# E60 530: 18 Freaking Miles Per Gallon?!?



## RadioWave (Jan 22, 2004)

Okay, I'm one of them tree hugging weenies who cares about gas mileage and emissions enough that I got an '04 530 instead of the much lusted after 545. Yes I know a 530 isn't as environmentally friendly as an Insight but my consciense could live with around 23-25 MPG which I figured my combination of city and freeway driving would get me. After one month of driving it around and pretty much babying it on the gas pedal, I'm getting less than 18MPG and I'm pretty pissed off about that. How can they rate the car at 20-30MPG if I've doing 50/50 city/freeway and getting less than 18MPG (Yes, I've checked the tire pressure :angel: )? Aren't these numbers supposed to be somewhat realistic? My E36 and Nissan all got well within the range they were listed at.

I'm starting to wonder if this is normal or if this could just be a problem with my car. Has anyone else checked their gas mileage? What are you guys getting?

[/whining]


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

New engines are often "tight", and do not perform as well as they will once they're broken in. I don't know how many miles are on your car, but I bet after you have a few thousand miles on your engine your MPG will be between the EPA estimates of 20 and 30.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Manufacturers are required to use the fuel mileage numbers generated in the EPA test cycles in their marketing materials, on the Monroney Sticker and everything else even if they know/believe that real world numbers will be significantly higher or lower. The EPA numbers have never been terribly representative of what people can expect in the real world, but there has been a growing disconnect in recent years with newer engine/transmission combos and the technologies behind them. There is an effort under way to change the way the system works, but like all things that move through the government, it takes time. And lots of it.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

I generally get a little less than that with my 330... :eeps:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Plaz said:


> I generally get a little less than that with my 330... :eeps:


 I'd be happy if I could average that much in my RX-8.

(Can't remember the last tank over 15 MPG).


----------



## Desertnate (Mar 11, 2002)

·clyde· said:


> I'd be happy if I could average that much in my RX-8.
> 
> (Can't remember the last tank over 15 MPG).


I knew that the rotary engines weren't very economic, but wow! :yikes:

How much of that is due to driving style?


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Desertnate said:


> I knew that the rotary engines weren't very economic, but wow! :yikes:
> 
> How much of that is due to driving style?


 I think that too many short trips in stop and go traffic have more to do with it than anything else in my case.


----------



## RadioWave (Jan 22, 2004)

·clyde· said:


> Manufacturers are required to use the fuel mileage numbers generated in the EPA test cycles in their marketing materials, on the Monroney Sticker and everything else even if they know/believe that real world numbers will be significantly higher or lower. The EPA numbers have never been terribly representative of what people can expect in the real world, but there has been a growing disconnect in recent years with newer engine/transmission combos and the technologies behind them. There is an effort under way to change the way the system works, but like all things that move through the government, it takes time. And lots of it.


Thanks for the information everyone. I'll wait and see if it improves over the next couple thousand miles. Of course I'll have to take into account the fact that the break-in period is over and I can start driving, um, normally again


----------



## markseven (Apr 30, 2004)

Silly question, but does the EPA test cars with "broken in" engines? Clyde, I understand what you are saying about new cars having tighter engines, Car & Driver usually reports better performance numbers for their long term test cars at the end of the 40,000 cycle - the engines are no longer 'green' and perform better. Seems to me that new cars should get mileage close to what the EPA reports - the mileage should get better as the car gets broken in. My two cents.

Mark


----------



## fabuluss25 (Jul 24, 2003)

RadioWave said:


> Okay, I'm one of them tree hugging weenies who cares about gas mileage and emissions enough that I got an '04 530 instead of the much lusted after 545. Yes I know a 530 isn't as environmentally friendly as an Insight but my consciense could live with around 23-25 MPG which I figured my combination of city and freeway driving would get me. After one month of driving it around and pretty much babying it on the gas pedal, I'm getting less than 18MPG and I'm pretty pissed off about that. How can they rate the car at 20-30MPG if I've doing 50/50 city/freeway and getting less than 18MPG (Yes, I've checked the tire pressure :angel: )? Aren't these numbers supposed to be somewhat realistic? My E36 and Nissan all got well within the range they were listed at.
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if this is normal or if this could just be a problem with my car. Has anyone else checked their gas mileage? What are you guys getting?
> 
> [/whining]


