Fuel Mileage Sucks on '94 325 Convertable

Page 2 of 2  
J Strickland wrote:


What about final drive ratios? Are they the same? Just a thought...
-- -Fred W
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

According to Bentley, the trans and final drive are the same.
I think the consensus is that the rag top weighs more, and thus sucks up more gas.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Basing this on the E46, across the range the convertible gives 1 - 2mpg less than the equivalent coupe, 1-3 mpg less than the saloon, and as much as 4mpg less if you're comparing diesels!
Convertibles have to be heavier, I guess weight really does make a big difference, but it sounds like your car is working as it should.
According to BMW. you have a Ci.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It turns out that I might be mashing the pedals with more gusto than when I had the sedan. I'll be watching this and let you know.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't know about the 4-doors, never had one, but I have a 1996 328 5-speed convertible, it gets better mileage. On road trips at 60-65mph, it averages close to 30mpg, round about town about 23 to 25. The car would be heavier than a non-convertible, there would be a little more wind drag from the soft top. I must say that I also have the removable hardtop for my car, and find little difference in gas mileage when it is on (although the car would weigh another hundred pounds or so). The above figures of mileage are for conservative driving (not as conservative as possible, but changing gears at about 2300 to 2600 rpm. Mileage drops below 20 with spirited driving. Having the air conditioner running makes maybe 1mpg difference. Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J Strickland wrote:

Could be the O2 sensor? Could also be the increased weight of the convertible. Yep, that's right, the added frame below, designed to improve the chassis stiffness, is heavier than the missing roof above.

You are correct. 325Ci would be a coupe. 325iC is a convertible. 325CiC is sometimes used to denote a 2 door convertible, but it's redundant since there are no 4 door BMW convertibles.
-- -Fred W
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Can't you people read! ;-)
It's a Ci, irrespective of it being a coupe or convertible. If you still don't believe me go here : http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/3/330ciconvertible/default or here : http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesandspecifications/0,4637,1156_1515__bs-Mw%253D%253D%2540bb-Q0E%253D%2540sit-bmwuk,00.html
And I've already posted the OFFICIAL BMW mpg stats for coupes v convertibles v saloons, and it show convertibles use more fuel! Your car is fine, there are no faults, it's just heavier.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Sticker Price hasn't changed much in 12 years, my car has the original window sticker, and the price in 1994 was pushing $42,000 (USD).
or here :

http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesandspecifications/0,4637,1156_1515__bs-Mw%253D%253D%2540bb-Q0E%253D%2540sit-bmwuk,00.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
After getting over the thrill of having the wind whistling across my massive expanse of a forehead -- it extends most of the way to my shoulders these days -- I find that I am getting pretty close to 24mpg, whereas my old car was giving 25mpg. I haven't left the top up long enough to find out if aerodynamics is part of my fuel loss, but I'm pretty sure the weight is my most significant issue.
I was hoping you guys would come up with a more temporary cause of my low mileage -- something along the lines of the O2 sensor causing it to run rich -- that I could fix, but it turns out the rag top is hauling around extra baggage that eats into the gas tank.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I once read that as rule of thumb every 100 kg in the boot add about 1 litre per 100 km fuel (whatever that is in gallons per mile).
0.26 US gal per 62 miles...you work it out from here...
DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
--
"J Strickland" < snipped-for-privacy@nospam.net> wrote in message
news: snipped-for-privacy@ez2.net...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
waffled on about something:

The weight of the car won't help it, but having the top down gives you the aerodynamics of a sale boat side on!
All that wind and buffeting you hear with the roof down is turbulence, turbulence is bad... It resists your smooth passage through the air.
Over here in the UK they even try to encourage people to remove their roof racks when they don't need them because of the increased fuel consumption.
Dodgy.
--
MUSHROOMS ARE THE OPIATE OF THE MOOSES

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.