LCI diesel fuel consumption
#11
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by steve_gus' post='520131' date='Jan 20 2008, 01:52 AM
I have a 520d SE. Manual. Pre LCI by a few months.
Journey distance and air temp seem to be a major factor. Anyone buying a diesel of any make and using it on short trips will i think be universally dissapointed.
PS - Just noticed that the original posters 525 would be the detuned 3litre (LCI) and not he one i would ave been offered - the 3 litres doing even better than the 2.5 is suprising
Journey distance and air temp seem to be a major factor. Anyone buying a diesel of any make and using it on short trips will i think be universally dissapointed.
PS - Just noticed that the original posters 525 would be the detuned 3litre (LCI) and not he one i would ave been offered - the 3 litres doing even better than the 2.5 is suprising
My car is the detuned 3 litre which because of the efficient dynamics package is, in the auto version at least, more economical than the pre-LCI 520d. I know because I get a lower business fuel rate than a colleague with a 520d.
Regards,
#12
Members
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Surrey UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: BMW520d SE Touring 140g/km 1995cc. Deep Sea Blue, Beige Linea Cloth, Professional Navigation,BMW Connectedv Drive, Bluetooth Phone, 6 Disc CD. Poplar wood trim. Front seat lumbar support, auto air con, hi-fi loudspeakers, USB audio interface, radial spoke wheels.
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Palmo' post='520104' date='Jan 19 2008, 11:14 PM
Something seems wrong here to me. My 525d easily acheives & betters these figures and without driving purely for economy. If you compare the emmissions figures & thus fuel economy figures between the new 520d & 525d you should be getting noticably more than me? Is yours an auto?
#13
Contributors
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Palmo' post='520104' date='Jan 19 2008, 11:14 PM
Something seems wrong here to me. My 525d easily acheives & betters these figures and without driving purely for economy. If you compare the emmissions figures & thus fuel economy figures between the new 520d & 525d you should be getting noticably more than me? Is yours an auto?
#14
Senior Members
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: northamptonshire, UK
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by colejl' post='520259' date='Jan 20 2008, 01:32 PM
I've always believed that bigger engines are often more efficient in a lot of real-world circumstances... Not that the 520d is 'underpowered' but it must work harder than a 525d/530d and this can increase consumption. Individual driving style has the greatest impact on economy though - Reading the road and using the brakes and accelerator appropriately makes a large difference!
working harder might well be true at the top end of performance, but perhaps its not so much of an issue at lower and average speeds. I read years ago on a book on the Austin Mini, that it used approx 8 hp (out of the 34!) to do a constant 40mph on the flat. If it takes say, 50hp for an E60 to do 60mph on the flat, it would be the same for both engines. Would working a 163hp motor to 50hp be that much harder than a 200hp motor to produce same power?
In theory, each pair of crank rotations on a LCI 2.5 (3 litres) will draw 3 litres of fuel and air, where the 2.0 will draw (a more obvious!) 2 litres. So, the 3.0 ought to be less efficient.... unless the 3.0 revs lower. On a 520d 2k revs give you 70mph.
There must be some trickery here that only the designers fully understand!
#15
Senior Members
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: E60 525d M-Sport Saloon M57N2 3.0d LCI
EXTERIOR: Jet Black, ///M-Aerodynamic Bodystyling, ///M-Rear Spoiler, De-badged, Gradual Tint Windscreen, ///M-Double Spoke 172M 19" Alloy Wheels (with non-run flats & space saver spare wheel) & ///M-Sports Suspension;
INTERIOR: ///M-Steering Wheel, Black Dakota Leather Heated Sports Seats with Electric Lumbar Supports, Brushed Aluminium Interior Trim & Anthracite Headlining.
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by colejl' post='520259' date='Jan 20 2008, 01:32 PM
I've always believed that bigger engines are often more efficient in a lot of real-world circumstances... Not that the 520d is 'underpowered' but it must work harder than a 525d/530d and this can increase consumption. Individual driving style has the greatest impact on economy though - Reading the road and using the brakes and accelerator appropriately makes a large difference!
The new LCI 525d (detuned 3.0d) is considerably better on both the economy front & in terms of performance over the old pre-LCI 525d (2.5d). This is down to a number of factors Inc. Efficiency dynamics.
So, at a slight tangent, how long do we recon it will be before the 525d's detuned 3.0 engine is replaced with the new 2.0 twin turbo (204 hp, 400 NM, emmissions 138) as now been fitted in the new 123d? The updated 2.0d (177 hp) was first seen in the 1 series I believe. Surely this engine is stepping on the toes of the detuned 3.0d engine - more hp, same torque, considerably reduced emmissions?
#16
Contributors
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Palmo' post='520379' date='Jan 20 2008, 08:31 PM
So, at a slight tangent, how long do we recon it will be before the 525d's detuned 3.0 engine is replaced with the new 2.0 twin turbo (204 hp, 400 NM, emmissions 138) as now been fitted in the new 123d? The updated 2.0d (177 hp) was first seen in the 1 series I believe. Surely this engine is stepping on the toes of the detuned 3.0d engine - more hp, same torque, considerably reduced emmissions?
![Tongue](https://5series.net/forums/images/smilies/imported/tongue.gif)
Seriously though, I expect the new 5 (F10) to utilise this engine and the 3.0 engine will receive some mild extra tuning to differentiate... I don't think there'd be room for 5 diesels? (2.0t (520), 2.0tt (523?), low-tune 3.0t (525), high-tune 3.0t (530) & 3.0tt (535))
#17
Contributors
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by steve_gus' post='520378' date='Jan 20 2008, 08:31 PM
In theory, each pair of crank rotations on a LCI 2.5 (3 litres) will draw 3 litres of fuel and air, where the 2.0 will draw (a more obvious!) 2 litres. So, the 3.0 ought to be less efficient.... unless the 3.0 revs lower. On a 520d 2k revs give you 70mph.
There must be some trickery here that only the designers fully understand!
There must be some trickery here that only the designers fully understand!
From memory my 530d is over 80mph at 2k rpm. Not sure if the auto has a longer final gearing...
#18
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by colejl' post='520408' date='Jan 20 2008, 11:48 PM
From memory my 530d is over 80mph at 2k rpm. Not sure if the auto has a longer final gearing...
Regards,
#19
Contributors
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: MY2004 530d. Poverty spec
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by steve_gus' post='520378' date='Jan 20 2008, 08:31 PM
In theory, each pair of crank rotations on a LCI 2.5 (3 litres) will draw 3 litres of fuel and air, where the 2.0 will draw (a more obvious!) 2 litres.
So, as you yourself conclude, engine capacity is not a direct indicator of economy, although it certainly influences it. All things being equal, a 2l engine will need more throttle to maintain a steady 40mph cruise than a 3l engine, and therefore the fuel burnt is not simply 2/3. Probably be very similar in this case - main difference being more effieciency losses in the bigger engine.
Andrew
#20
Senior Members
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: LONDON UK
Posts: 1,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Post](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
so the lcis have better engines i knew that, the 520d was a efficiency dynamics, but didnt know this was the case over the diesil range, mines a 2006 oct model, with reasonable mpg after ecu remap
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post