[B]E90 325i Fuel Consumption Figures[/B]

[rookie]

Updated after facing a few days of terrible jams :dontknow:

Bimmer910 320i : 8.6 ltr/100km; avg speed: 51.2 km/h
Rookie 320i : 9.3ltr/100km; avg speed: 38.8km/h
GHS 320i : 11.9ltr/100km; avg speed: 53.6km/h
danc 325i : 11.3ltr/100km; avg speed: 43.9km/h
Cobra Kai 325i Sports: 11.6/100km; avg speed: 48.0km/h
bmrocket 325i : 12.4/100km; avg speed: 39.0km/h
JPB 323i : 13.3ltr/100km; avg speed: 36.4km/h
E46F 325i : 14.7ltr/100km; avg speed: 28km/h
David Yong 325i : 15.9ltr/100km; avg speed: 29.2km/h

 

[Rimsukan]

Here's mine :

Bimmer910 320i : 8.6 ltr/100km; avg speed: 51.2 km/h
Rookie 320i : 9.3ltr/100km; avg speed: 38.8km/h
GHS 320i : 11.9ltr/100km; avg speed: 53.6km/h
danc 325i : 11.3ltr/100km; avg speed: 43.9km/h
Cobra Kai 325i Sports: 11.6/100km; avg speed: 48.0km/h
bmrocket 325i : 12.4/100km; avg speed: 39.0km/h
JPB 323i : 13.3ltr/100km; avg speed: 36.4km/h
E46F 325i : 14.7ltr/100km; avg speed: 28km/h
David Yong 325i : 15.9ltr/100km; avg speed: 29.2km/h
Rimsukan 325i : 13.2ltr/100km; avg speed: 38.5km/h; mileage 5k

JPB, I see that yours & mine are quite similar...

 

[Bimmer910]

After traffic for past 2 days:

Bimmer910 320i : 8.8 ltr/100km; avg speed: 46.0 km/h
Rookie 320i : 9.3ltr/100km; avg speed: 38.8km/h
GHS 320i : 11.9ltr/100km; avg speed: 53.6km/h
danc 325i : 11.3ltr/100km; avg speed: 43.9km/h
Cobra Kai 325i Sports: 11.6/100km; avg speed: 48.0km/h
bmrocket 325i : 12.4/100km; avg speed: 39.0km/h
JPB 323i : 13.3ltr/100km; avg speed: 36.4km/h
E46F 325i : 14.7ltr/100km; avg speed: 28km/h
David Yong 325i : 15.9ltr/100km; avg speed: 29.2km/h
Rimsukan 325i : 13.2ltr/100km; avg speed: 38.5km/h; mileage 5k

Mileage now reads 90915 kmsQUOTE]

 

[Juan Powerblow]

Hey, Rimsukan! Yeah, I noticed that too! With 28 bhp less, I'm suppose to be more economical though. Further, my mileage is also 5k! Ok lah, ngam ngam!

 

[Traveler]

I did some extensive data collection on my FC and would like to share my numbers:

325i Sports, driven for 1198km (started from mileage reading around 5.8k km to 7.0k km).
100% city driving (KL). Average speed 30.2km/h. Fuel consumption: 7.0km/ltr (or 14.29ltr/100km).

 

[Juan Powerblow]

Your findings are quite consistent with ours.

 

[rookie]

I did some extensive data collection on my FC and would like to share my numbers:

325i Sports, driven for 1198km (started from mileage reading around 5.8k km to 7.0k km).
100% city driving (KL). Average speed 30.2km/h. Fuel consumption: 7.0km/ltr (or 14.29ltr/100km).

The car and engine is still relatively new, so the fuel consumption should improve over time. My 320i has sort of settled at 9.3ltr/100km even though Avg. speed has been fluctuating between 51km/h and 40km/h

 

[peanut]

Perhaps the most 'disappointing' part of my new 325i sports is the gas consumption. I got nothing near to the 9 l/100km as published by BMW. Granted the figure is meant for 1/3 city and 2/3 extra-urban but my old E39 528 seems to perform better in this department.

In mostly city driving, my 325 consumption ranges from 14 l/100km to 15 l/100km. My old 528 delivered 12-13 l/100km. This is surpprising consider the 528 is heavier.

