[sy2767]

Originally Posted by 07E92_335i

"I didn't take the time to read..." Please, just stop there ha. Your comment is irrelevant. Just informing people who say "I drive only on the highway and get 13 MPG average" that it could be incorrect because there's an issue (that apparently affects no one else but me) where idling is calculated incorrectly, and can be fixed by BMW.

Yawn.........:roll eyes: Who fuc#ing cares, drive the damn thing!

[07E92_335i]

Originally Posted by sy2767

Yawn.........:roll eyes: Who fuc#ing cares, drive the damn thing!

..... that's true.

[cmg5461]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Considering almost every European manufacturer has a engine stop/start feature, I'd say avoiding idling is rather important to achieving a good MPG.

The amount of fuel it saves is no where near what it costs in parts and labor to replace the inevitable failing starter. It's put in purely for political reasons. That or the EPA is getting kickbacks from companies like Bosch or Delphi for allowing a carbon credit for including the feature. It's really sad actually.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by cmg5461

The amount of fuel it saves is no where near what it costs in parts and labor to replace the inevitable failing starter. It's put in purely for political reasons. That or the EPA is getting kickbacks from companies like Bosch or Delphi for allowing a carbon credit for including the feature. It's really sad actually.

I 100% agree with your assessment, but turning off the engine at stop lights does save fuel because logic tells us so. If the engine is off at a stop light for 2 minutes it is not consuming fuel. Trust me, I'm no advocate for BMW's ASS nor any other manufacturers stop/start technology, but the system does save fuel and help manufacturers attain fuel consumption requirements set by Government. Whether that is "political" is debatable.

I've written in these Forums several times that I don't like the trend of small displacement engines and turbo charging. With digital combustion control as advanced as it is manufacturers can now meet the technically stringent fuel consumption regulations, but at the end expense of the consumer, which is your argument. Sure small engines can be made powerful and fuel efficient, but if their durability is reduced and their operating costs are increased (i.e. repair costs increase because the high technology components fail and are expensive to replace), then the economic benefit to the consumer of achieving lower fuel consumption (i.e. lower fuel expense) is lost on higher maintenance cost. However, passing the Government mandated fuel consumption levels is the primary function of the technology, not the longevity of the product.

I will laugh at the comment that the "EPA" takes kickbacks from manufacturers for handing out carbon credits. How does the "EPA", a Federal Government agency, take kickbacks from manufacturers such as Bosch and Delphi? Is it the EPA administrator himself, or scientists in the EPA, or the Contracts managers, who? That's just a funny statement.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by 07E92_335i

Oh boy....someone's about to have their heart broken when they realize the "government" is not as pure as they think.

Dude, I work with the Department of Transportation every day in a professional capacity for a private company. I can assure you I know the Federal Government is not as pure as you think I think it is. I was merely asking cmg5461 how exactly the kickback happens. I'm well versed in how the government works. It would be extremely difficult for a corporation such as Bosch to bribe a government official that would have any meaning to it's business, especially regarding carbon credits.

I mean how does a company like Bosch put forth a kickback to a government agency when it is a subcontract supplier to a major automotive manufacturer such as BMW? So Bosch goes to the head of the EPA and says "Hey here's an idea... we've invented this technology for a robust start/stop system that we can convince BMW (as their supplier) to install in their vehicles at an increase in vehicle cost to meet fuel consumption regulations, and leave it up to BMW to convince its customers that the added cost is good for them because it will save them fuel costs, and save the environment, as long as you convince Congress and the European governments to pass really strict fuel consumption laws." LOL

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by 07E92_335i

Yea....pretty much. Bosch can easily pay off the congressman(s), then he says "ok sure BOSCH, I will mandate that this 'emissions reducing' device be required on all vehicles, oh, you wan't to make a very nice donation to my campaign because I'm just so worried about the environment, wow how nice of you."

Congress to BMW (and all others) - "your cars have to have this now"

BMW- k

BOSCH to BMW - we sell it and have it specified for your line up

BMW- k

done.

BMW doesn't just add expensive, power reducing equipment because it gives a damn about the environment.

