Practical Fuel Economy

Alistair · Post by **Alistair** » Wed 29 Sep, 2004 18:06

Hi All,

As we all experienc 'book' values for MPG are never a true reflection of real life economy

.

I'm wondering what values everyones getting across the range of Z's

I'm getting the following from my 3.0, with various driving styles

but 90% motorway

28.72
30.46
30.66
29.31
26.99
29.76

It's a sample of my fuel log

sad I know, but comes from many miles to work & back.

The values are calculated from reciepts with milage on, but generally the MPG meter in the car averages 30MPG.

I'm considering changing to an 'M', so would really like to know the real Economy

.

TonyCal · Post by **TonyCal** » Wed 29 Sep, 2004 18:53

I doubt very much you would get close to those figures with an M Alistair.
I normally get around 210 miles per 35 litres if thats any help. I do get more on a long motorway run but not much more, maybe 230- 240 miles. Round the Nurburgring the figure was way way lower probably around 7 mpg but as the M does not have a computer its hard to say.
I would expect to get only about 150 miles on the same amount at the weekend on a cruise.

SLX 280 · Post by **SLX 280** » Wed 29 Sep, 2004 19:18

That doesn't sound too bad for an //M

I'd just have prefered to have a larger tank as the range is pretty poor, expecially when blasting round europe

I don't think I would be buying an //M thinking its fuel effecient but close 30 on a motorway run should be possible? I guess this would drop quite quickly with the twitch of your right toe

cheers

scott

DavidM · Post by **DavidM** » Wed 29 Sep, 2004 19:25

Agree with Tony - except for the motorway thing - on the run to the Lakes - with Cruise Control - I got 302 miles out of a full tank - which I could not believe

I too have kept a fuel log - and this verfies Tony's estimates (apart from the above exception)

Alistair · Post by **Alistair** » Wed 29 Sep, 2004 21:23

Thanks for the info guy's, it looking like low 20's for the 'M'.

With the low weight of the Z's the 1.9's & 2.0's must do really well

Really torn on changing to an M as the 3.0 is great.

Just hope the move from super cruiser to super car is worth it. I've seen some of the comparison postings, but wonder if any M owners had 3.0/2.8 befor ?

DavidM · Post by **DavidM** » Wed 29 Sep, 2004 21:43

any M owners had 3.0/2.8 before

Tim, Phil, Giles - others as well I am sure - all had 2.8s before their ///Ms

last Z3? · Post by **last Z3?** » Wed 29 Sep, 2004 21:44

with my 3.0 i get average 25.9 and that is all around town and lanes (i never get near a motorway

Bloke · Post by **Bloke** » Wed 29 Sep, 2004 23:08

Alistair wrote:Thanks for the info guy's, it looking like low 20's for the 'M'.

With the low weight of the Z's the 1.9's & 2.0's must do really well

Really torn on changing to an M as the 3.0 is great.

Just hope the move from super cruiser to super car is worth it. I've seen some of the comparison postings, but wonder if any M owners had 3.0/2.8 befor ?

You must be kidding, in reference to the 2.0ltrs doing well!!( no offence intended) I have to admit that I do hammer the Nuts off my 2.0 ltr but even thought I have been running on Shell optimax for a few months now, I only get 200 miles to a tank, and that is town driving and a few twisty bits, on a motorway run recently to Manchester and back I got 260 miles from the tank, althought that was doing 90ish and a few spells over all the way!! So either I have the most uneconomical 2.0ltr in existance or its just my driving!! Not sure what that works out as in MPG but somwhere about 20ish for the town stuff and 26 for the motorway stuff.

JUst my experience!!

