E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > General Off-Topic

General Off-Topic
Everything not about BMWs. Posts must be "primetime" safe and in good taste. You must be logged in to see sub-forums.
Click here to browse all new posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 06-17-2014, 01:04 PM   #61
peytonracer4
:D
 
peytonracer4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,691
My Ride: '00 328i
Quote:
Originally Posted by 217Bimmer View Post
ok, so explain to me why larger engines get worse gas mileage? you're saying the mpg test skews the numbers and the hemi actually is better than the v6? come on now. you're not making any sense

Same reason the 330 gets better real world gas mileage than the 325. More power to maintain speed. It's not common, but there are done cases where a larger engine can work more efficiently than a smaller engine in the same car.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
__________________
choose to click or forever hold your peace ;)
peytonracer4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 01:52 PM   #62
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 918
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by 217Bimmer View Post
ok, so explain to me why larger engines get worse gas mileage? you're saying the mpg test skews the numbers and the hemi actually is better than the v6? come on now. you're not making any sense
Im making plenty of sense. If you go by window sticker numbers, you'll never see real world mileage. My analogy above is EXACTLY how cars work. Sticking a 5 year old girls heart into someone the size or Arnold Schwarzenegger will cause the heart to work incredibly hard, put more strain on it, more wear, and eventually, premature failure. Putting arnolds heart into the 5 year old girl will make it so the heart barely needs to pump to do the job, have almost no stress doing it, and thus, extend the life. The same concept applies to cars/engines.

MPG comes from one thing, and one thing only. Throttle position, and the throttle position sensor. Nothing else matters, not rpm, not the grade, nothing. (we are not talking about dragster engines that use a gallon of fuel a minute just idling)

So, example #1....purely a flat road....

V6 is traveling at 50mph and needs to pass a vehicle, to do so, it needs to hit 75mph. The vehicle needs to overcome drag as well as gain momentum in a reasonable distance (can't pass someone taking 5 miles to do it)...so that energy required is the "load"....on a v6 on something like a durango (large barge) that load is reasonably heavy, and the engine has to work "medium" to achieve the pass.

Now, take the v8 with the SAME speeds, and the SAME load...the v8 will have an EASIER time (you won't have to mash the gas as hard) and thus, require less fuel to complete the maneuver. The throttle position sensor will see that less input is applied and less fuel is used. With the hemi, you have the added variable of cylinder deactivation, so if possible, a maneuver that requires little power would be able to be done with only 4 cylinders.

Example#2 Going up a grade.

Take both vehicles....side by side and make them maintain 35mph on a mountain pass (in the same gear).....the load presented to the v6 will be greater than the v8, require more throttle to achieve the maintenance of momentum, and thus, yield worse MPG.

This is how it is in the real world. In the city, generally the v6 wins, but on the highway, a large vehicle has a far more difficult time with an undersized engine. Just look at the gas mileage of something like the Acura RL with AWD. My dad had one before trading it in for the Grand Cherokee, and AT BEST he achieved 17mpg combined, and the reason is, the engine is undersized for a vehicle like that, and needs a v6.

The above excludes variables like turbocharging, supercharging, coasting, etc.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 03:10 PM   #63
SamDoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 3,577
My Ride: Clubs baby seals
I get that the V6 works harder to accelerate the car down the road or tow stuff or climb a hill but the point is on a flat road at a constant speed, the V6 is more efficient because it inherently uses less fuel while cruising (the whole two less cylinders thing). You're not constantly climbing grades (especially in IL ) and passing cars in real life. The 5% of the car's life that it'll spend doing those things will be irrelevant in the lifetime fuel economy. Unless you're driving this thing like a race car, the V6 will likely still get better every day mileage. This is why the 4 cylinder Honda Accord gets better gas mileage than the V6. It just inherently consumes less fuel and it weighs less. Sure if you drive both on a track as fast as possible, the fuel economy would probably be similar but we don't daily drive on Road America.

Now if you were to do the TG test of an extreme of a Prius vs M3, then your example is perfectly valid since the Prius is seriously struggling to move itself and the M3 is basically at idle. On the flip side if you were to take both cars and daily drive them for a week each, which do you think would get better mileage? The low powered Prius or the V8 M3? But on a real day to day basis in this car...the V6 will do just fine.

Cylinder deactivation is a good idea but you still need to deal with the drag of moving around 4 other cylinders (they're still active just no fuel being dispensed) and the weight of a V8 is downer. Also, I still maintain that 14/23 is terrible mileage for a modern crossover. OP can get a new Suburban that'll do better than that.

