2.0 or not 2.0 that is the query

[aquazi]

No not driven a 3.0 zed. Perhaps I should and compare it to my humble 2.0.
Still get loads of satisfaction driving mine though.

Maybe not a good idea to try a 3.0L until you fancy a chnage of cars then!

I was very happy with my S2K - until i test drove a 2.5si Z4 - knew i wanted one after that.

After a bit of shopping around - and having to wait for my insurance to be up for renewal I bought a 3.0 without even driving it first - oh the joy

 

[Tweed]

My neighbour has a 2.0, I have a 3.2 MC. there are days I'd love to have 40mpg he has reported on occasion, there are days when he'd like to have the grin I have after a spirited drive in the M.

I've managed 43mpg average ( well, ok... 42.8 ) on a drive from Cambridge to Manchester in my 3.0se!

Cruise control at 70, leave plenty of space and use the gears to slow down approaching junctions etc so you don't use the brakes. Then pull away sensibly (Don't have to get all Driving Miss Daisy about it, just resist the urge!).

Did take a fair amount of will power and isn't as much fun, but it can be done!

 

[mrklaw]

My neighbour has a 2.0, I have a 3.2 MC. there are days I'd love to have 40mpg he has reported on occasion, there are days when he'd like to have the grin I have after a spirited drive in the M.

I've managed 43mpg average ( well, ok... 42.8 ) on a drive from Cambridge to Manchester in my 3.0se!

Cruise control at 70, leave plenty of space and use the gears to slow down approaching junctions etc so you don't use the brakes. Then pull away sensibly (Don't have to get all Driving Miss Daisy about it, just resist the urge!).

Did take a fair amount of will power and isn't as much fun, but it can be done!

thats surprising. I've only driven mine for a few days (3.0si auto) and when cruising on the motorway it seems to be at almost 3k revs at 80mph, which is higher than my E92 coupe was. So I'm assuming its thirstier, and I only ever got an indicated 26mpg from my coupe.

 

[aquazi]

be at almost 3k revs at 80mph, which is higher than my E92 coupe was.

Surely you meant to say 70mph! :lol:

I have had mine got over 42mpg if i reset it on the motorway and drive a steady 70mph - which is under 3k rpm. I do a 13 mile trip to work down the A38 - in the morning i get 31mpg - the first few miles under 20mpg while the car warms up (as its often close to freezing) My return trip in the evening i get 38 mpg... so it seems temperature makes a big difference too.

 

[Tweed]

thats surprising. I've only driven mine for a few days (3.0si auto) and when cruising on the motorway it seems to be at almost 3k revs at 80mph, which is higher than my E92 coupe was. So I'm assuming its thirstier, and I only ever got an indicated 26mpg from my coupe.

were you being quite heavy with the accelerator though? I usually get around 25-26mpg around the city and 33-35mpg normal motorway driving. That of course drops dramatically when I find a nice bit of road, turn sport on and open the taps!

I've been very pleasantly surprised at the fuel efficiency that can be gotten out of the 3.0. Admittedly on the 43mpg occasion the car had already warmed up when I remembered to reset the counter, but I was still on a b road, hadn't joined the main roads yet! (and it was a gorgeous sunny day... Even had the top down the whole way!)

 

[cj10jeeper]

Cruise control at 70, leave plenty of space and use the gears to slow down approaching junctions etc so you don't use the brakes.

Humour me - what has using gears to slow down and not the brakes got to do with fuel economy?
I would understand if you meant not dipping the clutch and coasting as anti stall systems cut in and burn fuel to keep the engine running, Vs overun where it shuts off fully

 

[Tweed]

The energy used by the brakes to stop the car is turned to heat and effectively lost, right? Many people will drive right up to a junction, then apply the breaks to slow down, staying in 5th/6th.

If you start to slow early, shift down and use the engine's resistance to slow you (obviously I don't mean put it in 2nd at 70!), then use the brake just to stop. It's the same effect as not coasting; the engine uses little to no-fuel.

 

[cj10jeeper]

The energy used by the brakes to stop the car is turned to heat and effectively lost, right? Many people will drive right up to a junction, then apply the breaks to slow down, staying in 5th/6th.

If you start to slow early, shift down and use the engine's resistance to slow you (obviously I don't mean put it in 2nd at 70!), then use the brake just to stop. It's the same effect as not coasting; the engine uses little to no-fuel.

OK, so unless you have a brake energy regenration system it makes no difference if you slow with the brakes or gears...It's all just lost energy dissipated through heat and noise. Of course the forward planning to come off the throttle and arrive at the junction smoothly is good practice and timing so you don't have to come to a stop, even better.

Strangely in soem fuel economy test people who floored it to 70, set the cruise control then braked hard at the end achieved the same economy as those who gently accelerated up to speed. Seems the time on constant throttle overcame the increased use in accelerating and on part throttle.

 

[un1eash]

My plan to upgrade to a 3.0si from my 2.0 have been put on hold as the prices havent come down at all.

Cheapest 2007 2.0 SE is £14290 on BMW and 3.0 SE is £18481. Ive never had a car that is actually worth more then what i paid for it over 14 months ago.

 

[Beancounter1980]

My plan to upgrade to a 3.0si from my 2.0 have been put on hold as the prices havent come down at all.

Cheapest 2007 2.0 SE is £14290 on BMW and 3.0 SE is £18481. Ive never had a car that is actually worth more then what i paid for it over 14 months ago.

I agree on the prices...

3.0i SE's were as low as 8k at one time i think,.....

