BMW X1 insane fuel economy

[Jack Watts]

I just did a ~1,200 drive from WA to Ventura, CA in a BMW X1 (F48). One person, one dog and about 100 lbs of stuff. I filled up in southern WA, and tracked fuel economy for two tanks. Average speed on the computer, including 2 stops, was 73.9. Obviously some long stretches going >80mph.

No traffic, temps were 90 to 108, not much wind. AC on high the entire drive. This included a a trip up and down the mountains of the Siskiyou Pass.

First tank: 37.6 mpg
Second tank: 37.8 mpg

I'm kind of dumbfounded by the fuel economy with an AWD crossover. While obviously a different sorta car, my Golf R managed about 32.5 mpg. They're both 2 liter turbos, and both use the Haldex AWD. The Golf is definitely more aero (6.8 vs 7.4 CdA). Tires obviously make a difference, though the X1 didn't have a super low Crr tire on it ( Yokohama YK740 GTX )

I'm not complaining about the fuel economy on the R, as I knew what to expect going in; but I'm in shock at the fuel economy is that good on and AWD CUV like the X1. These are legit numbers, as I not only calculated by hand, but I only stopped for gas once in 1,100 miles, and I still have some fuel in the tank!

What is the secret sauce in this B48 engine? This is a seriously efficient power plant.

 

[wpod]

I would be happy !!!

 

[PimTac]

Sounds great. My Mazda gets around 35 or so running highway.

That is excellent fuel economy considering you went over the Siskyous complex.

 

[sloinker]

Is it one of the new strange combustion cycle engines like the latest VW 2.0T's?

 

[Jack Watts]

Sounds great. My Mazda gets around 35 or so running highway.

That is excellent fuel economy considering you went over the Siskyous complex.

Yeah, especially considering the speeds. Lots of open highway, light/no traffic and Waze....so there were extended periods at 80-85. With more reasonable speeds, it obviously would have been even better.

The X1 is a 2016, and I don't think there's any strange combustion cycle stuff going on--but honestly, I'm not sure. The one "trick" it does have is if you put it in eco mode, the transmission will drop RPM's down to idle speed when you take your foot off the gas. As a long-time manual transmission guy who is big on coasting, I think this is awesome. It would be pretty annoying to drive in ECO mode though in any situation besides straight highway driving.

The gearing is also really tall on the Aisin 8 speed transmission. 75mph is around 2,000 rpm, so that definitely helps.

 

[Pew]

That's crazy, you're only a few MPGs off my 2015 Focus Sedan 1L 3 Cyl.

 

[RitcheyRch]

That's awesome.

 

[Ws6]

I just did a ~1,200 drive from WA to Ventura, CA in a BMW X1 (F48). One person, one dog and about 100 lbs of stuff. I filled up in southern WA, and tracked fuel economy for two tanks. Average speed on the computer, including 2 stops, was 73.9. Obviously some long stretches going >80mph.

No traffic, temps were 90 to 108, not much wind. AC on high the entire drive. This included a a trip up and down the mountains of the Siskiyou Pass.

First tank: 37.6 mpg
Second tank: 37.8 mpg

I'm kind of dumbfounded by the fuel economy with an AWD crossover. While obviously a different sorta car, my Golf R managed about 32.5 mpg. They're both 2 liter turbos, and both use the Haldex AWD. The Golf is definitely more aero (6.8 vs 7.4 CdA). Tires obviously make a difference, though the X1 didn't have a super low Crr tire on it ( Yokohama YK740 GTX )

I'm not complaining about the fuel economy on the R, as I knew what to expect going in; but I'm in shock at the fuel economy is that good on and AWD CUV like the X1. These are legit numbers, as I not only calculated by hand, but I only stopped for gas once in 1,100 miles, and I still have some fuel in the tank!

What is the secret sauce in this B48 engine? This is a seriously efficient power plant.

