wilffive

Am driving a new Mini Cooper Diesel at the moment.

Claimed MPG for this motor is something like 68mpg on combined. I cant get anywhere near this - 43mpg is my best. This experience reflects other modern BMWs I have driven - 3 series and 1 Series in last few months.

Yet when I drive round my e46 M3 Cab I get bang on the combined mpg figure of 25mpg.

Anyone tell me whats going on??

drb5

iTrader: (4)

Down to the way you drive and the roads IMHO.

We've only had our S a week and atm the average we are getting is now UP TO over 38mpg, with more to come....it's constantly going up. It's supposed to get nearly 46, so i don't think that's too bad, bearing in mind i am North of the border and it's fairly hilly round here.

On a motorway run, the S is then ment to get over 50, which i think is entirely possible.

Maybe your feeling the need to push the go-pedal a bit more because it's a deisel and you want it to "get going"?

wilffive

I can only put it down to the fact the car is brand new at the moment.

MPG aside the Cooper D is a fine little car. Feels surprisingly quick as well.

Andy M3

Chap at work has a 177hp 120d m-sport. Currently making 38mpg, thats 5 up on his previous '02 330d, but 20mpg down on what BMW claim. However I always work out mpg as 75% of the manufacturers combined figure and I know that figure is nearer reality for me. This way I never buy a car expecting high mpg and getting different results.

stilover

I always take manufacturers mpg figure with a pinch of salt. You never acheive what they state. You only would if you drove everywhere at a constant 55 mph, which is impossible.

Headline figure sell cars.

drb5

iTrader: (4)

They are DEFINATELY a lot better than they used to be, but yes manufacturers figures are always higher than in real life.

Blueblaster

Manufacturer's claims can be beaten. I have done it in my Civic - 73mpg on the way to work is my best and 66mpg for the whole tank. This is trip computer and petrol pump verified. Yours is a common complaint and, without wishing to appear rude, it is because you aren't driving the car properly. You have to be very light on the throttle and the brakes and drive very smoothly. It might have a sporty chassis, but you can't drive your Mini with enthusiasm and expect to get the manufacturer's claimed economy. It's impossible. You have to THINK economy all the time. This is why so many people are not happy with their Toyota Prius'. They expect to be able to whizz around all over the place and get 55-60mpg. Ain't going to happen.

After you next fill up try driving without ever revving the engine beyond 2000rpm, look miles down the road to anticipate traffic to allow minimal braking and cruise on the motorway at 60mph. This will give you an idea of what is possible - it should be at least as good as BMW claims. Driving economically requires as much skill as driving quickly.

And before everyone tells me they'd rather eat raw road kill than drive this way you may soon have no choice. Fuel is going to get much more expensive and you are going to have to realise your style of driving will have as much influence on fuel economy as the actual car you drive. You might also discover you quite enjoy it - there is a smug satisfaction at saving yourself a BIG bundle of tenners every month and it is remarkably relaxing to trundle along and not get worked up about some **** in the outside lane sticking rigidly to 70mph.

richs2891

Think you have to take them with a pinch of salt to be honest, I could beat the quoted fgures that Subaru put for my old MY05 WRX, I can get very close to the offical figures for my curent S3,
but I can get absolutely no where close to the fugures that Audi claim for their A3 170 TDI. There are a few people that have mentioned this on Audi-sport as well. I put it down to the fact that the loan A3 170 TDI is brand new & a tight engine and I'm probably driving it like a petrol engine, But so far not that impressed fuel wise.

Richard

Dracoro

I guess some manufacturers are better than others at giving figures.

For example, the S2000 quoted mpg figure is 28mpg. This is pretty much bang on what I get each tank, every tank. A bit less if I'm caning it everywhere and a bit more if I stay out of vtec. My other halfs 1.6 focus on the other hand is a fair way off it's quoted mpg.

I think with smaller engined or diesel engined cars, manufacturers are more "optimistic" with their claims as this is a selling point for these type of cars. Sports cars or large engined cars aren't, on the whole, bought due to their economy so the figures tend to be more realistic.

On the whole, people want to know what they WILL get on average, not what they "CAN" get on average.

Shark Man

BMW figures generally aren't far off IMO (unlike Subaru ). Big issue with turbo diesels is using the turbo too much and using too many revs. i.e driving it like a petrol. Drop it in top gear as soon as the engine can pull in it...generally that'll be 1500rpm; about 25-30mph for most diesels. And keep below 2000rpm where possible, it makes a big difference to MPG (same tactic works withs some petrol engines, but most modern gutless petrols will spit hissy fits if you try a slog them at low revs )


Meanwhile, I'm still trying to fathom why a 6.0 Monaro can do 23mpg in heavy city traffic, whilst a BMW 325 struggles. It just Doesn't make sense.

RJM25R

iTrader: (1)

MPG figures quoted by manufacturers are generall way off the mark when the car is new, I work for VW and have had a variety of different cars and until they have 3,000 miles under their belt the MPG figures are different to the claims. However, they are pretty accurate on all the derv models after that, and some of the GT-TSI and GTI figures are pure fantasy in my opinion!

TBH the Subaru I own has pretty shocking fuel economy, but as a second car it's not too bad. How I feel for people who have it as a main car and commute!!!!!

Scooby-Doo

In my old Toyota RAV4 I could just get the combined on the motorway.

Nigel H

We've got a new Cooper and I'm highly impressed. It's just about as economical as the Smart we ran before that. It'll do a fairly constant 43-45 to the gallon over a 300 or so weekly round trip. The BMW figures for it are

Fuel Consumption:: (Manual)

Urban Fuel40.9 mpg
Extra Urban62.8 mpg
Combined52.3 mpg

So we're better than the Urban but worse than the other two. Watching the trip computer is a bit of an education. The fuel goes down quickly with a heavy right foot as well as speed.

Still it's much better than my 22mpg Scoob

Blueblaster

If you buy a small diesel then you have to accept it is a slower car than your big gas guzzler. No point buying a small economical car and then thrashing the pants off it. You must THINK ECONOMY ALL THE TIME.

skinters

Check the Parkers MPG figure for the car in the tech data. Oddly, all the cars I have had sit pretty much on this 'generic' figure in normal driving.

Just looked at it says 72mpg for the Mini D .. hmm does seem a little high though.

rb5_336

Because it has oddles more torque and doesnt need to be revved to go anywhere, probably spends most if it's life idleing

rb5_336

That's really pants MPG isn't it. My 2001 330d sport does 43 MPG with a combination of motorway (mostly) and town driving

alanbell

iTrader: (6)

My 535 d "M" Sport , best up to now 28mpg >> Im not a slow driver,

dpb

Funily enough my 2l diesel mondeo grumbles like a good un if you drive at 25 in fourth let alone 6th whilst my xsara 1.6 petrol would easily cope with the same in 5th -albeit smaller engine

nooobyscoooby

It will take 5,000 miles to start getting anywhere near.

At 10K it should be there or thereabouts.

Thrash the bluddy thing too - don't mess about with it - they go much, much better and will use less oil too.