Baby BMW Forum banner

M135i real world fuel economy

30K views 93 replies 34 participants last post by  MattParker 
#1 ·
What MPG and miles per tank are M135i owners achieving?

Anywhere near BMW's claims?
 
#28 ·
MAW73 said:
cumbrianred said:
I don't want to get hung up on MPG with a 135i sitting on the drive
Agreed..... that's the most important point to come out of this :)

Seems that the 135i is pretty good though to be fair regarding economy for a m performance car.
Having come from a 330d , I am struggling with ignoring the MPG :cry:
 
#30 ·
TMP said:
MAW73 said:
cumbrianred said:
I don't want to get hung up on MPG with a 135i sitting on the drive
Agreed..... that's the most important point to come out of this :)

Seems that the 135i is pretty good though to be fair regarding economy for a m performance car.
Having come from a 330d , I am struggling with ignoring the MPG :cry:
Come on mate. You have a SENSATIONAL CAR!
 
#31 ·
TMP said:
dogpatch said:
I haven't tried to compare any of these fuels yet. But I have stuck with non-supermarket 95RON so far. The fuel filler cap specifically says 95RON, so I am less bothered about going any higher than that at this stage.

I seem to remember older cars, e.g. Golf GTI Mk5, stating 97RON on the filler cap, but I may be mistaken.
In the user manual it says 97 is recommended. I think the 95 filler cap is left over from the 116-125 cars?
I had a look through my manuals and it says 95RON Recommended in a couple of places, but nothing about 97RON or any M135i specific stuff (that I could see). The Technical Data section has M135i info, but it looked like just kerb weights, dimensions, etc.

Can you help me out by providing the page number that I should be looking at please?

Thanks.
 
#32 ·
I noticed in the bmw brochure it states in the specs section that all performance and mpg figures are taken using 98 octane petrol. Another thing I think I read is shell and bp performance fuels don't contain any bio fuels.
 
#33 ·
204driver said:
I noticed in the bmw brochure it states in the specs section that all performance and mpg figures are taken using 98 octane petrol. Another thing I think I read is shell and bp performance fuels don't contain any bio fuels.
Ahaha that is where i could have seen it. VW did this with GTi...put normal UL in and loose 20 bhp compared to the brouchure

dogpatch said:
TMP said:
dogpatch said:
I haven't tried to compare any of these fuels yet. But I have stuck with non-supermarket 95RON so far. The fuel filler cap specifically says 95RON, so I am less bothered about going any higher than that at this stage.

I seem to remember older cars, e.g. Golf GTI Mk5, stating 97RON on the filler cap, but I may be mistaken.
In the user manual it says 97 is recommended. I think the 95 filler cap is left over from the 116-125 cars?
I had a look through my manuals and it says 95RON Recommended in a couple of places, but nothing about 97RON or any M135i specific stuff (that I could see). The Technical Data section has M135i info, but it looked like just kerb weights, dimensions, etc.

Can you help me out by providing the page number that I should be looking at please?

Thanks.
Just checked, it says SUPER (which is the bit stuck in my mind) but then says RON 95???

But as above, with a turbocharged engine the more Rons the better :)
 
#34 ·
What is all the fuss about the RON of a petrol. I have a new 328i turbo car and the BMW handbook says to use 95RON but anything above 91RON is acceptable. Surely the people who make the car knows what petrol the car should be using, so why argue with the people who matter.
 
#36 ·
The good old 'to use super or standard fuels' debate rages.

This issue was raised a year or so ago on here and it amazed me how varied were the views and opinions of people. Even the seriously sceptical wouldn't accept the views of the well-informed or knowledgeable on the subject.

My view, following a conversation with the service manager at my dealership, whose brother apparently works at Grangemouth refinery, was that Shell and a couple of other major fuel providers put their own additives in when collecting their fuel there, whereas some of the supermarkets and smaller companies simply accept the fuel as it comes. I obviously can't verify any of this, but find it interesting that there seems to be no conclusive answer and so far, on this thread, I would tend to lean towards kmpowell's offerings, purely because they sound as though they come from someone who simply knows, or is much better informed. I know that's a poor reason to support something I really don't know anything about, but until a more informed argument is presented, do we have much more to go on?