There's one thing you need to learn, it's very important:

EVERYTHING a company does, is for profit. EVERYTHING.
They don't just do things to be different, proactive, etc, UNLESS, they think it will lead to more sales, etc.

If BMW came to me and said, We are the ONLY manufacturer who adds this expensive, maintenance heavy device that helps the environment a little, but hurts the car's performance. We do it for the Environment!"

I'd probably go with the other cars that are cheaper, more reliable, better performance, etc.

But if it's mandated by law.....don't have much of a choice.

You can look it up, this crap always leaks eventually, it's not too much of a secret. The worst is emission's policy, and really Environmental Policy in general because to the common people it always seems like a good thing.

Remember the whole: "DON'T GO ELECTRIC CARS, IT REQUIRES MORE COAL BURNING FOR ELECTRICITY AND IS ACTUALLY WORSE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT."

Yea, turns out, none of that was true, yet it helped take the Electric cars out of the market in the early mid 90s. (GM EV1 for example)

So now it's bribing Congress and not the EPA. Which is it? Or is it both? So Bosch bribes over 50% of the House and Senate so it can sell a heavy duty starter to BMW which it probably makes $20 profit on and sells BMW what, maybe 500,000 starters a year... Now if it was VW they'd just SAY it's a heavy-duty starter...

Wow, I didn't know EVERYTHING a company does is for profit. Really? WOW! I had know idea. Who'd a thunk. LOL.

GM killed the EV1 because there wasn't a market for it and the company couldn't make a profit (shit there's that axiom again...). Oh wait, didn't we hear over and over and over that the Volt was a joke because GM lost like $20K in profit on everyone? But somehow GM introduces the Volt Gen2: larger, faster, better electric range, better fuel consumption, and oh, 300 pounds lighter.

[catcher22]

this topic is kinda wacky lol

but idling DOES waste gas. more than you would think too.

you'll notice when coming to a stop your mpg will go to 99.99 then drastically drop until you come to a stop. At that point, you're eating gas while slowing down to a stop.

Your measurement needs to be much longer. 12 seconds isn't enough to determine your avg. mpg aside from that one specific trip. You need to make several trips over several distances and compare all the average mpg's to get a more accurate count.

I get what you're saying, and I have had similar questions myself before. But I think to get an accurate long term mpg, you need to drive for a while over both distance and time.

[Eddien123]

Don't we all remember what it was like to get an 80,90,95,70 and then a 0 on a quiz or test? 0's hurt like a bitch. Still, you're burning fuel but going no where it will hurt your economy. And I'm sure it's not totally accurate but this is probably why BMW and every other company believes that start stop is a good system even though it's useless and customers don't even notice a difference.

[grussauto]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I 100% agree with your assessment, but turning off the engine at stop lights does save fuel because logic tells us so. If the engine is off at a stop light for 2 minutes it is not consuming fuel. Trust me, I'm no advocate for BMW's ASS nor any other manufacturers stop/start technology, but the system does save fuel and help manufacturers attain fuel consumption requirements set by Government. Whether that is "political" is debatable.

I've written in these Forums several times that I don't like the trend of small displacement engines and turbo charging. With digital combustion control as advanced as it is manufacturers can now meet the technically stringent fuel consumption regulations, but at the end expense of the consumer, which is your argument. Sure small engines can be made powerful and fuel efficient, but if their durability is reduced and their operating costs are increased (i.e. repair costs increase because the high technology components fail and are expensive to replace), then the economic benefit to the consumer of achieving lower fuel consumption (i.e. lower fuel expense) is lost on higher maintenance cost. However, passing the Government mandated fuel consumption levels is the primary function of the technology, not the longevity of the product.

I will laugh at the comment that the "EPA" takes kickbacks from manufacturers for handing out carbon credits. How does the "EPA", a Federal Government agency, take kickbacks from manufacturers such as Bosch and Delphi? Is it the EPA administrator himself, or scientists in the EPA, or the Contracts managers, who? That's just a funny statement.

I recently test drove a Mini Cooper that shuts the engine of when you stop. When you pushed the accelerator the engine restarts and off you go. It is indeed a way to lower fuel consumption.