Have a 2004 530 for 6 weeks now and I avg 24.1 mpg for the first 1500 miles. Most recently I have driven 320 miles on 3 quarters of a tank and the onboard computer says I can go another 100 miles freeway/city :yikes:


----------



## eelnoraa (Oct 13, 2003)

RadioWave said:


> Okay, I'm one of them tree hugging weenies who cares about gas mileage and emissions enough that I got an '04 530 instead of the much lusted after 545. Yes I know a 530 isn't as environmentally friendly as an Insight but my consciense could live with around 23-25 MPG which I figured my combination of city and freeway driving would get me. After one month of driving it around and pretty much babying it on the gas pedal, I'm getting less than 18MPG and I'm pretty pissed off about that. How can they rate the car at 20-30MPG if I've doing 50/50 city/freeway and getting less than 18MPG (Yes, I've checked the tire pressure :angel: )? Aren't these numbers supposed to be somewhat realistic? My E36 and Nissan all got well within the range they were listed at.
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if this is normal or if this could just be a problem with my car. Has anyone else checked their gas mileage? What are you guys getting?
> 
> [/whining]


Don't worry, the 3.0L engine will become more efficient later.
My first tank of gas in my 330 got me 18MPG while I was in Germany, lot of freeway. I was somewhat dissapponted. Now, my 330 has 2800 miles, the average MPG has became 23.4MPG. On a particaluar tank of gas with mostly freeway, I have seen as high as 28MPG.

eel


----------



## Sands (Apr 7, 2004)

I have to laugh. I get 27 cruising at 75mph in my 540 - more torque as well.  





Now around town, in stop and go, it's like 15 or so. guess it all works out in the end.
But then I spend 80% of my miles on the freeway.


----------



## NWG (Jun 8, 2004)

My 04 530i gets around 23.9, that's roughly 50/50 highway/city. Gotta love that 6th gear on the highway - better mpg and smooooth! :thumbup: Hard to drive slow...

I find it really strange that you are getting 18 or so - are you at really high elevation or something? I would definitely inquire at the dealer, I don't ever remember getting something that low. (Picked up 12/17/2003 and now has 6800 miles). Good luck!


----------



## quad (Jun 1, 2004)

My 2004 545i gets around 22 to 23 MPG driving a city/highway mix. It only has about 2,000 miles on the odometer, and maybe that mileage will improve. I'm not disappointed at all in the gas consumption.
I'll be driving to Iowa soon, and we'll see what kind of mileage the 545i gets at a steady 75.


----------



## RadioWave (Jan 22, 2004)

NWG said:


> My 04 530i gets around 23.9, that's roughly 50/50 highway/city. Gotta love that 6th gear on the highway - better mpg and smooooth! :thumbup: Hard to drive slow...
> 
> I find it really strange that you are getting 18 or so - are you at really high elevation or something? I would definitely inquire at the dealer, I don't ever remember getting something that low. (Picked up 12/17/2003 and now has 6800 miles). Good luck!


Thanks, that's a good thought about the elevation but like the location says, we're about as sea level as you can be without getting your tires wet. I'll see how it goes over the next thousand miles. Let's see, 1000 miles divided by 18, times $2.69 per gallon ... :yikes:


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

I'm getting a range of 10.7 to 14.8.


----------



## DINANISR3 (Aug 16, 2002)

I get about 10 miles a gallon with my S54 :thumbup:


----------



## Bearcat (Oct 15, 2003)

I only get about 16.5 mpg in my 530is auto mostly on short city trips.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

RadioWave said:


> Okay, I'm one of them tree hugging weenies who cares about gas mileage and emissions enough that I got an '04 530 instead of the much lusted after 545.


Ha ha ha  A tree-hugging weenie with a 40k, six-cylinder, 231 bhp, petrol BMW. Er, OK...


> After one month of driving it around and pretty much babying it on the gas pedal, I'm getting less than 18MPG and I'm pretty pissed off about that. How can they rate the car at 20-30MPG if I've doing 50/50 city/freeway and getting less than 18MPG...?


The car is still running in. Just as the car won't give its full performance for the first few thousand miles, so it's the same with fuel economy.


----------



## SkiScubaSailDud (Mar 6, 2004)

Here are a few pics I snapped of my MPG last night on a 40 or so mile highway portion of a trip. I was going to send it to my bud the Saab driver, but looks like I can use them here too...


















All that with the ac on too!


