|
|
12-05-2014, 01:51 PM | #1 |
Captain
126
Rep 641
Posts |
520D Fuel Economy
Just a brief post to ask what MPG those of you with 520D's are getting. I've got an F11 tourer and for a car that weights 1.8 tonnes I'm amazed at the fuel consumption.
63.7MPG from a cold start this morning on my commute which is about 80% dual carriageway. Heated seats and other gizmos draining power too [IMG] Last edited by CraigUK; 12-14-2014 at 02:38 AM.. |
12-06-2014, 02:23 AM | #4 |
Major
46
Rep 1,074
Posts
Drives: 2014 520D SE
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lincolnshire (sometimes)
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2014 BMW 520D SE [0.00]
2012 Audi A7 [0.00] 2013 Fiat 500 1.2 L ... [0.00] 2008 BMW 335D SE To ... [0.00] 2012 Mercedes-Benz ... [0.00] |
See my signature. That's a 6 month average and is much better than I was expecting considering I live 45 minutes from the nearest motorway
By comparison, my previous A7 averaged 37mpg and my 335D Touring (E91) about the same. Also having a manual gearbox results in a lower MPG on the 520D It's also worth pointing out that the OBC reads high so if it's claiming 42.8mpg I would suggest the real number is slightly under 40mpg |
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2014, 03:22 AM | #5 |
Captain
126
Rep 641
Posts |
Thanks for the replies, quite a variation then. I wonder how much is just down to driving style verses other things like gearbox type, fuel etc.
63mpg isn't my usual consumption, so far I've driven the car just under 4k miles and my long term average is 49.5mpg and as has been said I do suspect that reading may be on the high side. I've the auto box too and use standard shell diesel. Am going to try a couple of tanks of VPower diesel to see if it makes any difference. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2014, 10:26 AM | #6 | |
Lieutenant General
6659
Rep 15,858
Posts |
Quote:
I recall a test where two drivers made the same trip, one drove with a more appropriate style, using the engine more efficiently, recorded lower fuel consumption and a higher average speed for the trip. In other words, one wasted fuel. I followed a BMW into town some time ago, he was accelerating and braking all the way, I just sat on a steady throttle with no need to vary speed, use brakes or accelerate. I thought at the time, "what would the difference be in fuel consumption between him and me?" Then we have the variations in conditions. That can double (or halve) the consumption, simply on the extremes of conditions. HighlandPete |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-07-2014, 01:10 PM | #8 |
New Member
0
Rep 24
Posts |
First 10,000 miles from new, average consumption is 5.9 liters/100km or 48 MPG.
For more information about 520d F10/11 consumption you may look here: https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overv...=140&gearing=2 |
Appreciate
0
|
12-08-2014, 03:11 AM | #10 |
Captain
126
Rep 641
Posts |
Wow, pretty good for a 535D. Would love one of those but couldn't find one within my budget. I suppose if you can resist flooring it then it can be very frugal.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-08-2014, 03:57 AM | #11 | |
Lieutenant General
6659
Rep 15,858
Posts |
Quote:
Look at user fuel sites and the 535d averages in the low 30's. Guess not many buy a 535d to get great economy. HighlandPete |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-08-2014, 05:49 AM | #12 |
Private First Class
18
Rep 158
Posts |
As HP says, it's all about:
Constant power, not varying. Keep those turbines at a constant rpm for as long as possible. Massive anticipation, leading to... No braking! That run was mostly 73 mph indicated, with a section at 52 mph indicated (roadworks). Start was from cold, but only 4 miles to the motorway. The nice thing about the 535d is that it can be frugal when you want it to be, and powerful (and thirsty) when you want that. Comfy on the straights, firm and precise round corners (but that's AD doing it's bit). Normal A roads it seems to be mid to low 40's, enthusiastic A roads is high 30's to low 40's. But when being enthusiastic, economy is irrelevant! |
Appreciate
0
|
12-08-2014, 08:40 AM | #13 |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 35
Posts |
With a broad spectrum of road and traffic situations, my average mpg is about 40-45, within the M25.
On motorways (in the home counties), the car comfortably achieves high 50s. Only ever had 60+ on quiet days and on journeys further afield. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-09-2014, 03:19 AM | #14 |
Second Lieutenant
26
Rep 267
Posts |
As you can see, my tank-by-tank MPG is crap ....... on a run tho I often see high 50's .....
__________________
M140i LCI-2 is the 16th BMW since 1977 ....
320i *2, 323i, 520i *2, 540i, 535i, 840i, E36 M5, 328i, 530i, 320d, 535d, M135i, M140i * 2 |
Appreciate
0
|
12-17-2014, 05:31 PM | #15 |
Captain
36
Rep 619
Posts |
This is a really weird one for me.
Colleaugue has a 520d pre LCI with sports auto, drives it everywhere like he stole it and gets 46mpg. I have a 520d LCI, non sports auto and have done some proper nun driving, am very proficient in smooth driving from alot of track work, lack of braking, anticipation etc, and even on long motorway runs, getting more than 46mpg is nigh on impossible. The savings are tiny, but it does chafe a little I have to say, and many of you above are achieving more too it would appear. Real world, I get between 590 and 620 miles tank to tank.