Bloke

321bhp · Post by **321bhp** » Thu 30 Sep, 2004 00:03

truly and honestly,i really havent a clue about wot me m does to the gallon,i just fill it up drive it and fill it up again,maybe this is because its my second car and only comes out when the weathers good,but me rover 100 1.4 diesel does around 50

AndyBass · Post by **AndyBass** » Thu 30 Sep, 2004 13:09

Just got back from the South of France covering a total of 2700 miles. Most of it was motorway/autoroute at about 80mph/130kph. Got 31.9 on the run down there, 25.7 knocking about which included 20 miles of standing/slow moving traffic following an accident and a run around the Gorges De Verdun for 70 miles, (for those who don't know it's all 2nd/3rd at low speed) and 29.5 coming back. Thats from a 2.8 running on 98 octane. Like most people the mpg isn't all that important but the range is poor, although getting that kind of mpg helps. The Zed loved it as much as we did, really cleared it's throat, feeling very crisp and lively.

Lorraine · Post by **Lorraine** » Thu 30 Sep, 2004 13:41

Most of my driving is back roads and in town with some occasional motorway and I get around 24 miles per gallon (3.0 engine).

Compared to Alistair my 3.0 is guzzling but that might have to do with the lack of motorway driving and difference in driving style. If I had an M I would be stopping for fuel more than I would be driving, wouldn't stop me from getting one though...

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Thu 30 Sep, 2004 14:27

I thought Shell Optimax or any other 98 octance fuel is only needed for high comp ratio cars like the ///M at 11.4:1.
It would possibly be too slow burning in a lower compression ratio car like a 2.8 which might reduce mpg since less of the heat is extracted out of the fuel air mixture as work if it burns too slow. I got 23mpg urban & 33mpg extra urban from my 2.8. Always ran silky smooth on 95 octane & never pinked.
Andy you could be spending £2.60 extra per tank you don't need to.
My ///M returns about 22mpg on combined urban & extra urban.

garyw · Post by **garyw** » Thu 30 Sep, 2004 16:24

AndyBass, the photo looks a little different to Barnsley.

S1 AVV · Post by **S1 AVV** » Thu 30 Sep, 2004 19:50

It would possibly be too slow burning in a lower compression ratio car like a 2.8 which might reduce mpg since less of the heat is extracted out of the fuel air mixture as work if it burns too slow.

ran optimax max for 3 weeks, can't say i've noticed that much difference, perhaps a little smoother first thing in the morning, have changed back to 95 octane petrol

optimax - 29.8mpg
95 octane - 33.3 mpg

above figures on sedate work run, not weekend

[/quote]

DavidM · Post by **DavidM** » Thu 30 Sep, 2004 20:38

To be brutally honest - "practical" and "fuel economy" are not words or phrases I would normally associate with an M Roadster ...

"insane", "so much fun it ought to be illegal" and "grin-inducing" are words and phrases that are more in keeping with the car ...

sod the fuel economy ... go drive an M ... don't look back

garyw · Post by **garyw** » Thu 30 Sep, 2004 21:15

So David I assume your not doing the LPG conversion in the near future

Garyw

DavidM · Post by **DavidM** » Thu 30 Sep, 2004 21:24

garyw wrote:So David I assume your not doing the LPG conversion in the near future
Garyw

Nope - looking to strap a jet engine on the back instead

mugen888 · Post by **mugen888** » Thu 30 Sep, 2004 22:20

hmm my 1.9 does me 230 mile on a 35 quid full tank
but after changing to a k&n replacement element i only get 180
my mate drives an evolution 6 and he gets the same as me
so you guys think there's something wrong with my car?

SLX 280 · Post by **SLX 280** » Fri 01 Oct, 2004 11:06

Take those lead boots off !!!

something sounds amiss there?? 180 range out of a 1.9.

cheers

Scott

Bloke · Post by **Bloke** » Fri 01 Oct, 2004 11:15

Muggen,

You obviously drive like me then!!!!

( that is how a sports convertible shoud be driven)

Although finding somwhere to do that in London in not the easiest!!

