Martin
|
60.1mpg!On the first tank full, the 520d managed 49.5mpg on the OBC, which was 47.8 'real' mpg over 685 miles. Most of that was on the motorway around 80mph or crawling in traffic on the M4, so it isn't a bad result.
I am 530 miles into the second tankful and the OBC is reading 53.5mpg and the range is 245 miles. I'm going to fill up earlier than that as the running in period is now over and I want to see what the real consumption is before I start using more of the performance!
This tank has been about 50/50 motorway/dual carraigeway and single carriageway roads and I've been doing 75-80 when possible and overtaking a reasonable amount, so it wouldn't be too painful to replicate.
So, 60mpg. This is what I managed yesterday, only trying a little... (taken from the journey computer which I reset in Wellingborough and then drove to Luton)
This picture is the OBC at the same time, I had done just over 400 miles since filling up at the point I took this picture.
|
Big TC
|
 Fantastic figures!
Now, where's the number for my BMW dealer...
|
PG
|
It was on Radio 2 yesterday about terrible tailbacks on the Wellingborough to Luton road due to "an unbelievably slow BMW" 
|
Grampa
|
Re: 60.1mpg! | Martin wrote: | On the first tank full, the 520d managed 49.5mpg on the OBC, which was 47.8 'real' mpg over 685 miles. Most of that was on the motorway around 80mph or crawling in traffic on the M4, so it isn't a bad result.
I am 530 miles into the second tankful and the OBC is reading 53.5mpg and the range is 245 miles. I'm going to fill up earlier than that as the running in period is now over and I want to see what the real consumption is before I start using more of the performance!
This tank has been about 50/50 motorway/dual carraigeway and single carriageway roads and I've been doing 75-80 when possible and overtaking a reasonable amount, so it wouldn't be too painful to replicate.
So, 60mpg. This is what I managed yesterday, only trying a little... (taken from the journey computer which I reset in Wellingborough and then drove to Luton)
|
I think you need to get back into the MINI!
|
scamper
|
That's an improvement over my older 320d. I never did it as scientifically as you, but I doubt I got more than a 48 mpg average over a decent m'way run.
|
Martin
|
I guess the newer engine is more efficient? All the efficient dynamics stuff has probably improved as well. Also, remember that a 520d doesn't weigh any more than a 320d.
In terms of efficient dynamics, mine doesn't have the venitian blinds behind the grille (only on the SE for some reason) and the 5 series doesn't have stop start either, so the current 1 & 3 series ranges should do even better.
The type of roads I drive on does help, no stop/start town driving and a high proportion of single carraigeway A roads must be the optimum in terms of fuel consumption.
Trust me, I haven't been driving slowly enough to hold anyone up!! I think if I really tried to drive economically, I could get 60mpg on a tank and that would be nearly 900 miles on a tank!!
Don't worry, normal service will be resumed tomorrow! As soon as I've filled up and recorded the actual mpg figure......
Out of interest (to me only I guess!), I've looked back at my records for the Passat and driven exactly the same way on the same roads, the average consumption over the first two tanks was 46.4 and 42.4. It actually got better with more miles on the clock, my best mpg figure for a whole tank was 47.5 so I've beaten that already.
|
Martin
|
Re: 60.1mpg! | Grampa wrote: | | I think you need to get back into the MINI! |
I know 
I've not driven it since I got back from holiday, must put that right this weekend.
|
scamper
|
Are you sure the 5 series is not heavier? How come the C02 tax ratings are 1% different then?
|
DaveGibson
|
| scamper wrote: | | Are you sure the 5 series is not heavier? How come the C02 tax ratings are 1% different then? |
According to Autocar:
320d Efficient Dynamics - 1505Kg
520d Sport Business Ed - 1635Kg
|
Martin
|
According to BMW:
320d M Sport Touring - 1580kg
520d M Sport Bus Ed - 1585kg
The 320d has stop/start and the quick warm up venetian blind things, that must make the difference? The difference is only 6 carbons between the 320 Touring and the 520 Saloon, so it's not much.