Again, it's more how you drive than what you drive that'll get you the best fuel economy.

17mpg in an RL is appalling but if you think slapping a V8 in that car will get better gas mileage for it is not being very well informed. Exhibit A, the BMW 550i AWD gets the same mileage as the AWD RL...and it has a V8.

Last edited by SamDoe1; 06-17-2014 at 03:15 PM.
SamDoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 04:04 PM   #64
MP0WER
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Tampa
Posts: 246
My Ride: is fun to drive
Another variable, is that 25% throttle input, or any equal amount of throttle input on the V6 and V8 don't equal the same amount of fuel.
__________________


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat

Last edited by MP0WER; 06-17-2014 at 04:07 PM.
MP0WER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 04:22 PM   #65
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 918
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamDoe1 View Post
I get that the V6 works harder to accelerate the car down the road or tow stuff or climb a hill but the point is on a flat road at a constant speed, the V6 is more efficient because it inherently uses less fuel while cruising (the whole two less cylinders thing). You're not constantly climbing grades (especially in IL ) and passing cars in real life. The 5% of the car's life that it'll spend doing those things will be irrelevant in the lifetime fuel economy. Unless you're driving this thing like a race car, the V6 will likely still get better every day mileage. This is why the 4 cylinder Honda Accord gets better gas mileage than the V6. It just inherently consumes less fuel and it weighs less. Sure if you drive both on a track as fast as possible, the fuel economy would probably be similar but we don't daily drive on Road America.

Now if you were to do the TG test of an extreme of a Prius vs M3, then your example is perfectly valid since the Prius is seriously struggling to move itself and the M3 is basically at idle. On the flip side if you were to take both cars and daily drive them for a week each, which do you think would get better mileage? The low powered Prius or the V8 M3? But on a real day to day basis in this car...the V6 will do just fine.

Cylinder deactivation is a good idea but you still need to deal with the drag of moving around 4 other cylinders (they're still active just no fuel being dispensed) and the weight of a V8 is downer. Also, I still maintain that 14/23 is terrible mileage for a modern crossover. OP can get a new Suburban that'll do better than that.

Again, it's more how you drive than what you drive that'll get you the best fuel economy.

17mpg in an RL is appalling but if you think slapping a V8 in that car will get better gas mileage for it is not being very well informed. Exhibit A, the BMW 550i AWD gets the same mileage as the AWD RL...and it has a V8.
The formula doesn't work for all vehicles. Accords are not 5500lb brick shaped Durangos. Im also in agreement that for many situations, the V6 will be superior, but only slightly than the V6 (maybe 2mpg city and 1mpg highway at best) and in some cases, worse....so, for a minor or nonexistant MPG savings, going v6 instead of a more powerful v8 IMHO is a mistake. As stated, the guys on durango forums report basically the same fuel economy on both the v6 and the v8 highway (or mpg less than the v8) and around 2mpg less in the city. Someone like the OP, who seems to really care about maximum fuel economy can easily hypermile another 2-3mpg out of either motor.

Having said all that, the durango would be even better if they stuck the 3.0 diesel in there, but there are no plans to do so.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 04:24 PM   #66
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 918
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
BTW, the suburban is 15/22 in AWD, so it's not any better.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 04:37 PM   #67
SamDoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 3,577
My Ride: Clubs baby seals
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
The formula doesn't work for all vehicles. Accords are not 5500lb brick shaped Durangos. Im also in agreement that for many situations, the V6 will be superior, but only slightly than the V6 (maybe 2mpg city and 1mpg highway at best) and in some cases, worse....so, for a minor or nonexistant MPG savings, going v6 instead of a more powerful v8 IMHO is a mistake. As stated, the guys on durango forums report basically the same fuel economy on both the v6 and the v8 highway (or mpg less than the v8) and around 2mpg less in the city. Someone like the OP, who seems to really care about maximum fuel economy can easily hypermile another 2-3mpg out of either motor.

Having said all that, the durango would be even better if they stuck the 3.0 diesel in there, but there are no plans to do so.
I do agree with you that the V8 will likely do pretty close to the same as the V6, it won't be a huge difference at all and that's noticed in the EPA numbers as it is. Point is that it's a sizeable cost savings and a gas mileage bump (however small) that it makes it appealing. Up to OP if he wants to pony up or not though.