I also have K&N and it didnt affect mpg at all, just sounds better

Bloke

mugen888 · Post by **mugen888** » Fri 01 Oct, 2004 18:17

ohh ok then os it's just thw way i drive then hehe

i must try to gas less and see what the max fuel econ i can getit's quite easy to put ur foot down in london especially at night hehe

Bryn · Post by **Bryn** » Fri 01 Oct, 2004 18:34

On the Rutted Toad, Charlotte managed to drink a tank of fuel in just 151.7 miles

Not sure what the MPG works out at but it ain't a lot

Ach who's counting? it was a great run:-)

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Fri 01 Oct, 2004 18:49

If a tank is 44l
& 1gal = 4.55l
152m/(44/4.455) = 15.7mpg !
I think your discs must have been glowing somewhat Brynt

Bryn · Post by **Bryn** » Fri 01 Oct, 2004 19:02

Robin wrote:If a tank is 44l
& 1gal = 4.55l
152m/(44/4.455) = 15.7mpg !
I think your discs must have been glowing somewhat Brynt

Robin,

To be honest it is better than i thought it would be!!!

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Fri 01 Oct, 2004 19:05

Brynt
When you think of the levels of power & the accelerations & deccelerations dumping kilowatts of energy in the discs etc during hard driving it is amazing. It's better than you'd get from some gas guzzlers driving gently to the corner shop & back !

pingu · Post by **pingu** » Fri 01 Oct, 2004 19:18

I also have a problem with the fuel economy in my Z3 2.8, it also takes longer to get from A to B than in my Peugeot 406.

Yesterday, I went for a pint of milk from Asda (Peugeot = 20mins). In the Z3, it took me 4 hours and 25 litres of fuel

Z3s are for fun, and you have to pay to play.

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Fri 01 Oct, 2004 19:36

pingu wrote:Yesterday, I went for a pint of milk from Asda (Peugeot = 20mins). In the Z3, it took me 4 hours and 25 litres of fuel
.

I have this problem sometimes when moving my car from the front of my house to the rear to park it at night. Sometimes I make the 100yd journey via Winchester or the like

AndyBass · Post by **AndyBass** » Sat 02 Oct, 2004 07:39

Robin, I'm a tight fisted Yorkshireman and do run my car on 95 over here, she only got treated to some 98 for the holiday as it was about the same price as our overpriced 95.

Gordon Sodding Brown gets enough of my cash without adding unnecessarily to his coffers.

NorwegianBlue · Post by **NorwegianBlue** » Sat 02 Oct, 2004 12:45

I'm using my ///M as an everyday car and as expected, if you're a bit frisky the MPG is not too good. I know it's sad but I have kept a log of exactly what goes in and what I get out and at the moment I'm doing 27 mpg but it has been as high as 30. This is 90% motorway though. One thing that was very noticable was the drop in mpgs as it came close the having its service.

In my 2.8 I got around 32 and in the 3.0i it was around 29.

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Sun 03 Oct, 2004 07:51

Got about 26mpg from the 2.8
23ish from the M
That takes all sorts of driving into account.
Always looking for fuel at 220 miles from a tank in both cars

Geoff H · Post by **Geoff H** » Sun 03 Oct, 2004 14:50

I am always amazed / envious at the mpg figures on the board postings. I have had a 2.8 Roadster now for nearly 3 years and have only seen 21mpg on the OBC a couple of times, mostly its 19 or 20 mpg. In true terms I fill up when it gets to half a tank (about 100 miles), fill it so I can see the fuel in the filler pipe and zero the trip meter in the speedo, that way when I fill up next time, to the brim, I can see exactly how many miles I have done for the amount of fuel brought. It’s always around 20 mpg, no motorway use, just around town /dual carriageway

ajt · Post by **ajt** » Sun 03 Oct, 2004 16:34

from my //m i get about 25 mpg overall.
its my only car, but my commute to work is on foot, so the only driving is weekend and to the shops.

for a tank of 40 litres it varies from about 180 miles around london town in the summer with the aircon on. to about 240 for long slow motorway journeys in traffic. faster motorway trips holding at about 90 will use a tank in about 220 miles.

also its definately got better as its got older. i bought it with 28,000 on the clock and its now approaching 50,000 3 years later. probably an extra 10 miles to the tank now!

so it sounds fairly similar to some of the other models, but i must drive it pretty slow as the rear tires lastest 20,000 miles.

a.

zroadster.net