I've just filled up near home, 706 miles with 62 left on the range and 50.8 actual mpg.
|
Pkh72
|
| Martin wrote: | According to BMW:
320d M Sport Touring - 1580kg
520d M Sport Bus Ed - 1585kg
The 320d has stop/start and the quick warm up venetian blind things, that must make the difference? The difference is only 6 carbons between the 320 Touring and the 520 Saloon, so it's not much.
I've just filled up near home, 706 miles with 62 left on the range and 50.8 actual mpg. |
Hmmm, slightly better than my 27.7 average.
|
Boxer6
|
| Pkh72 wrote: |
Hmmm, slightly better than my 27.7 average. |
And a lot better than my 24.6 last weekend.
| Big TC wrote: | | Now, where's the number for my BMW dealer... |
Turncoat!!
|
Mark
|
| Martin wrote: | | I've just filled up near home, 706 miles with 62 left on the range and 50.8 actual mpg. |
Are you getting your 50.8mpg doing an actual physical test?
|
Frank Bullitt
|
| Mark wrote: | | Martin wrote: | | I've just filled up near home, 706 miles with 62 left on the range and 50.8 actual mpg. |
Are you getting your 50.8mpg doing an actual physical test? |
Agreed - brim it, drive it, brim it.
If BMW's system is anything like that in various VAG cars I've used you can take 10% off all the figures quoted...
|
"him"
|
| Boxer6 wrote: | | Pkh72 wrote: |
Hmmm, slightly better than my 27.7 average. |
And a lot better than my 24.6 last weekend. |
I await 'roadsterstu's' MPG figures with interest, though I still think 'tali' will hold the MPG record...
|
garry
|
That's really impressive. BMW have made great progress in economy but it doesn't get the recognition it deserves. I suspect because prius driving eco warriors are bitter little bmw haters at heart - can't let the facts get in the way!
Be interested to know how hard driving impacts economy. I can get 47mpg if I drive like a nun and 40mpg in normal driving style. The worst I've seen is 33mpg.
|
TimR
|
| Frank Bullitt wrote: | | Mark wrote: | | Martin wrote: | | I've just filled up near home, 706 miles with 62 left on the range and 50.8 actual mpg. |
Are you getting your 50.8mpg doing an actual physical test? |
Agreed - brim it, drive it, brim it.
If BMW's system is anything like that in various VAG cars I've used you can take 10% off all the figures quoted... |
I've checked my BMW a couple of times and it's within 0.3mpg.
At Martin's economy level that probably equates to about 2mpg 
|
Stuntman
|
Bastard!
My BMW has averaged 19.7 mpg over nearly 7000 miles
|
Martin
|
| Frank Bullitt wrote: | | Mark wrote: | | Martin wrote: | | I've just filled up near home, 706 miles with 62 left on the range and 50.8 actual mpg. |
Are you getting your 50.8mpg doing an actual physical test? |
Agreed - brim it, drive it, brim it.
If BMW's system is anything like that in various VAG cars I've used you can take 10% off all the figures quoted... |
Haven't you been paying attention? 
The OBC said I'd done 53.3mpg and the calculated mpg was 50.8. I even used the same pump so it should be spot on......!! I filled up as soon as I got it and have filled up twice since, both times the real mpg has been about 95% (95.2 / 95.5) of the OBC number so it's slightly more accurate than the last few cars I've had. The Passat was 92-93% accurate. I keep records of all my fill ups I'm afraid.....
Normal service has resumed and I got to MK in a good, but not quite record breaking 1 hr 17mins from my drive to turning the engine off in the company car park right in the middle of MK. That's still not bad considering there is a maximum of 15 miles (maybe less) of dual carraigeway and the rest is 50/60 mph limit A Roads. I also go through the centre of Bicester, Buckingham and obviously MK.
It was a busier drive home, so even though I drove when 4 of us went to the other side of MK to visit a Waitrose site (lots of roundabouts kills mpg!), it's on 48.8mpg for the tank now. That's excellent, but I'm going to stop looking at mpg now..... :blush:
On a different note, it's getting quicker all the time, is a great overtaking tool and I just love it around the corners and particularly roundabouts
|
Martin
|
| Stuntman wrote: | Bastard!