That's pretty rediculous! The best I've gotten out of my CX5 turbo (2.5l AWD) under similar conditions is around 29mpg. I have never heard of anyone getting the mpg you got before. Is it possible that there was a very strong elevation gradient? I am not familiar wiht the drive you took.

ETA: Not saying I doubt your accuracy or honesty, just saying that it's far outside of the norm and I am looking for other factors, as well.

 

[PimTac]

That's pretty rediculous! The best I've gotten out of my CX5 turbo (2.5l AWD) under similar conditions is around 29mpg. I have never heard of anyone getting the mpg you got before. Is it possible that there was a very strong elevation gradient? I am not familiar wiht the drive you took.

ETA: Not saying I doubt your accuracy or honesty, just saying that it's far outside of the norm and I am looking for other factors, as well.

The Siskyous Pass complex is actually a series of smaller passes stating somewhere around Roseburg Oregon and ending in Redding California. The main part of the pass starts at Ashland Oregon.

 

[Jack Watts]

That's pretty rediculous! The best I've gotten out of my CX5 turbo (2.5l AWD) under similar conditions is around 29mpg. I have never heard of anyone getting the mpg you got before. Is it possible that there was a very strong elevation gradient? I am not familiar wiht the drive you took.

ETA: Not saying I doubt your accuracy or honesty, just saying that it's far outside of the norm and I am looking for other factors, as well.

trust, me, if someone else had posted this, I wouldn't believe it....so no offense taken!

I do this drive all the time. I split time between Seattle and Ventura, and my dog is too big to fly--so this is my only option.

The drive from Seattle to Roseburg, Oregon is bone flat. I left from Woodland, WA in southern, WA and I tracked mileage from there. From there it's flat for a couple of hundred miles, and from there it starts climbing. Peak elevation is about 4,100 feet. You come off the pass, and from there, I took the coast route (505/680/80 to 101). It's pretty flat. There's another pretty good climb up San Marcos Pass/154, which is a shortcut.

Starting and ending elevation are the same. As far as wind, I didn't see any noticeable wind at ground level. Because I'm geeky like this, I went to Wunderground to see if there was some wind vortex I didn't see... Nope. winds were pretty low, 0 to 3 mph at weather station level (30M), so ground wind speed was low/nonexistent. There was some fast-moving traffic for a good part of the drive, which helps, but no hypermile tailgating nonsense on my part. And half the drive there was no one in front of me.

Looking at Fuelly, it looks like it's not a crazy outlier. If you look for tanks on 100% highway (or close), there are some high numbers posted:
http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/x1/2017/rkst/564632 (38-40mpg)

The other variable is "how much fuel did you really use". Thing is, I only got gas once between Woodland and Ventura (in Williams, CA, about 560 miles from where I got gas). Then got gas when I got here to measure the second tank. I measured distance w/GPS, though the odometer readout was nearly identical.

For whatever reason, the drivetrain on this car seems to be really efficient. I looked up the drag coefficient, thinking maybe that was a factor. It's not great...

 

[PimTac]

I took that same route a few times when we visited friends in Salinas.

 

[Jack Watts]

I took that same route a few times when we visited friends in Salinas.

I've taken I-5 the whole way twice. Once my Eurovan broke down, and the other time my Jetta Wagon was totaled by a guy turning left in front of me. I decided to write off that section of I-5 south of Williams. Bad juju....

The drive this way is actually a good bit more pleasant as well, even if it's a bit longer.

 

[Ws6]

trust, me, if someone else had posted this, I wouldn't believe it....so no offense taken!

I do this drive all the time. I split time between Seattle and Ventura, and my dog is too big to fly--so this is my only option.

The drive from Seattle to Roseburg, Oregon is bone flat. I left from Woodland, WA in southern, WA and I tracked mileage from there. From there it's flat for a couple of hundred miles, and from there it starts climbing. Peak elevation is about 4,100 feet. You come off the pass, and from there, I took the coast route (505/680/80 to 101). It's pretty flat. There's another pretty good climb up San Marcos Pass/154, which is a shortcut.

