[symon]

The best we have ever got on our 170 is 52mpg. Mixed dirving normally averages about 43-44mpg.

On a real cold day, especially with the heater on the car takes ages to get up to temperature, and on a shorter tip you can easily get less than 40mpg.

The car is totally standard.

They are not especially great on fuel for a 2.0 diesel.

 

[symon]

Aggh don't say that 😅

Could be a bit of a deal breaker for Me.. we cover hundreds of miles a month and I bitched for 3 months about how uneconomical our beemer was and we should swap for a G 😬

The 1.6 jtdm we had was an absolute peach in teams of power and economy, granted it was in a way lighter car but I figured the 2.0 would suit the G well and return around 50s

You may get a better MPG with a remap and EGR delete, but it will only be a couple of MPG at best.

I had a N57 engined 330d with manual gearbox and it was better on fuel then the G.

Which BMW did you have before?

 

[symon]

A remapped 118d with an N47 - the chain eater

Was turning out 42-45 ish on a run from London to Devon - every diesel we've owned has fit 50s minimum on that run even with My eager right foot

Honestly hoping the garage finds something amiss and the G can hit 50s or I'm in for some mega humble pie and 1.3 Mito 😅

I had a 120d with N47 and a remap. I had no issues with the chain and it would do 50-55mpg no trouble on a run.

The engine was more refined than on the G as well.

If you want fuel economy, a 1.6 VAG car like Skoda Octavia will do well over 60mpg. My brother has one.

 

[symon]

The official MPG on the 170 manual was 60mpg. I have never even got close to that in 7 years of ownership.

The Honest John real MPG figures are usually very accurate.

With the fact that diesel is almost £0.30 per litre more expensive than petrol it does make justifying the diesel over the MA very difficult at the moment.

Me and the Mrs do almost identical miles per week and we are both spending about the same on fuel in both the Golf and the Alfa (Golf averages 37-40mpg on E10)

 

[symon]

Yes Symon you're right - diesel will soon be uneconomical financially which is a step backwards. Soon my 30mpg petrol sports car will cost the same as my 50 mpg diesel

Yet tailpipe on dpf equipped G is spotless, tailpipe on petrol car black with deposits. Progess...

The tailpipe on our G is as black as Newgate's knocker, and it struggles through the smoke test at the MOT each year despite the DPF still being there.

We bought he car on 60,000 miles and it was the same then although the smoke test wasn't so strict..

 

[symon]

It is possible that ours has issues, but despite much looking nothing has been found. The DPF hasn't been tampered with as far as i know.

 

[symon]

The 2.4 is well known for not being great on fuel.

They do drive well though, but being poor on fuel sort of defeats the object of having on.

Alfa diesels tend to go well and are reliable, but the 159 and Giulietta generations they are a tad thirsty and relatively unrefined.

 

[symon]

You would need a very economical (read slow/gutless) petrol or a bad derv for that to happen. Derv is only about 15% more than petrol....and most dervs do well over 15% better MPG that a petrol with the same power. My 159 2.0 JTDm does about 50% more mpg that a similar powered 159 2.2 petrol.

Petrol technology has moved on a lot since the 2.2JTS

Check out the fuel economy of the more modern turbo petrols and then compare them to the diesels.

I know the site isn't full of VAG lovers, but the 1.4TSI engines fitted to the Leon, Golf etc make 150bhp and give similar performance and MPG to the 170 JTDm, but as the fuel is cheaper they actually work out less expensive to run. Also my my fuelling costs for my 230bhp Golf are pretty much the same as the 170JTDm as well due to the MPG of the Golf being remarkably good for what it is.


4 cylinder diesels especially also sound dreadful, and it is worth losing a couple of MPG just to be rid of that.

Honest John real MPG figures are generally quite accurate for comparison purposes.