The Durango would fly off of dealer lots if they put the diesel in it. Can you imagine what a CRV with a Honda diesel would get for mileage and torque? I'd go buy one tomorrow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
BTW, the suburban is 15/22 in AWD, so it's not any better.
It's better, not by much, but better. And it's considerably larger, can carry more stuff, carry more people, tow more, more space, etc... The new Expedition/Navigator are going 3.5L twin turbo V6 so it should be interesting to see what they end up getting for mileage.
SamDoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 04:55 PM   #68
217Bimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vermont
Posts: 146
My Ride: 2001 BMW 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamDoe1 View Post
I get that the V6 works harder to accelerate the car down the road or tow stuff or climb a hill but the point is on a flat road at a constant speed, the V6 is more efficient because it inherently uses less fuel while cruising (the whole two less cylinders thing). You're not constantly climbing grades (especially in IL ) and passing cars in real life. The 5% of the car's life that it'll spend doing those things will be irrelevant in the lifetime fuel economy. Unless you're driving this thing like a race car, the V6 will likely still get better every day mileage. This is why the 4 cylinder Honda Accord gets better gas mileage than the V6. It just inherently consumes less fuel and it weighs less. Sure if you drive both on a track as fast as possible, the fuel economy would probably be similar but we don't daily drive on Road America.

Now if you were to do the TG test of an extreme of a Prius vs M3, then your example is perfectly valid since the Prius is seriously struggling to move itself and the M3 is basically at idle. On the flip side if you were to take both cars and daily drive them for a week each, which do you think would get better mileage? The low powered Prius or the V8 M3? But on a real day to day basis in this car...the V6 will do just fine.

Cylinder deactivation is a good idea but you still need to deal with the drag of moving around 4 other cylinders (they're still active just no fuel being dispensed) and the weight of a V8 is downer. Also, I still maintain that 14/23 is terrible mileage for a modern crossover. OP can get a new Suburban that'll do better than that.

Again, it's more how you drive than what you drive that'll get you the best fuel economy.

17mpg in an RL is appalling but if you think slapping a V8 in that car will get better gas mileage for it is not being very well informed. Exhibit A, the BMW 550i AWD gets the same mileage as the AWD RL...and it has a V8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post
Another variable, is that 25% throttle input, or any equal amount of throttle input on the V6 and V8 don't equal the same amount of fuel.
too much common sense in these posts. was waiting for 2000 to mention those things, but he is completely ignoring that an 8 cyl uses more fuel than a 6 cyl.

the new mpg ratings also take into more than just city and highway driving. it is a very detailed and accurate test if you don't drive like a jerkoff. it now compares high speed, air conditioning, and low temp. and it's not a constant test, the cars are on a dyno increasing and decreasing speeds to follow a specific schedule.

and while i do care about fuel economy, they are really to close to have that dictate the decision. it is a couple grand more for that engine. god, youre trying to guilt me into not being a pu$$y and getting the hemi!!! remember those hemi commercials?!!


Last edited by 217Bimmer; 06-17-2014 at 05:04 PM.
217Bimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 05:05 PM   #69
217Bimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vermont
Posts: 146
My Ride: 2001 BMW 330i
217Bimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 10:01 AM   #70
TSR6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 271
My Ride: Keg Sled
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamDoe1 View Post

The Durango would fly off of dealer lots if they put the diesel in it. Can you imagine what a CRV with a Honda diesel would get for mileage and torque? I'd go buy one tomorrow.

I'd go with the Jeep Grand Cherokee with the 3.0L diesel if I was going between a Durango or a Jeep.

I just got a Dodge Ram with this engine 2 weeks ago, and took a road trip with it - only had a couple hundred miles on it when I started, and got 28.8mpg over the full 10 hour round trip drive.

The F150 I traded in was only getting 16mpg on a good day with a tail wind!
__________________
TSR6
TSR6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 10:15 AM   #71
SamDoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 3,577
My Ride: Clubs baby seals
Jeep would be great unless you needed a 3rd row seat...which is the only reason to go Durango vs Jeep.
SamDoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 11:48 AM   #72
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 918
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSR6 View Post
I'd go with the Jeep Grand Cherokee with the 3.0L diesel if I was going between a Durango or a Jeep.

I just got a Dodge Ram with this engine 2 weeks ago, and took a road trip with it - only had a couple hundred miles on it when I started, and got 28.8mpg over the full 10 hour round trip drive.

