bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

All things M135i related can be found in here

Moderators: Rich196, marco_polo, Producethis, Lambster, babybmwadmin

RJW_1989
Experienced Member
Experienced Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:33 pm

bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by RJW_1989 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:41 am

so this weekend while my girlfriend was at work me and her brother went out for a drive in the cars , this was saturday before that pig of a snow storm showed its face.

Anyway, he has just got his 18 plate s1 competition spec and its brilliant little car hasnt skipped a beat in the snow and in the wet coming off of roundabouts etc the grip it has is unreal to be fair, after an hour or two of the usual twisties near us we decided to reset the trip computers and go down a few junctions on the motorway to wooley edge services the one with the worst average mpg when we got there bought the coffees , just out of pure boredom!

the results were that my m140 managed 42.8mpg and the S1 managed 41.3mpg .... so Audi buys the brews! it got me thinking though that the next 130 or whatever they are going to call it is a 4 pot 2 litre AWD and if anything its thirstier than the 140 , i know there are other factors such as the fact i had another 2 gears but i was still feeding an extra 1000cc and 2 more cylinders ...... guess my question is , is there really that much to be gained from all this down sizing ? in real world terms i dont think there is ?

barneym140i
Experienced Member
Experienced Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:45 am

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by barneym140i » Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:45 am

The downsizing of engines isn't related to MPG though , its due to the stricter rules and regulations on emissions.

User avatar
Compactpete
Enthusiastic Member
Enthusiastic Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 8:22 pm

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by Compactpete » Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:51 am

barneym140i wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:45 am
The downsizing of engines isn't related to MPG though , its due to the stricter rules and regulations on emissions.
And the fact that you can't fit 6 cylinders sideways.
Now - E92 M3, DCT, Comp Pack, Alpine White.

Gone - 2016 M135i

RJW_1989
Experienced Member
Experienced Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:33 pm

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by RJW_1989 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:54 am

barneym140i wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:45 am
The downsizing of engines isn't related to MPG though , its due to the stricter rules and regulations on emissions.
so burning more fuel to be better on emissions is seen as a good thing?

ReGenesis
Enthusiastic Member
Enthusiastic Member
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:03 am
Location: Under your bed...

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by ReGenesis » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:26 am

Compactpete wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:51 am
barneym140i wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:45 am
The downsizing of engines isn't related to MPG though , its due to the stricter rules and regulations on emissions.
And the fact that you can't fit 6 cylinders sideways.
You can but it'd be a bit wide on the track....
F21 135i pre-lci, AW, 3dr, CR, HK and an ever increasing toy list :D

For sale - pm me for more detail!

KR15
Enthusiastic Member
Enthusiastic Member
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:22 am
Location: South Yorkshire

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by KR15 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:27 am

RJW_1989 wrote:
barneym140i wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:45 am
The downsizing of engines isn't related to MPG though , its due to the stricter rules and regulations on emissions.
so burning more fuel to be better on emissions is seen as a good thing?
This is the problem with the official MPG tests. I'm sure the S1 would have done better on that test which is on a rolling road with gear changes at a specific point but as you've shown, they don't stack up in the real world.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Current - BMW M140i, BCS Powervalve Cat Back :twisted:
Prev - Focus ST-3 Mk3.5 :D

Johnnyo
Experienced Member
Experienced Member
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:31 pm
Location: Up north

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by Johnnyo » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:31 am

The torque from the '40 is great and what helps with mpg massively when being driven normally.. Beautify of this car - the jekyll and hyde character..

My 2.0 Audi TFSI quattro A4 has worst fuel economy than the BM... (which has 120bhp more and !.0 litre more capacity and 2 more cylinders!)
2017 Petrol - many galloping horses.. Intergalactic miles....
2014 Dirty White 120d sport auto - brilliant but gone to help save the planet from diesel....

fufty1
Experienced Member
Experienced Member
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 11:08 am

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by fufty1 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:38 am

This is the issue with the efficiency tests. And why they have changed them to have a real world test as well.

A 1.2 petrol with a turbo will look way more efficient than a 2 litre petrol on paper. But when you are pushing both to 70mph they probably will be the same and use the same about of fuel.

If the real world tests make this obvious when they get used properly then we might see more cars going back to NA with them being able to drop cylinders when not pushing on.
Current: M240i manual EB with cognac.
Gone: m135i auto MG

RJW_1989
Experienced Member
Experienced Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:33 pm

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by RJW_1989 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:41 am

KR15 wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:27 am
RJW_1989 wrote:
barneym140i wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:45 am
The downsizing of engines isn't related to MPG though , its due to the stricter rules and regulations on emissions.
so burning more fuel to be better on emissions is seen as a good thing?
This is the problem with the official MPG tests. I'm sure the S1 would have done better on that test which is on a rolling road with gear changes at a specific point but as you've shown, they don't stack up in the real world.

yeah the thing is that when we were doing the test we were on loud speaker, we were doing between 55-65 all the way and he said that he was in 6th at about 1900RPM where as i was in 8th at about 1000RPM then when we hit a down hill the car goes into coast mode and i was doing between 350-500RPM ish

in the real world i think its how hard the engine has to work that depends how efficient it is , so in practice ( as shown ) a load of torque and a few more gears is better economy wise .... and i think the industry is starting to figure that out , look at the new mustang big 5 litre V8 with a 10 speed box .... its basically a mountain bike !

so BMW if you are listening keep the B58 haha

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

User avatar
NISFAN
Enthusiastic Member
Enthusiastic Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2017 12:46 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by NISFAN » Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:04 am

RJW_1989 wrote:so this weekend while my girlfriend was at work me and her brother went out for a drive in the cars , this was saturday before that pig of a snow storm showed its face.

