK -Dinan Sport+ - E.R. Charge pipe / 2013 X1 35i Sport - Dinan tune / 2009 X6 50i Dinan badged |
Appreciate
0
|
02-18-2013, 08:36 PM | #63 |
Registered
0
Rep 1
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-18-2013, 09:12 PM | #64 | |
Private First Class
8
Rep 101
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|