The F150 I traded in was only getting 16mpg on a good day with a tail wind!
I agree, but I need more room and the Wagoneer isn't coming out until 2017 (and it will be 75k). I need the 7 seats, and I need a REAL 7 seater, not that BS Land Rover/MDX 7 seats. The GC is also substantially more expensive.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 12:07 PM   #73
217Bimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vermont
Posts: 146
My Ride: 2001 BMW 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I agree, but I need more room and the Wagoneer isn't coming out until 2017 (and it will be 75k). I need the 7 seats, and I need a REAL 7 seater, not that BS Land Rover/MDX 7 seats. The GC is also substantially more expensive.
word
217Bimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 12:22 PM   #74
SLVR JDM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Work
Posts: 1,526
My Ride: reclining rear seats
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I agree, but I need more room and the Wagoneer isn't coming out until 2017 (and it will be 75k). I need the 7 seats, and I need a REAL 7 seater, not that BS Land Rover/MDX 7 seats. The GC is also substantially more expensive.
Size wise is the Durango interior space comparable to a GMC Acadia? My parents just got an Acadia Denali and it is a decent layout (2+2+3) with middle row captains chairs.

I'll probably end up getting something that size for my next vehicle since we're having a 3rd kid.....cargo room sucks with that 3rd row up though.
__________________


** Removed **
SLVR JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 12:27 PM   #75
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 918
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLVR JDM View Post
Size wise is the Durango interior space comparable to a GMC Acadia? My parents just got an Acadia Denali and it is a decent layout (2+2+3) with middle row captains chairs.

I'll probably end up getting something that size for my next vehicle since we're having a 3rd kid.....cargo room sucks with that 3rd row up though.
I think it's in the middle of the acadia/tahoe...a bit bigger than the acadia, smaller than the tahoe. For the average 4 person family, the Durango is plenty large. I can't imagine needing any more space.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 12:28 PM   #76
217Bimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vermont
Posts: 146
My Ride: 2001 BMW 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLVR JDM View Post
Size wise is the Durango interior space comparable to a GMC Acadia? My parents just got an Acadia Denali and it is a decent layout (2+2+3) with middle row captains chairs.

I'll probably end up getting something that size for my next vehicle since we're having a 3rd kid.....cargo room sucks with that 3rd row up though.
shares the GM lambda platform with the traverse and a buick enclave i think. the traverse was decent, but smaller than the durango with more cargo behind the third row. not much but a little bit. build quality of the durango just seemed better than the traverse to me. don't know how the acadia differs from the traverse besides the branding.
217Bimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 12:28 PM   #77
Zell
Registered User
 
Zell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: wow such city
Posts: 5,788
My Ride: Has no throttle
__________________
Zell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 12:52 PM   #78
TSR6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 271
My Ride: Keg Sled
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamDoe1 View Post
Jeep would be great unless you needed a 3rd row seat...which is the only reason to go Durango vs Jeep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I agree, but I need more room and the Wagoneer isn't coming out until 2017 (and it will be 75k). I need the 7 seats, and I need a REAL 7 seater, not that BS Land Rover/MDX 7 seats. The GC is also substantially more expensive.
I missed the seating requirements. Jumped in late, only skimmed the postings.
__________________
TSR6
TSR6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 02:36 PM   #79
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 918
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by 217Bimmer View Post
shares the GM lambda platform with the traverse and a buick enclave i think. the traverse was decent, but smaller than the durango with more cargo behind the third row. not much but a little bit. build quality of the durango just seemed better than the traverse to me. don't know how the acadia differs from the traverse besides the branding.
In my personal opinion, GM is still lagging behind. Design and quality they are still subpar, even to Ford and Chrysler. They do make amazing powerplants though. Wish they became like SEGA, stop making their own sh!t and just provide powerplants to other manufacturers.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2014, 02:40 PM   #80
SamDoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 3,577
My Ride: Clubs baby seals
The Traverse is super crappy inside. My in-laws just bought a new 2014 and the interior is completely underwhelming. Hard plastic and (clearly) fake wood everywhere, seats are not all that comfy, and infotainment is pretty bad. With a cost of $40k for a Traverse, it's just not worth it over something like a Durango or Jeep...or MDX or Pilot or any other mid size SUV out there.

GM powerplants are good if there's an 8 after the V or if there's "diesel" in the name. Their V6 engines are mediocre and don't make all that much power compared to Ford's ecoboost motors.
SamDoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use