[grussauto]

My computer mpg stays around 15.9 to 16.8. When I calculate mpg by using (miles driven since last fill up/gallons to refill) the calculation average is 23.5 to 24.6.

[335idle]

My 2011 335i is always giving me about 32 mpg highway. I commute 62 miles a day. So usually one full tank with my commute and local driving nets me 440(yes some times i has race car) miles full tank.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by 07E92_335i

Trying to talk politics with someone who doesn't understand politics.....

Bosch is not contributing to political campaigns (or bribing EPA officials) so it can sell a $5 more profitable starter to BMW by having world governments pass legislation to increase the fuel efficiency of automobiles. If that were the case we'd have 500 HP 4-door sedans that get 100 MPG and cost $40,000. Talking to someone about business who doesn't understand business

[Welcome to NBA Jam]

Originally Posted by 07E92_335i

Trying to talk politics with someone who doesn't understand politics.....

You actually think that's how it works?

This is how it works:

Here's 56 data points. Here's an average of the average MPG compared to expected, which is how you should be measuring it before making a conclusion. Doing one trip and calculating the average MPG is not how you determine differences between two numbers.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/why-you...how-to-fix-it/

It's within ~6%, on average. Okay, so it's ~94% accurate. Welcome to real-world statistics.

Also, 0 divided by a non-zero number doesn't equal infinity. It equals 0.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Bosch is not contributing to political campaigns (or bribing EPA officials) so it can sell a $5 more profitable starter to BMW by having world governments pass legislation to increase the fuel efficiency of automobiles. If that were the case we'd have 500 HP 4-door sedans that get 100 MPG and cost $40,000.

This. Not everything is a conspiracy. It's literally as simple as "Here's a law. Here's what you need to do to sell your car in our country." America is one country of hundreds that BMW sells cars, parts, and other things in.

[Tom K.]

Originally Posted by grussauto

My computer mpg stays around 15.9 to 16.8. When I calculate mpg by using (miles driven since last fill up/gallons to refill) the calculation average is 23.5 to 24.6.

Do you reset the computer at each fill-up?

As my E91 is used for business, I've done this for each fill-up and over 38,000 miles, the computer has consistently been about 3% optimistic when compared to actual miles/gallons.

Tom

[808AWD325xi]

Originally Posted by 07E92_335i

I noticed people complaining about getting 13mpg in their 335i and were very upset and trying to figure out why. I thought there was no way that was possible, turns out I was right.

So my 2003 BMW was able to figure out how to calculate MPG, but my 2007 (all E92s and probably many more actually) do not know how to.

So what do I mean?

When you are sitting still, idling, at a stop light, etc. So 0 mph, your gas mileage is still being calculated like you are driving. So you are burning gas but going nowhere (0/x=infinity), so BMW takes this as a DRAMATIC affect on your MPG. If you average 20mpg when driving, but you decided to sit in the parking lot a few seconds, or stopped at a few red lights, your MPG is DRAMATICALLY affected, like way too much.

I reset it and went for a 8 mile drive. Averaged 24mpg when driving, I then hit a red light at 3.5 miles and timed it, 12 seconds. My MPG went from 24.3 to 12.4 in 12 seconds. By the end of the trip (8 miles) I had averaged 15.6 MPG. While instantaneous MPGs read around 24 when driving.

So my driving MPG was 24ish. But the BMW computer says it is 15.6. I don't know why they decided to start calculating it like this, and why they thought idling should be factored in so highly.

They figured it out on my 03 Z4, but just really screwed it up on the 335i.

In my experience, E9Xers calculate average mpg within a reasonable margin of error. I've owned a 2007 E90 335xi and a 2009 E92 335i, both cars averaged 19.2mpg over the long term.

Once I flashed my E92 with the 2009 Alpina B3 flash, my average mpg increased to 21mpg. 15.9 gallon tank x 21 mpg = ~333.9 miles.

I tested it today and prior to a 15.617 gallon fill up, I drove 331.6 miles...15.617G x 21 mpg = ~327.957 miles. Pretty close to reality:



I know from prior experience in Cali (where I could pump my own gas) that my E92 can hold 16.008 gallons. 16.008G x 21 mpg = ~336.168 miles. Good enough for Government work.