__________________
2017 F10 535d MSport Auto - Mineral Grey - Oyster leather - 19" 351M's - Pro Media - Enhanced bluetooth - MSport rear spoiler - Sun protection glass - Harman Kardon Hifi - Multi Function Display - Ambient Lighting - Folding mirrors - Sunroof - LED adaptive headlights
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-18-2014, 01:53 AM | #16 | |
Major
46
Rep 1,074
Posts
Drives: 2014 520D SE
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lincolnshire (sometimes)
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2014 BMW 520D SE [0.00]
2012 Audi A7 [0.00] 2013 Fiat 500 1.2 L ... [0.00] 2008 BMW 335D SE To ... [0.00] 2012 Mercedes-Benz ... [0.00] |
Quote:
Another variable between you and the next driver is also geography. As I mentioned I have a 45 minute cross country drive before i get to my nearest motorway hence I believe my MPG could be higher still. Perhaps your normal route from home has more hills, roundabouts, traffic lights or something else compared to other drivers |
|
Appreciate
1
|
12-18-2014, 03:25 AM | #17 |
Private First Class
18
Rep 158
Posts |
Piers,
Something is up, either you or the car. I get 46 average without fuss in the 535d. To test the car - get on the motorway, reset the trip meter, put the cruise control on at 60 mph and do at least 30 miles (ideally on a non-windy day). In a 520d LCI you should be above 60 mpg. To test you - this is more difficult because every single driver describes their driving as "normal". I could tell stories about this for hours... Anyway, put it into Eco Pro on the motorway and drive "normally". Does the power meter go up and down when you are at constant speed, or is the meter absolutely stationary? Moving meter = unconscious moving foot = turbo speed constantly changing = poor mpg. A moving foot can cost you 10 mpg. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-18-2014, 06:39 AM | #18 | |
Lieutenant General
6659
Rep 15,858
Posts |
Quote:
Also how do you both record/report the mpg? Long term brim to brim figures, or OBC readings? If it is the OBC, there could be quite a variation in accuracy over two cars. I go along with Pottsy in running a test at constant speed, when you are out on the motorway, reset the OBC, see what you get. On driving styles, because someone looks as if they drive harder, still many factors which skew the consumption. They may drive quite hard, but often their conditions can give better mpg simply that they may be cruising more miles at steady speeds, between their harder accelerations. Also remember quick efficient accelerations can be the best way to gain speed. Load the engine harder in the most efficient range, for less seconds than lower loads at less efficiency. If not slightly better mpg, it is often no worse than under accelerating "inefficiently". Plus it is more fun. HighlandPete |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-18-2014, 11:53 AM | #19 | |
New Member
0
Rep 24
Posts |
Quote:
I agree with your point about comparing OBC readings, they are not that accurate. I've been checking brim to brim vs OBC for the past two years and my conclusion is that at least in my car, the OBC is always optimistic and the optimism varies between 2% and 7%. Regarding the driving technique, I have to disagree with you. A hard acceleration to reach a given speed is one of the worst forms of fuel wasting with a turbo diesel. Any cyclist will tell you that it takes a lot of energy to accelerate hard. A gentle acceleration to reach the same speed saves a lot of energy. Your definition of "efficient" and "inefficient" may have to be revised. That used to be the case with normally aspirated petrol (low compression) engines. Thermal efficiency is maximum for normally aspirated engines, or any engine for that matter, when cylinders are fully filled with air fuel mixture. Why is that? Is because the thermal efficiency of internal combustion engines increases with the true/actual compression. If the cylinder is only partially filled then the actual compression is lower and efficiency is lower. This argument does not apply for turbo diesel engines, they always work close to the maximum compression. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-19-2014, 04:28 AM | #20 | |
Lieutenant General
6659
Rep 15,858
Posts |
Quote:
Too low a load in our turbo engines and we move away from best point consumption. Engine efficiency is not good, neither is our fuel consumption, our BSFC map tells us that at a glance. Plus we are talking of time in lower gears, at less efficient engine loads if we don't work the engine enough. I'm not talking about WOT and high revs, but using loads that reduce g/kW-Hr (plus time factor) based on our BSFC map. The point of the original comment, driving Miss Daisy style, compared to someone making a bit more progress, doesn't mean the faster driver is using more fuel. Acceleration loads closer to best point BSFC and getting into top gear more quickly, can be as (or more) economical. HighlandPete |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-19-2014, 12:27 PM | #21 |
Second Lieutenant
56
Rep 225
Posts |
The OBC tends to be less accurate than brim to brim measurements in my experience. You can go into the menu and change the OBC calibration so it more closely matches brim to brim measurements though.
You could if you wanted use the correction factor in the hidden menu to make the quoted MPG the same as the actual MPG. Here's how: 1. Hold down the odometer reset button and turn the ignition on by pushing start/stop button. 2. Release the odometer reset button, and you should see a menu of 4 items on the dashboard. From here on, use the odo-reset button to advance to the next entry through a short press, and to select through a long press. 3. Choose the one that says Unlock through the above, which will take you to a passkey screen. Your passkey is the sum of the last 5 digits of your VIN. Increment the two-digit number until you get to it, and with the long press of the odo button, select it. 4.then scroll down to correction factor and modify it from 1000 to whatever you require, mine is at 964 and it's now almost spot on every fill up. Standard factor is 1000 going up above 1000 reduces the mpg on the dash, below 1000 increases the mpg reading. I got this from someone else but it worked for me. The OBC on mine was 5 - 7% optimistic, so I changed it from the default setting of 1000 up to 1060 (so -6%) and now the OBC is rarely more than 1% away from the brim to brim measurement. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-27-2015, 06:59 AM | #22 |
Captain
126
Rep 641
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|