|
|
|
|
|
|
BMW Garage | BMW Meets | Register | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum
>
Could it really be the VPower?
|
|
10-04-2012, 03:44 PM | #1 |
Lieutenant Colonel
170
Rep 1,957
Posts |
Could it really be the VPower?
I appreciate the concept of economy may seem incompatible when talking about my new XKR-S but I'm shocked at how this car is performing.
My previous non-S XKR (you know, the slow one) always averaged around 18-19mpg across various driving, peaking at 21mpg when driven very carefully and after being run in. I expected my new one to be similar or even slightly worse given the extra power so imagine my surprise when my trip computer consistently showed around 23mpg over the first tank. This was from a wide variety of driving from stop start town stuff, to motorway and even a few high speed bursts (to 70mph )....exactly the same kind of driving that I did day in, day out, in my last one. On filling the car up this evening, my manual calculations (well, the Road Trip app actually) showed the trip computer to be accurate to within 0.5mpg so it ain't lying! On my way home tonight, with similarly mixed driving, it delivered 31mpg average at it's peak (for the first 15 miles or so after filling it up as it was pretty consistent 50-60mph driving through lovely Stoke) and after some faster driving it dropped to 24mpg by the time I got home an hour or so later. Check this out where you can see the average speed and distance to see it's not manipulated by driving really slow or a recent reset! The only difference from my point of view is that I used any old fuel in the previous XKR yet have so far only filled up with 2 tanks of VPower in the new R-S. Or, have Jaguar engineered the faster car to be miraculously 30% more economical?! At this economy, it's actually cheaper to run than our Range Rover Sport, where the 3.0 diesel claims to be averaging 28mpg on the trip but according to my app is really doing about 24mpg. With the dirty stuff being 5% more expensive, the diesel really is costing more in fuel than my 5.0 Supercharged car! Can this fabulous economy really be down to the use of VPower then? |
10-04-2012, 04:37 PM | #3 |
Major General
164
Rep 5,950
Posts
Drives: M3 Comp Pack / QQ+2 Tekna
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
iTrader: (1)
Garage List 2008 350Z GT Roadster [2.00]
2004 Honda S2000 [0.00] 2005 Nissan 350Z GT ... [0.00] 2006 E92 BMW 335i SE [9.00] 2003 Maserati 4200 [6.00] 2006 E90 330d M Sport [0.00] |
Obviously the XKR-S is the natural tree-huggers choice
__________________
Current -: MW E92 M3 Competition Pack / Qashqai+2 Tekna 1.6dci
Gone -: 370Z GT Roadster; BMW X3 3.0d xdrive M Sport; E46 330i M Sport Coupe; Mazda RX8 231; Nissan 350Z GT Roadster; BMW E90 330d M Sport; BMW E92 335i SE; Maserati 4200; Nissan 350Z; Honda S2000; Astra Coupe Turbo; Ford Probe |
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2012, 06:41 AM | #6 |
Captain
18
Rep 617
Posts |
Some engine's do actually run more economically on Super or V-Power as that is what the ECU map will have been optimised for. On my 335i for instance I only use V-Power now so not only do I have improved fuel consumption by a couple of mpg, I also get better performance. Win-Win
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2012, 07:08 AM | #7 |
Major General
191
Rep 6,110
Posts
Drives: Don't know yet!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
|
There is something very,very wrong with the world if we get a thread from Andrew discussing economy and MPG in ANY car.
Perhaps the Mayans are right after all! Andrew,get the f*ck out,and live a little,come back and tell us how fast the car went on that private airfield that everyone has access to,and that your MPG was 2 to the gallon. That's more like what I'd expect from you,not a load of fannydross about f*cking economy
__________________
=================================
Never argue with an idiot on the internet. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. |
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2012, 07:51 AM | #8 |
Banned
240
Rep 7,690
Posts
Drives: 335i SE Coupe Space Grey
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LONDON
|
clearly not fast enough..... ;-)
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2012, 08:06 AM | #9 |
Brigadier General
190
Rep 4,655
Posts |
If you asked this question 20 years ago, I would have answered like this: remember that you're talking about comparing 2 Jags. That's 2 cars that although on the surface may be very similar in weight, engine size/power/mapping etc are actually both made from completely different selections from the parts bin.
As you're actually talking about 2 new Jags which are probably made of a mixture of BMW, Mondeo and French car parts.... I've honestly no real idea. Going back to my first point, perhaps it has something to do with part of the increase in performance coming from a mixture of reduced weight and better components (ie where an intake is made of carbon instead of plastic, perhaps it is also better machined, for example) which would (in my opinion) be likely to result in better MPG's. In short... Perhaps your old and more bog standard XKR was made from Friday afternoon parts, wheras this flagship XKR-S is made from sexier stuff, both in terms of its weight and build quality. Just some random words strung together by my brain. Ignore if not suitable/relevant. Matt |
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2012, 08:30 AM | #10 |
Lieutenant General
1867
Rep 13,043
Posts
Drives: BMW M340I G20
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
|
V Power made absolutely no difference in MPG in my M3
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2012, 11:25 AM | #11 |
spender of the kids inheritance
18
Rep 182
Posts |
Fifth Gear did a test on V Power and the rest last week.V B-H said she got something like 0.6 extra mph.They used a Golf GTI.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-05-2012, 01:07 PM | #12 |
Major General
688
Rep 7,308
Posts
Drives: see above.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Yorkshire, UK
|
These big engines aren't as bad as people reckon - I had nearly 30mpg on a run to the NEC and back recently. That was on the standard 95 stuff from Tesco aswell.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|