I noticed that every time I start from stop, the gas consumption needle is going all the way to the right (i.e. over 20l/100km). This is less obvious for the E39 528.

 

[Juan Powerblow]

I recall hearing from someone that in stop-go situation, the gearbox moves from 2nd gear and he managed to improve his consumption by manually selecting M1. I'm quite disappointed with the consumption on my 323i too. The thing is engine performance is quite OK with you prod convincingly enough cos the engine is nicely free-revving but this then kills the consumption. I just don't get enough satisfying torque if I use a light foot.

 

[E46Fanatic]

Although the pubished specs of the N52 is supposed to be 10% more fuel efficient to its predessor M54, I don't see this either in the real world. If anything, the E90 drinks more fuel than the E46. I do suspect its them darn overweight RFTs!

Only DY has non RFTs but he is also on aftermarket rims (which could be heavier). Anyone here with stock rims but non-RFTs care to share your FC readings before and after the RFT swap?

 

[Juan Powerblow]

Although the pubished specs of the N52 is supposed to be 10% more fuel efficient to its predessor M54, I don't see this either in the real world. If anything, the E90 drinks more fuel than the E46. I do suspect its them darn overweight RFTs!

Only DY has non RFTs but he is also on aftermarket rims (which could be heavier). Anyone here with stock rims but non-RFTs care to share your FC readings before and after the RFT swap?

That's a brilliant observation cos the E90 has no weight disadvantage over the E46 except for the RFTs. So, you non-RFT E90 owners, please share share your findings! :top:

 

[peanut]

Although the pubished specs of the N52 is supposed to be 10% more fuel efficient to its predessor M54, I don't see this either in the real world. If anything, the E90 drinks more fuel than the E46. I do suspect its them darn overweight RFTs!

Only DY has non RFTs but he is also on aftermarket rims (which could be heavier). Anyone here with stock rims but non-RFTs care to share your FC readings before and after the RFT swap?

Are you sure is the heavier RFTs? Don't forget that with RFTs, you don't have spare and theoretically the weight difference is negligible? I still think that it is the high consumption during the acceleration from 0 km/h (stop) that contributes to high gas consumption overall.

 

[Schwepps]

More fuel efficient doesn't necessarily mean less fuel consumed. It also means higher power output from the same amount of fuel. So don't be disappointed with the N52 just coz there's no drop in your fuel bill. It's a silky engine.

 

[James Chun]

My E39 525i Is Doing Only 7.7litre/100km If I Keep Driving Constant at 80km/h On Highway , haha!

But If I drive at 170km/h Or Higher, The Fuel Consumption Will Go Up To 12Litre/100km Max.

I Think My Car Fuel Consumption Is Economical For BMW Cars......

 

[peanut]

More fuel efficient doesn't necessarily mean less fuel consumed. It also means higher power output from the same amount of fuel. So don't be disappointed with the N52 just coz there's no drop in your fuel bill. It's a silky engine.

Aren't all BMW straight sixes silky smooth?
On paper, 325i should be more fuel efficient in terms of gas consumption too (at least compared to my 528i).

 

[rookie]

I may be wrong, but I believe most of the E9x owned by our members are pretty new, except for a handful of owners. FC should probably get better over time.

 

[Schwepps]

Aren't all BMW straight sixes silky smooth?
On paper, 325i should be more fuel efficient in terms of gas consumption too (at least compared to my 528i).

Yeah they sure are! :rock: I think the N52 is sweeter than the previous generation though in terms of power, torque and flexibility.

When comparing engine dynamics on paper, look at total power output, power per cc, torque per cc, and power to weight ratios too. And going further, the power and torque curves. Of the N-series, BMW said "Fuel efficient" not "Lower fuel consumption"

 

[Bimmer910]

My latest fuel stats and such (July 2005 320i CBU)

1. Cars Mileage Reads : 96441kms
2. Range Travelled since Tuesday : 402kms
3. Average Speed : 59.1kms (highway and bi-way)
4. Fuel Consumption : 8.1 l/100km

 

[Spaceman]

mine is 10.8l/100km, E90 325i 19" staggerred

 

[Juan Powerblow]

mine is 10.8l/100km, E90 325i 19" staggerred

Wow! That's nice! What's your average speed, Spaceman?