BMW X1 insane fuel economy
- Thread starter Jack Watts
- Start date
Actually traditionally, BMW has short gearing. 8 speed transmissions of course allowed more flexibility, but they are geared to reach maximum speed as fast as possible, not to be as efficient as possible.
Now, in 8 speed transmissions I think max speed is not reached in 8th gear but in 6th. Take into consideration that Aisin transmission in X1 is nowhere near as good as ZF in 3 series and other longitudinal BMW's.
What you achieved is impossible without CVT, just ask Subaru, Honda, Toyota etc.
We seem to average 20c/L more for premium which is over 75c/gal... I don't think I'd be able to make up that much in fuel efficiency but I guess I should try it sometime.
Ah, I thought minimum recommended was higher than 87. Most companies that do what you're saying advise 87 as a minimum, but with more octane unlocking more potential (Mustang GT, Mazda turbo SA, etc.). That was my point, modern engines should be able to use whatever.
LOL I get maybe 25 at 78 mph in my 335. Maybe 18 in town. I suppose I got 28 mpg once 5 years ago on a 800 mile road trip...
The 335i wasnt really designed around fuel economy though, and wasnt it one of the first crop of FI bmws in the 3 series and below trim levels? Kindof a forerunner of modern bmw fi mass applications.
Around town here I get 21-22mpg in my 328, HWY 28-32 if careful, which almost never happens. Mine is stick, and 6th is runs so high, almost like 5th in other cars.
You also have a much smaller engine with less power, too.
I can believe this. My 2015 328 turbo used to return (by calculated method) 25-27 mpg during my regular work week, 25 miles round trip, some highway in the morning but closer to bumper-to-bumper in the evening, and a highway run out to the suburbs 1-2 times a week. One morning I filled up, reset the average fuel economy readout, hopped immediately on the highway, and drove steadily at highway speeds while watching the readout.
As I left the expressway 8 miles later, I saw 40 mpg.
As I left the expressway 8 miles later, I saw 40 mpg.
Last edited:
That's phenomenally good, your thread title is accurate. That's the same MPG that my 2014 Mazda 3 (manual 6-speed) gets during freeway cruising similar driving conditions, which is the best I've seen from a conventional gasoline engine car. And your X1 is a bigger & heavier car than the Mazda 3. I didn't know that was possible.
I thought the 328i was a 2.0?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2020
- Messages
- 217
Yeah, it's worth mentioning that I've done this same drive dozens of times, so I know what to expect fuel economy wise--which is why I was so startled by the numbers.
-My '88 Camry Wagon (one of the best wagons ever), 2.0L with TALL geared 5 speed MT: about 34 mph (but, going slower, thing didn't feel safe over 75mph)
-'06 Jetta Wagon 2.5L 5 speed with a taller 5th installed: ~30.5mph. Great car, thirsty engine...
-16 Alltrack. 1.8T, 6 speed MT, tall gears, ~33.5 mpg.
And then my current Golf R that I mentioned, 32-34 depending on tires.
What really makes me think it's mostly the engine efficiency is that the Alltrack and Golf R are more aero, both Haldex-equipped AWD vehicles and small 4 cylinders. Obviously the Golf R feels a lot different in everyday driving, but just loafing along on the highway at 80mph, I'm surprised at the divide, particularly considering the X1 is a bit of a brick.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2020
- Messages
- 217
I'm not sure why you say that, but having driven a couple of the ZF8HP's mated to BMW 4 cylinders, back-to-back with the X1, I just don't see much of a difference (longitudinal, haven't driven the new ZF sideways box in the newest X1's). Shift times seem very similar. Yes, the Aisin feels slightly softer during shifts--slightly...but as someone who hates automatic transmissions, I really like the Aisin 8 speed box in the X1.
I think a lot has to do with the programming. I've read a lot of complaints about this transmission among Volvo and Buick owners, and VW seemed to screw it up in the first Jettas... but the same is true of the ZF transmission. I drove one in a Jeep and thought it was the second worst transmission I ever drove, after the Focus DCT... Programming counts for lot.
It's definitely a component of the fuel economy--it's geared quite tall, and that matters at highway speeds. But it's not much different than my Golf R, which has tall gears and no torque converter...
I think the intended point was that the 8HP is a stellar unit that stands up to any comparison, universally praised, and the wide gamut of applications it's used in adds to its reputation. It's about as good as a slushbox there is.
ZF has its duds as well, like the troubled transverse 9HP, and old 4HP that would blow up a clutch pack when revved for periods in park or neutral, as done during emissions testing.
It was, in F30 form, as well as other models which carried the 28i label with the N20 engine.
The days when BMW's model numbers were mostly indicative of displacement, were long ago.
Programming is HUGE. I hated autos until I bought a cx5. I drove an auto 370z (praised often, their 7A), and immediately knew I needed the manual version. Terrible programming.
My one complaint in my cx5 is the low gearing of the transmission. 80mph is around 2500rpm give or take. I'd have preferred 2000ish. What is the x1 BMW turning? Mazda did get it right with having the tq converter in lockup after 10mph though. My old Jeep grand Cherokee used the tq converter like another gear, lol! Felt like a 5 speed Powerglide. It was also constantly leaking.
Also, yes. I give up with BMW nomenclature. I miss the days when we had actual names for cars instead of alphabet or number soup. I'm sure marketing is in charge, here.
Similar threads