Fascinating subject though, as I've always dithered between using supermarket fuels and then feeling guilty and stuffing the odd tank of V-Power in; akin to redeeming my soul by going to church once a year to repent my sins (I don't, but maybe you'll understand my point?). I just wish I knew more about the actual processes involved, as like most of us I absolutely resent paying the fuel prices in this country and sometimes feel it just adds insult to injury having to pay a further 10p for a supposedly better quality fuel!

In answer to the op's original question, with only 700 miles on the clock, I've done some calculations on the fuel I've put in (I use the brim to brim method, rather than relying on the computer in the car telling me the figures) and to date I'm ranging between 31 and 38 mpg. Early days, but far better than I expected I have to say.
 
#37 ·
I work in pharmaceuticals, where randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled studies are the gold standard. I haven't seen any equivalent trials on expensive 'performance' fuels compared to standard ones, so I'm highly sceptical about them. I can just about believe that they might offer (very) marginal performance benefits, but it's naive (to say the least) to think that they save you money. Any tiny mpg improvements will be more than offset by the higher price of these fuels - the only reason the oil companies sell them is to make more money. When did a premium product (such as a BMW!) ever make less profit than a bog standard one?!
 
#38 ·
I can certainly tell a difference, and only run my cars on V-Power. It's already been mentioned turbo petrol cars (tuned in my case) will be more suited to making a noticeable gain.

I wouldn't touch the supermarket stuff with a barge pole personally, but thankfully as with most things in life we've all got the ability to make our own choices and abide by the consequences ;-)
 
#40 ·
auscult said:
I can certainly tell a difference, and only run my cars on V-Power. It's already been mentioned turbo petrol cars (tuned in my case) will be more suited to making a noticeable gain.

I wouldn't touch the supermarket stuff with a barge pole personally, but thankfully as with most things in life we've all got the ability to make our own choices and abide by the consequences ;-)
Do you mean you can tell a difference performance-wise or in terms of economy?
 
#41 ·
rcw600 said:
Do you mean you can tell a difference performance-wise or in terms of economy?
Sorry I could have been a lot clearer there. Mainly talking in terms of the power delivery. I would say there's a marginal increase in economy, but not by any significant measure.
Just to be clear I'm not talking about the M135i here, as I'm still waiting for that to arrive. This is my experience with previous cars, although a friend drives a 335i (N54) and I'm told it's a similar story with that.
 
#42 ·
If stated they say that the v power stuff is better and wouldn't touch the supermarket stuff with a barge pole how the frick can a comparison be made if different types of fuel have never been used in there car as stated by them and so adamantly defended. comparisons and opinions can only be drawn from scientific tests other that hot air and pure guess work and i am no better informed than the next man. i will admit i know bugger all will others do the same.
 
#43 ·
arightpest said:
If stated they say that the v power stuff is better and wouldn't touch the supermarket stuff with a barge pole how the frick can a comparison be made if different types of fuel have never been used in there car as stated by them and so adamantly defended. comparisons and opinions can only be drawn from scientific tests other that hot air and pure guess work and i am no better informed than the next man. i will admit i know bugger all will others do the same.
You certainly have a point there. I suspect many posts, regardless of subject, are defended on the basis of 'pride' rather than absolute knowledge ..... :lol2:
 
#44 ·
I always found the low down pick up of BP Ultimate better than Shell V-Power/Optimax. But V-Power/Optimax pulled stronger at the top-end.

The way I found this out was by changing routes to work when there were some major roadworks in Cambridge and I ended up going by the BP garage more. The car felt different after swapping to BP. When the roadworks ended and I went back to Shell it felt different again.

It's a bit like those cool summer nights where the cool, dense air seems to give you another few BHP.