My BMW has averaged 19.7 mpg over nearly 7000 miles |
That's pretty good!
|
Gooner
|
You need to behave less. I'm down to 44mpg in my Focus and counting. If I can get it to match the average of 38 that the Civic used too, then I'm probably going to have to behave. Until then life's too short to worry about my fuel cards feelings!
|
Martin
|
As you can see above, not behaving gave me 47.8mpg and I couldn't even keep it that low by the end of the day!
|
simonp
|
| Martin wrote: | According to BMW:
320d M Sport Touring - 1580kg
520d M Sport Bus Ed - 1585kg |
That's cheating! The saloon is only 1505kg or to play it another way 1675kg for the 520d M Sport Touring!
|
Mark
|
Re: 60.1mpg! | Martin wrote: |
Haven't you been paying attention? |
No, I started dozing around here:
| Martin wrote: | | On the first tank full, the 520d managed 49.5mpg on the OBC, which was 47.8 'real' mpg over 685 miles. Most of that was on the motorway around 80mph or crawling in traffic on the M4, so it isn't a bad result. |
I was just interested in how you were doing it - in my experience, VAG computers are way off.
Also, assuming your company pays for your fuel, why are you so bothered about your fuel economy and each fill etc? I pay for my own and charge it back but (and after an initial test) I still couldn’t really give a toss.
|
Martin
|
| simonp wrote: | | Martin wrote: | According to BMW:
320d M Sport Touring - 1580kg
520d M Sport Bus Ed - 1585kg |
That's cheating! The saloon is only 1505kg or to play it another way 1675kg for the 520d M Sport Touring! |
Errr, maybe because scamper had a M Sport Touring and I have a saloon and is was a response to his point?
Mark - I'm not bothered, just interested for a couple of reasons. Firstly it's a new car so I'm interested to see what it does. Secondly, I'm interested in what BMW has been able to achieve that most of the competition don't seem to be able to (from an efficiency point of view) and thirdly because the better the mpg, the longer between visits to nasty fuel stations! I hate visiting fuel stations for a whole load of reasons.
Oh, what I meant to say was that it's all about trying to save my company money.....
|
Grampa
|
Both our cars have computers which I imagine will tell you what the fuel consumption is, but to be honest I've never been interested enough even to bother trying to find out which button you press to find out.
Far more interested in the way they go than how much fuel they use to do it.
When they need filling up they need filling up.
|
Mark
|
[quote="Martin"][quote="simonp"] | Martin wrote: |
Mark - I'm not bothered, just interested for a couple of reasons. Firstly it's a new car so I'm interested to see what it does. Secondly, I'm interested in what BMW has been able to achieve that most of the competition don't seem to be able to (from an efficiency point of view) and thirdly because the better the mpg, the longer between visits to nasty fuel stations! I hate visiting fuel stations for a whole load of reasons.
Oh, what I meant to say was that it's all about trying to save my company money..... |
BMW make some of the finest cars in the world and I'm sure you'll love it til you give it back - but fuel comsumption - it doesn't really matter.
|
garry
|
| Grampa wrote: | Both our cars have computers which I imagine will tell you what the fuel consumption is, but to be honest I've never been interested enough even to bother trying to find out which button you press to find out.
Far more interested in the way they go than how much fuel they use to do it.
When they need filling up they need filling up. |
That's all well and good if you pop to the shops once a week. Do 30k per year and it becomes more interesting because a. It's a huge amount of cash and b. The additional range means you don't spend your life at filling stations.
|
Martin
|
| garry wrote: | | Grampa wrote: | Both our cars have computers which I imagine will tell you what the fuel consumption is, but to be honest I've never been interested enough even to bother trying to find out which button you press to find out.
Far more interested in the way they go than how much fuel they use to do it.
When they need filling up they need filling up. |
That's all well and good if you pop to the shops once a week. Do 30k per year and it becomes more interesting because a. It's a huge amount of cash and b. The additional range means you don't spend your life at filling stations. |
Exactly!
|
Grampa
|
| garry wrote: | | Grampa wrote: | Both our cars have computers which I imagine will tell you what the fuel consumption is, but to be honest I've never been interested enough even to bother trying to find out which button you press to find out.
Far more interested in the way they go than how much fuel they use to do it.
