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.
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.
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.
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 :
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.
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.
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...
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
"J Strickland" < email@example.com> wrote in message
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
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.