----------



## DZeckhausen (Mar 11, 2003)

·clyde· said:


> Manufacturers are required to use the fuel mileage numbers generated in the EPA test cycles in their marketing materials, on the Monroney Sticker and everything else even if they know/believe that real world numbers will be significantly higher or lower. The EPA numbers have never been terribly representative of what people can expect in the real world, but there has been a growing disconnect in recent years with newer engine/transmission combos and the technologies behind them. There is an effort under way to change the way the system works, but like all things that move through the government, it takes time. And lots of it.


That's not exactly true. They are required to advertise numbers equal to or LOWER than the EPA numbers. They just can't advertise numbers any higher.

There was a news expose on the Toyota Prius the other day where owners were complaining that they were not getting the 60mpg city numbers touted by the brochures and reported by the EPA. The were actually getting mileage in the mid to upper 30s. A Toyota spokesman made the same claim, that they are required to use the EPA numbers. The reporter looked into this and uncovered the fact that they are NOT required to use EPA numbers. They just aren't allowed to advertise HIGHER numbers than the EPA.


----------



## Moderato (Nov 24, 2003)

Just wondering - do you drive in the hills at all, or is it all flat roads? AC on all the time? Auto trans? Do you like to accelerate hard a lot? The 530i has the exact same engine, gear ratios (MT) and final drive as the much lighter 330, so if people are getting 20 - 25 mpg with the 330 then your 18mpg in the 530 might not be that far off the mark depending on your driving style & conditions. :dunno:


----------



## MMMM_ERT (Mar 13, 2004)

Wow...I am averaging 19-20 in my 02 540 around town. I have yet to take it on a long
cruise to find out the upper end of mileage...


----------



## RadioWave (Jan 22, 2004)

Moderato said:


> Just wondering - do you drive in the hills at all, or is it all flat roads? AC on all the time? Auto trans? Do you like to accelerate hard a lot? The 530i has the exact same engine, gear ratios (MT) and final drive as the much lighter 330, so if people are getting 20 - 25 mpg with the 330 then your 18mpg in the 530 might not be that far off the mark depending on your driving style & conditions. :dunno:


There is one hill that could be part of the problem but other than that, this car's got a pretty good life. Flat highways, manual transmission, no AC (yet) and no fun driving during the self imposed break-in period. I think people have pretty much nailed it with just waiting till the engine's a little more broken in.


andy thomas said:


> Ha ha ha A tree-hugging weenie with a 40k, six-cylinder, 231 bhp, petrol BMW. Er, OK...


Sadly, that does count as environmentally friendly in the SUV luvin' US. The US EPA (environmental protection agency) gives the 530 a 9 out of 10 which ain't too shabby :thumbup:. Like London, Los Angeles has a problem with entirely too visible air so the EPA ratings were important to me. Not enough to get a Prius or anything but this is a nice compromise until the Lexus hybrids start coming out.

Also, is it pretty much accepted that the I-Drive mileage figures are grossly out of whack (bulloxed for our UK friends)? It's telling me that 300 miles on 16.7 gallons is 23 MPG. :dunno:


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

RadioWave said:


> There is one hill that could be part of the problem but other than that, this car's got a pretty good life. Flat highways, manual transmission, no AC (yet) and no fun driving during the self imposed break-in period. I think people have pretty much nailed it with just waiting till the engine's a little more broken in.
> Sadly, that does count as environmentally friendly in the SUV luvin' US. The US EPA (environmental protection agency) gives the 530 a 9 out of 10 which ain't too shabby :thumbup:. Like London, Los Angeles has a problem with entirely too visible air so the EPA ratings were important to me. Not enough to get a Prius or anything but this is a nice compromise until the Lexus hybrids start coming out.
> 
> Also, is it pretty much accepted that the I-Drive mileage figures are grossly out of whack (bulloxed for our UK friends)? It's telling me that 300 miles on 16.7 gallons is 23 MPG. :dunno:


Bollocksed. Or bolloxed .

The 530i, for its size and performance, is the cleanest car in its class if you measure how much carbon dioxide it puts out. 235 g/km, something like that. However that still lands it in pretty much the top pollution bracket if your car is taxed as a benefit in kind provided by your employer (very common in the UK at least).

The computer may read high, or low; there are several anecdotes on this board (and others) about its accuracy. As it goes, 18 mpUSg is nearly 22 mpImpg; someone I know runs an E39 530iA and gets barely more than that with the car fully run-in.


