BMW 2.0 petrol mpg

seamus1980

Hi guys,was looking to buy a 2003 bmw 2.0 petrol,can anyone tell me if it would be hard on petrol compaired to the diesel model.Thanks

statto25

seamus1980 wrote: »

Hi guys,was looking to buy a 2003 bmw 2.0 petrol,can anyone tell me if it would be hard on petrol compaired to the diesel model.Thanks

What sort of driving are you doing, City or longer commuting? What's your average milage each year?

DAZP93

Had a 2002 318ci 2.0 petrol a few years ago - mixed driving 33mpg

Dariukas

Have 00 318i - In town it takes roughly

22 miles per gallon equals 13.0 liters per 100 kilometers

really depends how you drive, best i can do is around

27 miles per gallon equals 10.5 liters per 100 kilometers

dgt

I used to have a 1999 520i, manual. Had it as my daily for 5 months, averaging 350 miles a week

On average it did 30/31mpg on my daily commute from Navan to the RCSI, mostly on the old N3

Would do about 27 in city traffic/rush hour

Managed to scrape 37 on a long run, but looking mostly 35 on a long run at normal speeds

Motorway would see 32-33mpg average at the limit

Worst I ever got was 24mpg, but that was driving up a mountain

So I hope that helps

TheSpark156

seamus1980 wrote: »

Hi guys,was looking to buy a 2003 bmw 2.0 petrol,can anyone tell me if it would be hard on petrol compaired to the diesel model.Thanks

What model of the bmw?
F.e. 520i much different to 320i

bazz26

A 03 520i would have been 2.2 litre so I would assume it is an E46 the OP is talking about.

blastman

E46 320i is a 2.2 litre as well so I presumed he's talking about a 318i

BillJ

Have a 2003 318ci, get 32ish mpg mixed driving. It's the n42 143bhp engine

DAZP93

A 2003 2.0 petrol bmw would only have 4 cylinders i.e 318i/318ci, very different to the 6 cylinder lump found in the 520i/320i/320ci

Idbatterim

Make sure to have it checked out by a specialist before purchasing if you do decide to buy... Cooling system, suspension, engine gaskets, valvetronic engine, subframe the typical things that can give problems with these cars...

Cee-Jay-Cee

Idbatterim wrote: »

Make sure to have it checked out by a specialist before purchasing if you do decide to buy... Cooling system, suspension, engine gaskets, valvetronic engine, subframe the typical things that can give problems with these cars...

He's considering buying a 2003 320i not a 2013 640i.

dar83

I can confirm without a shadow of a doubt, that the Petrol model will be muuch harder on petrol than the Diesel model would be...







Although you may run into other issues trying to run a diesel model on petrol to compare. :pac:

fmcg_scribe

DAZP93 wrote: »

Had a 2002 318ci 2.0 petrol a few years ago - mixed driving 33mpg

I had a 1998 323i (2494cc, 5 speed manual) and that sounds about right.

That said, when I used to go up to Northern Ireland and brought super unleaded petrol, fuel economy went up to 40-45mpg if just myself in the car with minimal load and I kept average speed to around 60mph. Those M52TU and M54 engines were great (least said about M52 engines the better).

The fact that the E46 320i had a 6cyl engine is a selling point - that changed in the E9x 320i (went back to 4cyl).

Leaving aside the fuel economy question for a moment, a 2003 3 series might not be the most reliable buy. At that age, a Lexus IS 200/300 would be a safer buy (for your wallet, at least) than an Audi/BMW/Merc from the same era.

Idbatterim

He's considering buying a 2003 320i not a 2013 640i.

yeah hes buying a car that could easily take a multiple of the purchase price to put right if he buys a lemon! There was a poster on here who spent several thousand getting one sorted, I spend several thousand on my old one, between myself and the brother we have owned three 318's... I think I know what I'm talking about... What kind of mileage you looking at Op? Can you post up the car in question?

fmcg_scribe

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah hes buying a car that could easily take a multiple of the purchase price to put right if he buys a lemon! There was a poster on here who spent several thousand getting one sorted, I spend several thousand on my old one, between myself and the brother we have owned three 318's... I think I know what I'm talking about... What kind of mileage you looking at Op? Can you post up the car in question?

True. Would recommend a 6cyl 320i over a 4cyl 318i. Got to focus on spec and service history.

