Tell me about 120ds

I get 55-59mpg almost every week on my commute in my 2013 320D.

I averaged 60.5 MPG to Manchester (102 miles) last Wednesday through rush hour motorway traffic in my petrol 118i. A 120d would easily get over 60.

Sigh.

The OP is looking at 7 year old previous gen cars, not the latest models..

Maybe I should explain what I get out of my 530d, that'd be equally irrelevant to the OP :p
 
For 60 miles a day, keep the car that you love to drive. If it were 100+ you could probably justify it. Are you getting paid mileage?
 
Gonna go for this. See how the Z likes the commutes (it is somerset B roads after all!)

Z4 it is then :cool: but then I drive a Z4M as a daily (20 miles commute a day at the moment) and wouldn't change it for a diesel no matter what millage I started doing.
 
[TW]Fox;28370795 said:
Sigh.

The OP is looking at 7 year old previous gen cars, not the latest models.p
The previous gen 1 Series (2007+) uses the same engine as the F20 120d which is rated a 60mpg (Parkers). So my statement sticks, if I can get 60mpg out of my 118i (less efficient)then any post 2007 120d will also do it.
 
Bold claims but then your mpg claims have always been nothing if not bold. 60mpg from a 118i is particularly interesting. Are you one of these guys who pulls onto the Motorway with the engine warmed up, hits reset, sets cruise to 70 and then 60 miles later goes OMGERD my turbo petrol car does 60mpgzzzzzzzzz?

You've thrashed everyone else on Fuelly by miles. Your car must be magic :D

Never managed 60+ from any 07 120d personally, not as a meaningful average.
 
Last edited:
You probably drive with a heavier foot, which is fine, but just because you haven't achieved it doesn't mean that it can't be done.

I left with an hour spare so cruised up to Man, as it happened the traffic for 80% of the journey was at 50-60mph (M42 & M6 traffic management) which is perfect for high MPG numbers.
The return journey was slightly less efficient but overall (205) miles I got 57MPG. (Door to door).

Responding to your edit : It wouldn't have been possible at 70mph, fuel efficiency drops to about 45mpg at that speed.
 
Last edited:
Probably would have been better MPG and a higher average speed had the RHS Flower show not caused stop start traffic jams for 20mins.

19476388713_299a7beef9_o.jpg
[/u
 
Who cares if cars do these ridiculous mpg figures though? The actual savings you make once you get past about 40mpg are so little, is it really worth driving like a nun in some miserable 4 pot diesel?

4Y0MvCN.png


Yank graph but point still stands, keep the z4. And leave the 118d owners to compare some boring figure on their trip computer :p
 
You probably drive with a heavier foot, which is fine, but just because you haven't achieved it doesn't mean that it can't be done.

I sit at a GPS 68 on the cruise control.

I left with an hour spare so cruised up to Man, as it happened the traffic for 80% of the journey was at 50-60mph (M42 & M6 traffic management) which is perfect for high MPG numbers.
The return journey was slightly less efficient but overall (205) miles I got 57MPG. (Door to door).

Responding to your edit : It wouldn't have been possible at 70mph, fuel efficiency drops to about 45mpg at that speed.

So there we go then - an atypical driving situation. I've once had almost 60mpg out of my 530d in similar circumstances but I'd never claim the car is genuinely capable of doing it because its such a rare event. I remember once a particularly long section of roadworks etc on the M1 that yeilded 46mpg from my old 530i.

Anyone claiming you can get 46mpg would be rightly laughed at - it simply isn't a relevant figure, especially when somebody is working out whether it's justifiable to change cars. These figures are useful only for... I dunno what really, impressive camera phone photos I suppose (I've got some too!).
 
To the OP... I'd stick with the Z4... I made the switch from more fun cars to a mile-eater diesel BMW a few years ago when I had to drive for work (many more miles than you).

For the pocket, it was worth it & to be fair... BMWs are a good balance of driver focus vs build quality with good fuel economy with their diesels... so it wasn't the worst step down from more fun cars.

But very soon after I got it, I missed the life from a petrol engine and have been longing for a decent 6+ cylinder for a long time.

The 6 cylinder diesels are noticeably better than the 4-pots... but they're no 3.0 Z4

I could only get about 48MPG out of a 116d so I don't see how someone can get 60 in a 320d.

I get 40-45 out of my Focus so it's not a driving style thing...

The 116d and 118d are horrible engines.