----------



## CT530 (May 1, 2004)

SkiScubaSailDud said:


> Here are a few pics I snapped of my MPG last night on a 40 or so mile highway portion of a trip. I was going to send it to my bud the Saab driver, but looks like I can use them here too...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see that you got 38 mpg on a highway trip. My 2004 530i has been showing upto 35 mpg for highway driving. I was quite pleased until I started calculating mpg myself at each refueling. I realized that the car's computer is off by about 5 mpg. What's the sense of having it calculate mpg if it can't do it correctly? So, I'd recommend do your own calcs before getting too excited about such great gas mileage.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

You should have bought an E60 520i instead! :rofl: 

 

Right.

I did a 650km road trip yesterday, averaged 97.2km/h (hit a top speed of 195km/h for a 5 km stretch) and consumed 8.9 liters/100km. IMHO, that is pretty good considering that I had 4 adults, 1 child + cargo on board.

Anyway, gasoline is cheap in the US, so don't worry about it! :eeps: 


-


----------



## Moderato (Nov 24, 2003)

CT530 said:


> I see that you got 38 mpg on a highway trip. My 2004 530i has been showing upto 35 mpg for highway driving. I was quite pleased until I started calculating mpg myself at each refueling. I realized that the car's computer is off by about 5 mpg. What's the sense of having it calculate mpg if it can't do it correctly?  So, I'd recommend do your own calcs before getting too excited about such great gas mileage.


The mpg computer on my 330i is very accurate. I wonder why yours is off by so much? :dunno:


----------



## McCandless (Oct 3, 2003)

Our 99 528iA consistently gets right around 30mpg on the highway at 5-10 over the limit. A/C on and cruise control with me mostly doing the driving. The wife consistently knocks down 24 around town and she AIN'T no feather foot either! Consistent diet of Chevron Super and +50k miles.


----------



## fcmaras (Dec 15, 2003)

My last 1200 miles during my ED trip came in at 25.4 mpg, albeit with many of those in the beginning being Autobahn miles. The average speed did drop from 70 mph 
to 40 mph at the end though. Not quite city driving, but not 120 mph crusing either 

Will check computer numbers when car is back in my hands.

/Franco


----------



## Bearcat (Oct 15, 2003)

My 01 530i's computer is off about 2 mpg so I am getting about 20/28.


----------



## kd2789mo (Jul 8, 2004)

My 04 545 has 1200 miles on it. It seems to have stabilized at 21.8mpg. It's the 6sp Auto and I live in fairly rural MO....about 90 miles South of STL, which is rural to begin with  About 75% of the driving is highway w/cruise. The car also has the Adaptive laser guided cruise control, which based on the monitoring during driving, greatly improves the MPG when in use. On a side note, if you drive 60+% highway with Cruise, I very highly recommend the ACC option. It is a "pricey" option, but integrates flawlessly. At 70mph with the ACC on, the consumption runs up to around 28-30mpg. With the ACC off, and either manually adjusting for, or switching off/on for, slower moving forward vehicles, the mpg drops to around 23mgp. If the ACC option applies to your driving conditions, it will easily pay for itself is saved fuel costs.
If I drove the other 25%, which is on curving/rolling hill type roads, easier than I do, I believe the total average would be closer to 25mpg. I drive it as it was designed on the off-highway roads, often downshifting manually into, and accelerating quickly out of curves.


----------



## fcmaras (Dec 15, 2003)

The computer is off more than 5 miles on mine. It's showing 24.3 mpg, but my 20 cent calculator says 19.1. It's a bit more than a rounding error :yikes: 

/Franco


----------



## hormazd (Aug 18, 2004)

Driving style and terrain has a lot to do with MPG. On long drives with the car in 6th gear most of the time I get 26MPG on my 545i. I go through 7 stop signs and a very steep hill on my 2 mile commute home. If thats all I do, I get 12MPG.


----------



## Mr Hyde (May 3, 2004)

Mine is consistently off too. I hit my trip meter, and cehck every tank. Not as bad as you guys though. Mine if off by about 2mpg on average.


----------



## fcmaras (Dec 15, 2003)

I've heard that on earlier 5 series you were able to "calibrate" the trip computer in regards to the calculation of mpg. Any such luck with the I-Drive?

/Franco


----------