Anyway, Evo magazine did a test many years ago where they ran a Civic Type-R, BMW Z3 and something else on Optimax and pump fuel for a period of time. They stripped the heads before and after as well as rolling roaded the cars. As per the marketing material, Optimax did seem to reduce deposits and it did give BHP gains. As above, I've always understood that the base fuel is the same with supermarkets as Shell/BP, but the additives are different. Which makes sense.

Anyway, I've never had any issue with Shell/BP and on the few occasions I've had to run cars on supermarket fuel the car is slower. So I stick with Shell/BP where possible. Why penny-pinch? It's like going and sticking cheap tyres on the car. Doesn't make sense.
 
#45 ·
The fuel and its merits argument will go around in a never ending spiral disappearing up its own flue. if you felt the difference good on you, and you feel better for spending more per litre that's your choice. but unless you had a full test rig connected to your car it will never be proved ether way. i have run mine mostly on Morrison's weasel **** for most of its 9000 + miles and its worked ok for me and for a 120d auto i have managed a average of 54 mpg. i haven't done this to save a few pence per litre its just that its nearly at the end of my road and any de tours to put a different type of fuel in would blow any so called gains away due to the distance covered to get a different fuel. a car is only as efficient as the man who presses the peddle regardless what's in the tank.
 
#46 ·
arightpest said:
The fuel and its merits argument will go around in a never ending spiral disappearing up its own flue. if you felt the difference good on you, and you feel better for spending more per litre that's your choice. but unless you had a full test rig connected to your car it will never be proved ether way. i have run mine mostly on Morrison's weasel p*ss for most of its 9000 + miles and its worked ok for me and for a 120d auto i have managed a average of 54 mpg. i haven't done this to save a few pence per litre its just that its nearly at the end of my road and any de tours to put a different type of fuel in would blow any so called gains away due to the distance covered to get a different fuel. a car is only as efficient as the man who presses the peddle regardless what's in the tank.
Morrison's weasel p*ss ..... love it :rotfl:

I'm a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde on this entire subject.

One half of me believes all the hype and the other says 'weasel p*ss'll do'

:lol2:
 
#47 ·
I guess that somebody could have a go at a 'blind test' by getting their partner (or other insured driver if available) to drive to the petrol station and fill up with one type of fuel (maybe two tanks full in a row) and then move on to the other type of fuel, and then see if they prefer one over the other before finding out which was which.

It's not double blind, but it's a start.

Regardless of the cost difference and the 'potentially subjective' performance (speed/mpg) difference, there is still the question of whether the additives that are supposedly used have any positive affect on the engine internals too.

All I know is that the car goes easily fast enough with whatever petrol I use.
 
#48 ·
Arcanum said:
I always found the low down pick up of BP Ultimate better than Shell V-Power/Optimax. But V-Power/Optimax pulled stronger at the top-end.
Exactly this, I've found the same. It's down to others to make the decision for themselves based on the evidence out there, and more to the point what it's like in their own car! Frankly I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. If people try it over a couple tanks and can't notice any difference then it's probably not worth their while.

I've never owned a DERV, so can't comment but probably won't bother unless it was a x35d. This is from the perspective of someone who enjoys driving a performance petrol, so a couple pence a litre more isn't going to sway me.
 
#49 ·
I'd rather would use only >RON98 for any high performance turbo-charged petrol engine. Saying that it should be noted the engine will run just fine on RON95 or even lower. Every modern petrol engine will automatically adapt. But this comes with performance and efficiency lost.

And also why not go for a premium fuel from one of the well known brands (BP/Shell) providing that it costs just a few pennies per liter more than supermarkets? It is worth even only for my own peace of mind, believing they are putting a bit more quality additives. Buying relatively expensive brand new big petrol engined car and then saving pennies on fuel is something which I am not sure I can understand (no offence please). Spending more for fuel, tax, insurance and maintenance should be already considered before getting such a car. Otherwise there are plenty of bad ass diesels around, which will combine joy with economy.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top