 

[csmith319]

The energy used by the brakes to stop the car is turned to heat and effectively lost, right? Many people will drive right up to a junction, then apply the breaks to slow down, staying in 5th/6th.

If you start to slow early, shift down and use the engine's resistance to slow you (obviously I don't mean put it in 2nd at 70!), then use the brake just to stop. It's the same effect as not coasting; the engine uses little to no-fuel.

OK, so unless you have a brake energy regenration system it makes no difference if you slow with the brakes or gears...It's all just lost energy dissipated through heat and noise. Of course the forward planning to come off the throttle and arrive at the junction smoothly is good practice and timing so you don't have to come to a stop, even better.

Strangely in soem fuel economy test people who floored it to 70, set the cruise control then braked hard at the end achieved the same economy as those who gently accelerated up to speed. Seems the time on constant throttle overcame the increased use in accelerating and on part throttle.

So the only difference is that once you come off the throttle, you use more fuel if you dip the clutch - if you do this small amounts of fuel are injected to idle the engine. If you let it slow down on the gears then the engine takes no fuel if you don't use the throttle.

However - a little academic - it isn't going to change your average MPG by anything measurable, and the heat in your brakes ain't gonna make a difference either.

The biggest impact to fuel economy is how heavy you are with the throttle and then you change gear - not how you brake!!!

 

[gannet]

Ive always driven with the mantra - every time you hit the brake you waste fuel... think about it

good planning means less braking with the brake pedal

and never ever 'coast' with the clutch depressed

 

[lacroupade]

Another comment on this subject.

It was a lovely sunny day yesterday(sunday) so it was clean the car,(not that it was dirty),top down and a nice 80 mile drive through the Welsh countryside.
Really enjoyed it, and wether I had a 2.0 or a 3.0 would have made no difference.I have a 2.0 by the way.Power isn't everything.

Have you driven a 3.0 before?

Have you driven through the Welsh countryside before?

 

[cj10jeeper]

The energy used by the brakes to stop the car is turned to heat and effectively lost, right? Many people will drive right up to a junction, then apply the breaks to slow down, staying in 5th/6th.

If you start to slow early, shift down and use the engine's resistance to slow you (obviously I don't mean put it in 2nd at 70!), then use the brake just to stop. It's the same effect as not coasting; the engine uses little to no-fuel.

OK, so unless you have a brake energy regenration system it makes no difference if you slow with the brakes or gears...It's all just lost energy dissipated through heat and noise. Of course the forward planning to come off the throttle and arrive at the junction smoothly is good practice and timing so you don't have to come to a stop, even better.

Strangely in soem fuel economy test people who floored it to 70, set the cruise control then braked hard at the end achieved the same economy as those who gently accelerated up to speed. Seems the time on constant throttle overcame the increased use in accelerating and on part throttle.

So the only difference is that once you come off the throttle, you use more fuel if you dip the clutch - if you do this small amounts of fuel are injected to idle the engine. If you let it slow down on the gears then the engine takes no fuel if you don't use the throttle.

However - a little academic - it isn't going to change your average MPG by anything measurable, and the heat in your brakes ain't gonna make a difference either.

The biggest impact to fuel economy is how heavy you are with the throttle and then you change gear - not how you brake!!!

I agree it's academic in terms of MPG, but an interesting diversion. I'd argue using the gears to slow will save no fuel at all. during the downchanges it's unlikely that the injectors will need to add fuel for that momnetary dip of revs. Big 'no-no' is to coast which of course breaks control of the engine to wheels and puts fuel in to keep the engine ticking over. Strangely current driver training is to not change gear as slowing down rather just brake steadily and do block changes 5:2 then 1 as you stop, etc. I know as my daughter and all her peers are in that age group.

Overall I'm with gannet here that it's planning. Braking wastes all that hard earned momentum, so I do all I can to approach any obstacle at just slow enough to be able to continue without stopping. Of course on spirited driving all that goes out of th ewindow as it does on Jeeps where my best days can take 6 to 8 hours to cover perhaps 5 miles and use a tank of petrol

 

[jazzmonkey]

Have you driven through the Welsh countryside before? [/quote]

Yes many times.... I live there

 

[lacroupade]

Have you driven through the Welsh countryside before?

Yes many times.... I live there [/quote]

Well it was Peddy I was asking of course, but you'll know exactly where I'm coming from, espcially as you're closer to Brunstrom country (if not in it?) than me.....even down here, camera vans are rife and while some of the roads are fantastic for a good fast car, most others are pretty lethal and much better enjoyed in a degree of comfort....when I drive home from Oxfordshire I try and do it in the dark to avoid such things......point being, in many parts of the country, a very fast car with thin rubber is pretty much an irrelevance....

 

[Beancounter1980]

I've noticed MPG has improved with my newly retro-fitted cruise stalk!

 

[jazzmonkey]

Have you driven through the Welsh countryside before?

Yes many times.... I live there

Well it was Peddy I was asking of course, but you'll know exactly where I'm coming from, espcially as you're closer to Brunstrom country (if not in it?) than me.....even down here, camera vans are rife and while some of the roads are fantastic for a good fast car, most others are pretty lethal and much better enjoyed in a degree of comfort....when I drive home from Oxfordshire I try and do it in the dark to avoid such things......point being, in many parts of the country, a very fast car with thin rubber is pretty much an irrelevance.... [/quote]

Sorry I thought you were asking me. Luckily we have got rid of Brunstrom and camera vans seem to be on the decrease....or perhaps I just am lucky and miss them more..