[cmg5461]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I will laugh at the comment that the "EPA" takes kickbacks from manufacturers for handing out carbon credits. How does the "EPA", a Federal Government agency, take kickbacks from manufacturers such as Bosch and Delphi? Is it the EPA administrator himself, or scientists in the EPA, or the Contracts managers, who? That's just a funny statement.

The EPA offers a 4% carbon credit for manufacturers using automatic transmissions. (truck industry) That carbon credit was heavily lobbied by allison. Where in fact, automatic transmissions are more likely to waste 4% more fuel vs. AMT and MT's. But Allison is an AMERICAN company and epa is all for that. Bribing is easy. Just become friends which someone in a driving position and offer bribes for pushing a certain regulation.

Bosch -> EPA man: yo we came up with an awesome way to save fuel. you should give deez guys credits 4 using it. I have a washington with ur name on it if it passes

EPA man -> EPA internal: start/stop saves 0.124% fuel, lets give oems 2% credit cause 'merican made parts and UAW

EPA internal: k

EPA man -> Bosch: k, done

EPA -> OEM: use start stop technology for 2% carbon credit

OEM *mutters in head*: oo we can save 2% in credits and get people to buy labor when starters fail k

Bosch *connivingly rubbing hands together*: our starter sales have rose 5%. gud dayz

----------------------------------------------

Also I never claimed start/stop didn't save fuel. I merely said the amount it saves is poor in comparison to the cost associated with it.

[tuned2ride]

My life average over 85K on my N52 is only 20mpg (city rating is 19). That was one the 3 worst aspects of this E90 experience. Very surprised because I was promised a 15% improvement over my M54 on my E46. It actually proved 15% worse!!!

So 30% gap with the expectation.

You could legitimately question my driving. I can reply to that I also drive an Honda in the same manner and I get right on EPA combined instead of the EPA city. I wished that I had a M54 in the E90.... it sounded right off the box and had no issue in 50K miles. On the other side, the N52 was a terrible engine to me. It was hard on gas, consumed too much oil, leaked many time$, had many sensor issues, the head was opened to fix clattering from the exhaust valves.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by cmg5461

The EPA offers a 4% carbon credit for manufacturers using automatic transmissions. (truck industry) That carbon credit was heavily lobbied by allison. Where in fact, automatic transmissions are more likely to waste 4% more fuel vs. AMT and MT's. But Allison is an AMERICAN company and epa is all for that. Bribing is easy. Just become friends which someone in a driving position and offer bribes for pushing a certain regulation.

Bosch -> EPA man: yo we came up with an awesome way to save fuel. you should give deez guys credits 4 using it. I have a washington with ur name on it if it passes

EPA man -> EPA internal: start/stop saves 0.124% fuel, lets give oems 2% credit cause 'merican made parts and UAW

EPA internal: k

EPA man -> Bosch: k, done

EPA -> OEM: use start stop technology for 2% carbon credit

OEM *mutters in head*: oo we can save 2% in credits and get people to buy labor when starters fail k

Bosch *connivingly rubbing hands together*: our starter sales have rose 5%. gud dayz

----------------------------------------------

Also I never claimed start/stop didn't save fuel. I merely said the amount it saves is poor in comparison to the cost associated with it.

Sure.

[NOITALL]

My mpg is wrong too. Everytime.
Last time I filled up it was showing 7.3 km/l. My calculations showed 8.4. Everytime. It's always too pessimistic.

[cmg5461]

Originally Posted by I'm wrong

My mpg is wrong too. Everytime.
Last time I filled up it was showing 7.3 km/l. My calculations showed 8.4. Everytime. It's always too pessimistic.

You're wrong

[RaidersFan]

I just do the math in my head when I fill up. 16 gallons, 345 miles, somewhere around 22 mpg....

[Cory S]

My 2011 E90 335 gets 23-25.8mpg every tank. (VERY little city driving) The onboard calculator is always within 1.5mpg or less.

Last fill up. Onboard (after reset) reading 26.1mpg. Went 398 miles, and I filled up with 15.8 gallons. (25.1mpg)