Idbatterim

yeah the 6 cylinders are far better, but depends on the mileage he is doing...

seamus1980

This is the one i was thinking of
http://www.adverts.ie/car/bmw/3-series/2001-bmw-318-for-sale/6103878

Rowley Birkin QC

Kinda strange that it's a 01 facelift, haven't seen one before.

DAZP93

seamus1980 wrote: »

This is the one i was thinking of
http://www.adverts.ie/car/bmw/3-series/2001-bmw-318-for-sale/6103878

I have never in my life seen a facelifted 2001 coupe, I would imagine that it also has the better 2.0 engine, rather than that aweful 1.9 discontinued in late 2001

Foxhole Norman

It's only a retrofitted facelift, I reckon that has the old 1.9 unit.

DAZP93

Expensive facelife - different wings and all. Pitty we cant see his reg, but I reckon it is more than likely the 1.9

ION08

Two pages and nobody has answered OP's question!

seamus1980 wrote: »

can anyone tell me if it would be hard on petrol compaired to the diesel model.Thanks

Yes, it will be a lot thirstier than a diesel model 320d.

DAZP93

ION08 wrote: »

Two pages and nobody has answered OP's question!



Yes, it will be a lot thirstier than a diesel model 320d.

I wouldnt call 10-12 MPG a lot! Again it all depends on the mileage the OP is doing.

If I had the option I would have the petrol - Diesels are for old miserable people!.. and Taxis

ION08

DAZP93 wrote: »

I wouldnt call 10-12 MPG alot! Again it all depends on the mileage the OP is doing.

If I had the option I would have the petrol - Diesels are for old miserable people!.. and Taxis

Of course its a lot.

if you were to compare it by tankfulls it would mean each 3rd or 4th tank of diesel would work out free when compared to filling up a petrol

Rowley Birkin QC

Also to answer your question OP, I have a 2.0 02. Best (indicated) MPG I have seen is 37 on a motorway run with Cruise Control set at 130km/h.

I do a lot of mixed driving and get about 400 miles / 640 km to a tank of fuel which currently costs ~€90 to fill.

You will get better MPG with a 320D or 320CD but bear in mind the higher purchase price.

DAZP93

ION08 wrote: »

Of course its a lot.

if you were to compare it by tankfulls it would mean each 3rd or 4th tank of diesel would work out free when compared to filling up a petrol

Your right.. I'm just trying to justify not having to buy a diesel (failing)

JC01

DAZP93 wrote: »

Your right.. I'm just trying to justify not having to buy a diesel (failing)

You already justified it, diesels are for old miserable people:L

OP I'd definatly go for a 6cylinder rather than the 4pot. 10x the drivers car and arguably better real world MPG In the 6

Idbatterim

You already justified it, diesels are for old miserable people:L

OP I'd definatly go for a 6cylinder rather than the 4pot. 10x the drivers car and arguably better real world MPG In the 6

there is no way even the 2.2 6 pot is better on fuel than the 2L four pot... Possibly at high speeds, but even then I am not sure!

ION08

JC01 wrote: »

You already justified it, diesels are for old miserable people:L

OP I'd definatly go for a 6cylinder rather than the 4pot. 10x the drivers car and arguably better real world MPG In the 6

A 6 pot is definitely a nice drive but you'd want to be seriously deluded to believe it has better "real word" MPG than the 4 pot

DAZP93

ION08 wrote: »

A 6 pot is definitely a nice drive but you'd want to be seriously deluded to believe it has better "real word" MPG than the 4 pot

The gap is marginal.. I had a 318ci in 2012 and currently drive a 320ci..

About 3mpg in the difference

Mathiasb

FWIW - a 2009 320D (E92) gets about 33mpg when driven mixed/hard acceleration.

Jesus.

Do people really think that changing up at 2k revs is too low in most cars cos its laboring the engine?

corkgsxr

Jesus. wrote: »

Do people really think that changing up at 2k revs is too low in most cars cos its laboring the engine?

Yep. My ob2 with instant fuel stuff showed me it was better to stay between 1500 and 2500 than changing at 2 and dropping to 1400

Jesus.

Better to stay between 1.5k and 2.5k, so we'll say 2k. Won't you then be changing at 2k?

Mathiasb

If your car is new enough it'll indicate to you (on the dash) when you need to change gear and what gear to change to.

Jesus.

The "feel" I was getting was 2k but I'm told I'm out by as much as another 2k (Barabbas said you should shift up at 4!).

If you don't have the indicator the dash readout is your next best thing. Its hard to get consistent info from that though. You'd nearly need to be on a track or at least a deserted road for a good 20 minutes trying out different shifting.