BMW 316i vs Golf GTI

ION08

Hi ,

Im currently driving a re-mapped 01 GOLF GTI 1.8T and its costing me a good bit in petrol as I have quite a long daily commute.

I get 30mpg to and from work but mixed with weekend urban driving, i'm averaging about 25/26mpg each week.

I now have the opportunity to acquire an 01 BMW 316i e46 with 73k miles.

These are a 1.9 petrol engine and rated at 105bhp i think, which surprised me a bit (not in a good way)

I'm wondering should I trade down to this, and I'm wondering if the MPG will be noticeably better in one of these?

Any thoughts, comments, opinions on the 316i's !?

colm_mcm

I doubt the BMW will save you money.

George Dalton

It would probably be slightly better on fuel but not significantly.

colm_mcm

Why not go back to standard map?

George Dalton

Mapping makes little or no difference to fuel consumption in my experience, it can even improve it in some cases. My own car is mapped and is actually slightly better on fuel than a standard version.

colm_mcm

Id be expecting better than 26 combined

bazz26

Depends how heavy the OP's right foot is also.

Gary ITR

colm_mcm wrote: »

Id be expecting better than 26 combined

That really depends on the driver. With a decent map the car should be slighty better on fuel. With mapping all you're really doing is making the fuelling more efficient

barura

If it's also a comfort thing, wouldn't the BMW be a nicer drive? It should be nicer for motorway cruising as it's a saloon/coupe body. (I'm not trying to start a debate about it, that's just my opinion!)

OP, why not ask the guy who owns it for his MPG figures? My bro has one and gets 40mpg, but that's the 1.6 liter, I can imagine that the 1.9 would return similar results.

mfceiling

*pages octavia tdi*

mondeo

I wouldn't see a 316i as an opportunity. I think your golf gti is far more desirable. What you need to do is adjust your driving style and that will make the difference in mpg in my experience. A 316 is a heavy yoke for 105bhp. the 318i equivalent has 115bhp as far as I know.

coolbeans

The 316 is a horrible, underpowered runt of a car made for badge snobs above all else. I wouldn't bother. FWIW I had a 1.8T GTI for a couple of months and was getting about 32-34mpg. Nice car.

George Dalton

I agree the GTI should be capable of 30mpg easily so the OP must have a heavy right foot or else there is something wrong with the car. My brother has an S3 1.8T with a hybrid turbo running about 280bhp and he is getting similar economy to the OP so something isn't right....

veetwin

ION08 wrote: »

Hi ,


I'm wondering should I trade down to this, and I'm wondering if the MPG will be noticeably better in one of these?

Any thoughts, comments, opinions on the 316i's !?

I'm just wondering how much do you expect to save by buying one of these?

The difference in fuel will be minimal. Certainly not enough to justify the cost of changing. If you want to save fuel lighten your right foot and buy small diesel. As you said yourself the lack of bhp surprised you. Imagine being negatively surprised every day!

Neilw

I had a remapped 1.8t leon and consistently got 35mpg from it, best I saw was 44mpg driving like a granny.

George Dalton

What are you talking about Neil you always drive like a granny! :P

Neilw

George Dalton wrote: »

What are you talking about Neil you always drive like a granny! :P

Suppose I do 72k on the original brake pads when I sold that car, still about 50% left on them:o

TestTransmission

Neilw wrote: »

I had a remapped 1.8t leon and consistently got 35mpg from it, best I saw was 44mpg driving like a granny.

44mpg?I never got that with the vRS

Neilw

TestTransmission wrote: »

44mpg?I never got that with the vRS

Yeah 55mph in 6th for good few miles coming from a car show in Limerick, there was a guy following me in a standard 180bhp 1.8t golf who got roughly the same mpg.

sean1141

TestTransmission wrote: »

Neilw wrote: »

I had a remapped 1.8t leon and consistently got 35mpg from it, best I saw was 44mpg driving like a granny.

44mpg?I never got that with the vRS

There was so much polish and wax on that leon wind resistance was non existent!!!

Gary ITR

Neilw wrote: »

Suppose I do 72k on the original brake pads when I sold that car, still about 50% left on them:o

Jesus Christ Neil I went through 3 sets of pads in 20k miles in my Integra....