Anyway, he has just got his 18 plate s1 competition spec and its brilliant little car hasnt skipped a beat in the snow and in the wet coming off of roundabouts etc the grip it has is unreal to be fair, after an hour or two of the usual twisties near us we decided to reset the trip computers and go down a few junctions on the motorway to wooley edge services the one with the worst average mpg when we got there bought the coffees , just out of pure boredom!

the results were that my m140 managed 42.8mpg and the S1 managed 41.3mpg .... so Audi buys the brews! it got me thinking though that the next 130 or whatever they are going to call it is a 4 pot 2 litre AWD and if anything its thirstier than the 140 , i know there are other factors such as the fact i had another 2 gears but i was still feeding an extra 1000cc and 2 more cylinders ...... guess my question is , is there really that much to be gained from all this down sizing ? in real world terms i dont think there is ?
The main difference is the Audi is AWD. There is a severe penalty to be had when peddling 3 diffs, instead of 1.
You also have the ZF gearbox, which is one of the most sophisticated gearboxes on the planet. ZF have said they achieved 11% more fuel efficiency than the ZF6, which was also pretty efficient for an auto.....and surpassed a 6 speed manual at the same time.
Coupled to a bmw engine which is as advanced as they come and always a step above VAG.

That is why on a steady cruise, a 3 litre bmw with ZF and RWD outperforms a 1.6 Audi S1Image

I doubt the new AWD 2.0 1 series will match the 140 initially (fuel economy), but a FWD version should be at least on par.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
M240i Auto

RJW_1989
Experienced Member
Experienced Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:33 pm

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by RJW_1989 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:17 am

NISFAN wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:04 am
RJW_1989 wrote:so this weekend while my girlfriend was at work me and her brother went out for a drive in the cars , this was saturday before that pig of a snow storm showed its face.

Anyway, he has just got his 18 plate s1 competition spec and its brilliant little car hasnt skipped a beat in the snow and in the wet coming off of roundabouts etc the grip it has is unreal to be fair, after an hour or two of the usual twisties near us we decided to reset the trip computers and go down a few junctions on the motorway to wooley edge services the one with the worst average mpg when we got there bought the coffees , just out of pure boredom!

the results were that my m140 managed 42.8mpg and the S1 managed 41.3mpg .... so Audi buys the brews! it got me thinking though that the next 130 or whatever they are going to call it is a 4 pot 2 litre AWD and if anything its thirstier than the 140 , i know there are other factors such as the fact i had another 2 gears but i was still feeding an extra 1000cc and 2 more cylinders ...... guess my question is , is there really that much to be gained from all this down sizing ? in real world terms i dont think there is ?
The main difference is the Audi is AWD. There is a severe penalty to be had when peddling 3 diffs, instead of 1.
You also have the ZF gearbox, which is one of the most sophisticated gearboxes on the planet. ZF have said they achieved 11% more fuel efficiency than the ZF6, which was also pretty efficient for an auto.....and surpassed a 6 speed manual at the same time.
Coupled to a bmw engine which is as advanced as they come and always a step above VAG.

That is why on a steady cruise, a 3 litre bmw with ZF and RWD outperforms a 1.6 Audi S1Image

I doubt the new AWD 2.0 1 series will match the 140 initially (fuel economy), but a FWD version should be at least on par.

the S1 only becomes AWD when the fronts lose traction though on a motorway doing 60mph it will be front wheel drive i think , the current S1 is 2 litre isnt it? i dont think they do a 1.6

for me the difference is the gearbox , extra 2 gears allows the engine to run lower rpms couple that with the masses of torque and your onto a winner for motorway mileage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hulahoopian
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by hulahoopian » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:21 pm

barneym140i wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:45 am
The downsizing of engines isn't related to MPG though , its due to the stricter rules and regulations on emissions.
There's a direct correlation between amount of fuel burnt and the amount of CO2 emitted!

Boosted_Six
Experienced Member
Experienced Member
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:18 pm

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by Boosted_Six » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:57 pm

I think we all know by now in a fixed test like the EU regs (yes the one the Germans have been cheating at for years) a small turbo engine appears to have the highest MPG and Lowest CO2. In the real world as OP has conclusively proven, it just isn't the case.

Until there is a successful class action of drivers against manufacturers that have real world environmental performance deficits and a test that uses a more true to life method, this will continue to be the case.

Sam_M
Enthusiastic Member
Enthusiastic Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:18 am
Location: Sussex

Re: bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by Sam_M » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:48 pm

NISFAN wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:04 am

That is why on a steady cruise, a 3 litre bmw with ZF and RWD outperforms a 1.6 Audi S1Image

2.0 :)

User avatar
Blackroc
Too Much Time To Waste Member
Too Much Time To Waste Member
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:12 pm
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

bit of an experiment this weekend, interesting outcome

Post by Blackroc » Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:33 pm

Didn’t Clarkson do a test between an M3 and a Toyota Prius on the old Top Gear test track that’s akin to this?

Taken on a track - a Prius had worse MPG than the M3 when driven at 90mph over numerous laps IIRC..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post Reply

Return to “M135i/M235i/M140i/M240i”