When they need filling up they need filling up. |
That's all well and good if you pop to the shops once a week. Do 30k per year and it becomes more interesting because a. It's a huge amount of cash and b. The additional range means you don't spend your life at filling stations. |
Yeah - but knowing it doesn't make any difference - if it's an issue for you buy an economical car at the outset, but knowing whether my car does 20mpg or 30mpg isn't going to make any difference to the amount I spend on petrol or the frequency of forecourt visits.
I now only do about 10k a year but when I was doing 30k a year, I still never bothered to find out what my cars did.
Plus if economy is the overriding consideration in your choice of car, a 5 series BMW is hardly the answer - the fuel savings pale into insignificance compared to the cost of buying it!
|
Martin
|
It's just an 'out of interest' thing, that's all!!
Economy as such doesn't make it into the top 10 considerations, but I wouldn't have a car that only did 200-300 miles on a tank. Ideally it would have double that, so I can go 3 days without filling up. I would be happy with a bigger tank and less mpg!
If it makes you feel any better, I popped to Tesco in the MINI this evening (one of the local ones) and it took me about an hour to do the 1 mile journey. There are some great roads not far from me and it was fantastic fun.
I didn't even look at the MPG and I'm paying for that myself....!!
|
Grampa
|
| Martin wrote: | If it makes you feel any better, I popped to Tesco in the MINI this evening (one of the local ones) and it took me about an hour to do the 1 mile journey. There are some great roads not far from me and it was fantastic fun.
I didn't even look at the MPG and I'm paying for that myself....!! |
Glad to see you're back into the spirit of this forum
|
Martin
|
| Grampa wrote: | | Martin wrote: | If it makes you feel any better, I popped to Tesco in the MINI this evening (one of the local ones) and it took me about an hour to do the 1 mile journey. There are some great roads not far from me and it was fantastic fun.
I didn't even look at the MPG and I'm paying for that myself....!! |
Glad to see you're back into the spirit of this forum |
I've not been away
|
Apex clipper
|
60 MPG. Blinking heck.
Do you hoist a sail (Ala JAMES MAY) when favourable winds a allow?
|
TimR
|
I (we, more fairly) got 60mpg out of the Stilo once - over 600 miles and at 47mph.
Not bad for a full load either.
Couldn't get close to it again though
|
scamper
|
I've been drivign around in a poverty spec A4 Avant 2.0tdi 120PS this weekend. Nice enough engine, and i see no need for the 140 or 170 versions, but was quite surprised that the fuel economy seemed no better, at around 43mpg over a wide varienty of driving.
|
gonnabuildabuggy
|
| scamper wrote: | | I've been drivign around in a poverty spec A4 Avant 2.0tdi 120PS this weekend. Nice enough engine, and i see no need for the 140 or 170 versions, but was quite surprised that the fuel economy seemed no better, at around 43mpg over a wide varienty of driving. |
I got 35mpg average from the Jag diesel, but that was driving in a spirited manner no matter what. Based on what I cost the company they saved money with me driving fast to get back to work rather than maximising mpg
|
tali
|
| "him" wrote: | | Boxer6 wrote: | | Pkh72 wrote: |
Hmmm, slightly better than my 27.7 average. |
And a lot better than my 24.6 last weekend. |
I await 'roadsterstu's' MPG figures with interest, though I still think 'tali' will hold the MPG record...
|
Strange goings on - Mway dropped from 25 to 22mpg BUT urban increased from 18 to 20mpg
You win some you lose some.....
As for the 60mpg 520d - a week with me stop start short journeys and you can easily knock 50% off that figure
|
franki68
|
Re: 60.1mpg!if you move the decimal point one place to the left you get the exact fuel consumption of the BMW m6 when I had it.
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
That's why it was called the M6. Though there's no truth in the rumour that the cancelled lightweight version was going to be called the M6 Toll, because it was faster but more expensive.
|
Jasper
|
I can always count on the Dr giving me a wee lunchtime giggle.
60mpg is impressive. I'm glad you're enjoying your new car Martin.
|
Martin
|
Thanks Jasper, it's fantastic, I love it!
Lots of A roads and not too many 90 lepton motorway runs have me on 48.3 at the moment with 500 miles down so I expect it will be a real 46. I'm now driving it properly!!
|