Neilw

sean1141 wrote: »

There was so much polish and wax on that leon wind resistance was non existent!!!

probably right Sean, think this was taken on the way.

matt70iu

Agree with others OP, you should be getting much better MPG than that out of a 1.8t. Get 35 to 40 normally and that's with a bit of spirited driving:)

L-M

colm_mcm wrote: »

Id be expecting better than 26 combined

Aye, the mothers TT is a quattro and she's getting 28 mpg out of it (mostly around town)

TestTransmission wrote: »

44mpg?I never got that with the vRS

Neilw wrote: »

Yeah 55mph in 6th for good few miles coming from a car show in Limerick, there was a guy following me in a standard 180bhp 1.8t golf who got roughly the same mpg.

That's because the poxy Vrs didn't come with 6th :P

Nissan doctor

Who did your remap OP? As many have said, if done properly, it should actually improve fuel economy but there are plenty of lads with laptops who think they can 'remap' cars:rolleyes:

I would see a basic 3 series as a major down grade from a GTI and I doubt the running costs would be noticeably less.

L-M

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Who did your remap OP? As many have said, if done properly, it should actually improve fuel economy but there are plenty of lads with laptops who think they can 'remap' cars:rolleyes:

I would see a basic 3 series as a major down grade from a GTI and I doubt the running costs would be noticeably less.

More power = want to drive faster = less mpg.

Technically it should make it more economically, but if you take it in relative terms the right foot is bound to be heavier.

EPM

TestTransmission wrote: »

44mpg?I never got that with the vRS

I don't get that in the devil fuelled one!

Nissan doctor

Limerick man wrote: »

More power = want to drive faster = less mpg.

Technically it should make it more economically, but if you take it in relative terms the right foot is bound to be heavier.

Very true, but then its proof that if the OP just changed his driving style he could save the same amount of fuel as changing to the bmw.

More powerful car also means the engine is under less load at 100kmh(for example) then a less powerful engine is.

L-M

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Very true, but then its proof that if the OP just changed his driving style he could save the same amount of fuel as changing to the bmw.

This is very true, hopefully this thread will saved the OP from buying said crappy Bmw.

Best thing to do for the OP is to clock their mileage every time they put in fuel, and try and beat it each time. Also try reading a few tips on saving fuel and easier driving. Trying to do less braking, staying in gear coming up to junctions rather than coasting etc. etc., every little helps!

Fishtits

colm_mcm wrote: »

I doubt the BMW will save you money.

Don't leave us hanging, please explain your rationale.

ION08

Cheers for the replies

I suppose I could do with having a lighter foot as I dont neccessarily drive the GTI in the most economical manner.

I'm sure I could actually get better mpg but as Limerick Man siad;

More power = want to drive faster = less mpg.

I always try to refrain from putting the boot down, I last one or two days and then the urge for power becomes too much to resist

I figured I would try sell the GTI, as I was offered this 316i for a very decent price with close to 2 yrs NCT, 73k miles FSH and only 1 previous owner, and the fact that its such boring car, I figured there would be zero temptation to drive it any sort of "sporty" manner, hence better mpg.

Neilw

ION08 wrote: »

I figured I would try sell the GTI, as I was offered this 316i for a very decent price with close to 2 yrs NCT, 73k miles FSH and only 1 previous owner, and the fact that its such boring car, I figured there would be zero temptation to drive it any sort of "sporty" manner, hence better mpg.

The way I see it is.....the 316 is probably heavier than your gti, with far less power and torque so the engine will have to work much harder to just keep the car moving, hence use more fuel.

Gophur

For the BMW, you pay 1.9 litre tax and insurance and get 1.1 litre equivalent performance.

Alanstrainor

ION08 wrote: »

Cheers for the replies

I suppose I could do with having a lighter foot as I dont neccessarily drive the GTI in the most economical manner.

I'm sure I could actually get better mpg but as Limerick Man siad;

More power = want to drive faster = less mpg.

I always try to refrain from putting the boot down, I last one or two days and then the urge for power becomes too much to resist

I figured I would try sell the GTI, as I was offered this 316i for a very decent price with close to 2 yrs NCT, 73k miles FSH and only 1 previous owner, and the fact that its such boring car, I figured there would be zero temptation to drive it any sort of "sporty" manner, hence better mpg.

But driving a car with no go at all will mean you drive the nuts off the 316 the whole time.