Typical mpg for e89 20i ‘13 plate??

[Z4e89G]

Hi all

Just recently picked up a e89 Msport 20i and very happy with it, but I am still getting use to the higher fuel consumption than my previous 1 series. I’ve accepted that I’ve just got to swallow it and just enjoy the car, but I was curious as to what a ‘typical’ average mpg should sit at for the car?

Currently running at 29mpg with some ‘spirited’ driving.

Thanks!

 

[mr.tourette]

sounds low to me but ill wait for an actual 2.0 owner to chime in

 

[Z4e89G]

sounds low to me but ill wait for an actual 2.0 owner to chime in

Thanks - must admit I have only really been town driving. Milton Keynes isn’t the most mpg friendly of driving towns....

 

[obewan]

On my runs to work (6 miles) and in mainly 30-40 mph limits, I get 28-30 in winter and about 32-33 in summer
Long runs (dual carriageway/motorway) sticking to around the limit :wink: I get 38-42

 

[Ole gits rule]

Wow can get that from my 6 cyl 23i and did 80 miles last week 60 on M/way and saw 45

 

[Silverstar]

Wow can get that from my 6 cyl 23i and did 80 miles last week 60 on M/way and saw 45

Very true! The NA 6 cylinder on the motorway is extremely good, on a long run I get around 40 to 44MPG. If it's strictly town driving then the economy suffers a bit but I can still achieve 24MPG if I am light footed.

OP what version of the 1 series did you have that you are comparing the Z4 20i to?

 

[Ole gits rule]

Wow can get that from my 6 cyl 23i and did 80 miles last week 60 on M/way and saw 45

Very true! The NA 6 cylinder on the motorway is extremely good, on a long run I get around 40 to 44MPG. If it's strictly town driving then the economy suffers a bit but I can still achieve 24MPG if I am light footed.

OP what version of the 1 series did you have that you are comparing the Z4 20i to?

Yes I was amazed at the mpg on a run and round town(iso), I am getting high 20's so more than happy with that all round

 

[jabber]

My 14 plate 2.0 averages about 28-30 most of my trips are fairly short and in traffic, my previous 3.0 e89 used to do 30mpg with the same use

 

[SV8Predator]

32mpg with mine as an average, but if I was just driving from roundabout to roundabout in MK, then I'd be happy with 29.

 

[Z4e89G]

Wow can get that from my 6 cyl 23i and did 80 miles last week 60 on M/way and saw 45

Very true! The NA 6 cylinder on the motorway is extremely good, on a long run I get around 40 to 44MPG. If it's strictly town driving then the economy suffers a bit but I can still achieve 24MPG if I am light footed.

OP what version of the 1 series did you have that you are comparing the Z4 20i to?

Cheers for the reply - Seems similar to what I’m getting at the moment.

I previously had a 120d Msport so quite the difference in economy. But as expected!

 

[Z4e89G]

32mpg with mine as an average, but if I was just driving from roundabout to roundabout in MK, then I'd be happy with 29.

Ah, good to know, thanks

 

[Silverstar]

Wow can get that from my 6 cyl 23i and did 80 miles last week 60 on M/way and saw 45

Very true! The NA 6 cylinder on the motorway is extremely good, on a long run I get around 40 to 44MPG. If it's strictly town driving then the economy suffers a bit but I can still achieve 24MPG if I am light footed.

OP what version of the 1 series did you have that you are comparing the Z4 20i to?

Cheers for the reply - Seems similar to what I’m getting at the moment.

I previously had a 120d Msport so quite the difference in economy. But as expected!

Yep as you say coming from the diesel, it's to be expected.

 

[Ole gits rule]

Yep as you say coming from the diesel, it's to be expected.
[/quote]

120D is pretty economical, ours is great.

My Alfa Spider diesel was terrible, getting more on a run out of the Z4

 

[MACK]

Pottering around town short trips circa 33ish. Only 2-3 up on my e85 3.0i. Its actually gone up a bit since my remap last summer, it was more like 30 before. Still its alot better than our old 2.0 remapped scirroco, similar around town driving and that was returning circa 27mpg

 

[tiglon]

Surprised it's so low for the 20i. My 30i averaged 31.5 and that was living in Central London, so definitely not spending much time cruising at 70!

I suppose smaller turbo engines are designed for low emissions not high mpg. I have a 3 cylinder focus that is only mid-high 30's, and its less than a third of the size of the 30i...

 

[Anonymous]

The ‘issue’ with the N20 engined E89s is that with a very fat and flat torque curve compared to the N52 and predecessor engines where the torque curve has less peak torque and has much more of a peak and is delivered at relatively high rpm, it’s very easy to move ‘expeditiously’ without apparently ‘driving hard’

Ignoring transmission related losses, manuals being best, followed by 8HP autos then 6HP autos then slush boxes..the fuel consumption is related to the bhp generated per measure of fuel burnt.

The duality of earlier engines is that if you keep the revs low your progress is slower than an N20 due to less torque being available, conversely if you keep one of the earlier engines on the boil it’s operating at peak torque which also happens to be the best specific fuel consumption for bhp created.

So when you distill all that down the N20 is much more sensitive to the drivers approach.

If he consciously short shifts, either in manual or comfort mode if auto and uses modest throttle then it will be slightly more economical than the predecessors..if he just presses the pedal and makes good progress he will probably burn more fuel.

This is best illustrated on the 40 plus days over 4 years of going on Z4 runs...what I found when we came to top the tanks up time was that if I was ‘tail end charlie’ then my fuel consumption was equal too or better than the E85s, however if I was ‘run leader’ my fuel consumption was around 5 litres worse in 45 litres burnt..

 

[Jameszy]

The ‘issue’ with the N20 engined E89s is that with a very fat and flat torque curve compared to the N52 and predecessor engines where the torque curve has less peak torque and has much more of a peak and is delivered at relatively high rpm, it’s very easy to move ‘expeditiously’ without apparently ‘driving hard’

Ignoring transmission related losses, manuals being best, followed by 8HP autos then 6HP autos then slush boxes..the fuel consumption is related to the bhp generated per measure of fuel burnt.

The duality of earlier engines is that if you keep the revs low your progress is slower than an N20 due to less torque being available, conversely if you keep one of the earlier engines on the boil it’s operating at peak torque which also happens to be the best specific fuel consumption for bhp created.

So when you distill all that down the N20 is much more sensitive to the drivers approach.

If he consciously short shifts, either in manual or comfort mode if auto and uses modest throttle then it will be slightly more economical than the predecessors..if he just presses the pedal and makes good progress he will probably burn more fuel.

This is best illustrated on the 40 plus days over 4 years of going on Z4 runs...what I found when we came to top the tanks up time was that if I was ‘tail end charlie’ then my fuel consumption was equal too or better than the E85s, however if I was ‘run leader’ my fuel consumption was around 5 litres worse in 45 litres burnt..

Great summary