Starting and ending elevation are the same. As far as wind, I didn't see any noticeable wind at ground level. Because I'm geeky like this, I went to Wunderground to see if there was some wind vortex I didn't see... Nope. winds were pretty low, 0 to 3 mph at weather station level (30M), so ground wind speed was low/nonexistent. There was some fast-moving traffic for a good part of the drive, which helps, but no hypermile tailgating nonsense on my part. And half the drive there was no one in front of me.

Looking at Fuelly, it looks like it's not a crazy outlier. If you look for tanks on 100% highway (or close), there are some high numbers posted:
http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/x1/2017/rkst/564632 (38-40mpg)

The other variable is "how much fuel did you really use". Thing is, I only got gas once between Woodland and Ventura (in Williams, CA, about 560 miles from where I got gas). Then got gas when I got here to measure the second tank. I measured distance w/GPS, though the odometer readout was nearly identical.

For whatever reason, the drivetrain on this car seems to be really efficient. I looked up the drag coefficient, thinking maybe that was a factor. It's not great...

Given your gearing, I believe it. My cx5 turns probably 500rpm or so more at highway speeds, has a larger frontal area, and half a liter more displacement, and I've hit 29mpg or so even on non flat long drives. It makes sense with 25% smaller engine and 25% reduced rpm that you can achieve mid 30s.

 

[IndyIan]

That is impressive, I'm guessing you use premium gas? Our pricing for premium is ridiculous up here so I've never tried it in the Outback but on some vehicles it really lets the drive train run efficiently.

 

[Jack Watts]

That is impressive, I'm guessing you use premium gas? Our pricing for premium is ridiculous up here so I've never tried it in the Outback but on some vehicles it really lets the drive train run efficiently.

Yeah, like most (not all) turbo engines it requires premium (91 recommended, 89 required). I filled up with 92 in WA, and 91 in California. The delta isn't much in California (30 cents), but it's huge in WA. I've seen 92 or 93 for 70 cent a gallon higher up there. I may try 89 on the trip back just to see how it impacts fuel economy.

 

[Ws6]

Yeah, like most (not all) turbo engines it requires premium (91 recommended, 89 required). I filled up with 92 in WA, and 91 in California. The delta isn't much in California (30 cents), but it's huge in WA. I've seen 92 or 93 for 70 cent a gallon higher up there. I may try 89 on the trip back just to see how it impacts fuel economy.

Oof. 89 required? I've gone places they dont even have 89. 87 minimum acceptable is part of my vehicle selection criteria.

 

[edyvw]

That is arguably best 4cyl turbo on the market now.

The BMW 330i Got a Staggering 42 MPG in Our 75-MPH Fuel-Economy Test

There's a long list of cars that the 3-series dominates in both fuel economy and performance.

www.caranddriver.com

 

[Pew]

That is arguably best 4cyl turbo on the market now.

The BMW 330i Got a Staggering 42 MPG in Our 75-MPH Fuel-Economy Test

There's a long list of cars that the 3-series dominates in both fuel economy and performance.

www.caranddriver.com

That thing dominates with fuel economy and is seriously making me think of getting one for my DD/road trip car.

 

[edyvw]

That thing dominates with fuel economy and is seriously making me think of getting one for my DD/road trip car.

I had previous F30 330i xDrive as a loaner when it was introduced with that B48 engine. My X5 was on airbag recall for a week almost. While I am not big fan of F30 due to steering feel (or lack of it by BMW standards) I was getting some 28mpg around town strictly, while constantly trying to see how fast it can go or how it corners.
There is no appliance V6 that can keep up with that thing, in speed and especially mpg.

 

[Jack Watts]

Oof. 89 required? I've gone places they dont even have 89. 87 minimum acceptable is part of my vehicle selection criteria.

I doubt they're much different in their real octane requirements. The CX-5 turbo recommends 93, after all. Since there is no 87 in Germany, I'm not surprised that they have 89 "required". Some though I bet that if you run 87 in there for a few tanks, it won't blow up.