I once had a rental to drive to Poland and back (company paid)... it turned out to be a 2013 318d... it averaged 43-45mpg at the same speeds my own 2004 320d manages 50-55...

For motorways, the 318d and 316d are pathetic (unless you like trundling at lorry speeds, I suppose)... and despite being in Germany for a lot of the trip, I wasn't flooring it the whole way either... keeping a steady 80-85

For comparison, my 2004 320d averages 600 miles to a 12 gallon tank... on long runs keeping it between 70-75 then I'll get 700 to a tank and on back roads it still manages about 550.



I think 60 might be achievable if you have a very light foot, keep good distances to minimise wastage and keep the speed down to 60-65mph... but I haven't tried as I get bored too quickly and it hasn't been worth it... only tried 65mph in my XKR out of curiosity to see if I could break the 30mpg barrier and that didn't last long lol.

EDIT:
I wouldn't say doing 60 is trundling however I would happily have taken a photo of the computer to show my average. When I bought the car it was on 52.3 and when I sold it 60.1. I only reset the computer when I bought it.
However my point still stands, a newish well maintained 120d should have no problem getting over 50.

I would... 60 is trundling... but at least you're not going slower than the lorries.

People who think it's OK to go slower than a lorry should not be allowed on the road ;)


I'm guessing you and the car spent most of your time together on the motorway to get that figure?

[TW]Fox;28365043 said:
Super Unleaded.

Q to OP... why Super in the 2007 3.0?

It's way past Nikasil, so there's no benefit there to the cleaner fuel, I don't think it's got a knock sensor to adjust the timing dependent on RON and the 3.0 is not a highly strung or tuned engine, so I doubt you would see any benefit from 98+ over 95 other than your own peace of mind in thinking the fuel is that little bit purer.

Please do correct me if I'm mistaken...
 
Last edited:
You probably drive with a heavier foot, which is fine, but just because you haven't achieved it doesn't mean that it can't be done.

I left with an hour spare so cruised up to Man, as it happened the traffic for 80% of the journey was at 50-60mph (M42 & M6 traffic management) which is perfect for high MPG numbers.
The return journey was slightly less efficient but overall (205) miles I got 57MPG. (Door to door).

Responding to your edit : It wouldn't have been possible at 70mph, fuel efficiency drops to about 45mpg at that speed.

I got nearly 50mpg out of a 3.4l Boxster on the 50mph sections of the M1... typically, that was only valid in the flowing traffic and in that section, took a tremendous dive as soon as I got to speed after the roadworks... hehehe

Side note... wtf is going on with the M1 and M3? Must have been 50+ miles of roadworks rated at 50mph when I did that drive the other weekend.

What is wrong with these companies doing the work? Why do they have to section off such a gigantic section of the road for so long? What's wrong with doing the works in 1-2 mile sections at a time? Do these companies get more money for every motorist they annoy?
 
[TW]Fox;28371374 said:
Fairly sure it's designed for it (The M54 is) and therefore the handbook recommends its use and states the performance and consumption figures are based on the use of 98 RON fuel.

OK, fair enough.
 
Side note... wtf is going on with the M1 and M3? Must have been 50+ miles of roadworks rated at 50mph when I did that drive the other weekend.

What is wrong with these companies doing the work? Why do they have to section off such a gigantic section of the road for so long? What's wrong with doing the works in 1-2 mile sections at a time? Do these companies get more money for every motorist they annoy?

Yeah tell me about it. The M1 has been shafted for ages with a 20 mile stretch somewhere between Milton Keynes and the M6 and then once you start getting around Nottingham way there's a 30 or so mile stretch of works there.

The M3 is particularly interesting at the moment as between Fleet services and the M3 is all average cammed right now (that section does need to be managed motorway to be fair) but then you have another 3 miles or so around Basingstoke at J7. Then to make it even more annoying once you get to the other Basingstoke junction, J6 where it drops to 2 lanes, there's a bunch more average cams that have now been there for months with "camera not in use" signs.

I am clearly quite naive when it comes to roadworks and I truly don't know what is involved but on the face of it all they're really doing is repurposing the hard shoulder as a driving lane, adjusting the entrance slips, changing the road markings and installing new signs/gantries. I know that is a lot of work, but I genuinely don't see how the 15 mile or so stretch on the M3 is scheduled to take 2 and a half years to complete.

On the plus side, the 50 stretches are good for fuel economy and MPG stats ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom