For Sale: 2005 BMW 330Ci ZHP auto 78k mi in OC, CA $16,888

[loud0g40oz]

Not mine, but came across this:

http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/ctd/2504576026.html

Automatic so i'm not interested but someone might be.

Steve

[jdog]

Are you sure it's a ZHP?

I noticed the steering wheel with the M3 logo, but the ad doesnt mention ZHP

[danewilson77]

Are you sure it's a ZHP?

I noticed the steering wheel with the M3 logo, but the ad doesnt mention ZHP

It has all visible ZHP elements.

[jdog]

Dane or anybody else, any idea what the MPG differnece is between a ZHP and a regular 330ci?

[danewilson77]

Dane or anybody else, any idea what the MPG differnece is between a ZHP and a regular 330ci?

Z-e-r-o

[ecrabb]

Dane, since the rear-end in the ZHP has slightly deeper gearing than the standard 330, the ZHP will be turning a slightly higher RPM at highway speeds and in theory that should cost you a MPG or two... But, I don't know what people are seeing in practice because it would be really hard to evaluate in any meaningful way.

SC

[pleasecorrupt]

Dane or anybody else, any idea what the MPG differnece is between a ZHP and a regular 330ci?

Better question is mpg difference between auto an manual transmission which is actually noticeable. I myself own an auto and average out 19-23mpg depending on the type of driving I'm doing whereas other members who own manuals boast a 24+ mpg with combined highway and city driving.

[danewilson77]

Better question is mpg difference between auto an manual transmission which is actually noticeable. I myself own an auto and average out 19-23mpg depending on the type of driving I'm doing whereas other members who own manuals boast a 24+ mpg with combined highway and city driving.

I think the difference is due to different drivers. Stickers are the same for both vehicles.

HTC Thunderbolt+TT

[pleasecorrupt]

I think the difference is due to different drivers. Stickers are the same for both vehicles.

HTC Thunderbolt+TT

Yeah but majority of auto transmission members on that thread was surprised with mpg manual members were getting, just connecting 1 & 2, also isn't it widely accepted manuals get better mpg under similar driving conditions or is that my misconception?

[ecrabb]

I think the difference is due to different drivers. Stickers are the same for both vehicles.

Agree.


Yeah but majority of auto transmission members on that thread was surprised with mpg manual members were getting, just connecting 1 & 2, also isn't it widely accepted manuals get better mpg under similar driving conditions or is that my misconception?

I think the "MT's are more efficient than AT's" issue is mostly outdated at this point. AT's have gotten much better in the last 20 years and don't contribute to the parasitic driveline losses they did back in the early days of "slush boxes". Like Dane said, the cars were rated the same from the factory, so I would lean toward most of the difference being driving styles and non-scientific methods we all use to track our fuel economy.

Now, I suppose it could be that as the AT's age, there could be some parasitic loss such that an efficiency gap wides between the AT and MT, but again - I don't think that would account for losses that would probably even be measurable given our unscientific tracking.

Of course, I could be wrong. ;)

SC

[pleasecorrupt]

Quick google argues otherwise though..

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2008/10/save-gas-and-money-with-a-stick-shift-10-08/overview/manual-vs-auto-ov.htm

From another link...

Still, in its most basic form, a manual transmission is inherently better equipped to prove better fuel economy. The manual transmission couples the engine to the transmission with a rigid clutch instead of an automatic transmission's torque converter, which bleeds off power. The automatic transmission wastes engine power to drive the high pressure hydraulic pumps required for its operation.

But as automatic transmissions -- as well as the CVT versions -- have become more efficient and gained added gears, the fuel mileage gap between manual and automatic transmissions has narrowed, at least according to the Environmental Protection Agency.


And from wikihow

2Determine if fuel economy is an issue.
If you answered yes, then going with a manual transmission is probably going to be your best bet, although it is far from your only choice.
Many newer cars with automatics have an EPA rating of only 1 or 2 MPG less than the same model car equipped with the manual.
With everything in life, there are exceptions to this rule. Some vehicles get better mileage (5 mpg or more) as an automatic compared to the manual, most notably in Toyota's like RAV4, and the FJ Cruiser.
If this is the case, most people are not going to save a significant amount of money on fuel costs going with the 5-speed manual (especially if you do a lot of city driving).
Since the majority of drivers do not manually shift for economy (or know how to), the 1 or 2 MPG that is lost with the automatic can easily be gained

[ecrabb]

Interesting, though that pretty much reflects the traditional thought on the subject, which makes me doubt the veracity of the articles, which are clearly intended for mainstream consumption. However, there are some real numbers listed, so we can't just dismiss it.

I'm surprised the spread is as large as it is on some of the cars in the CR article.

In contrast though, here are the numbers on the 2012 Focus:
Manual transmission: 26 city/36 hwy/30 combined mpg
Automatic without SelectShift: 28 city/38 hwy/31 combined mpg
Automatic with SelectShift: 27 city/37 hwy/31 combined mpg
SE Sedan with SFE Package: 28 city/40 hwy/33 combined mpg

So, with that car model, the AT gets better fuel economy than the MT in every scenario.

I think the bottom line is that in the case of the ZHP or the 330 in general, I'd trust BMW's (heavily-regulated and standardized) EPA ratings before I'd trust either general-audience internet articles or even personal accounts. Otherwise, there are just too many variables involved for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

Cheers,
SC

[pleasecorrupt]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2003_BMW_3_Series.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2004_BMW_3_Series.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2005_BMW_3_Series.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2006_BMW_3_Series.shtml

If you look at any of those links, the fuel economy of the e46 3 series with a manual transmission is always higher than one with an automatic transmission unless if the driver is strictly driving in steptronic in which case the fuel economy is generally said to be the same (with few exceptions where the highway fuel economy for the steptronic might be 1mpg less.) With the example you provided in mind, I would like to point out that as recent as 2011, the manual transmission version of the ford focus was said to have a higher fuel economy than its automatic counterpart.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2012_Ford_Focus.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2011_Ford_Focus.shtml

To say that the articles I provided were traditional in thought would be wrong due to the fact that the majority of cars on the road today overwhelmingly still have this fuel economy disparity when it comes to transmissions as well as the fact that the later two articles acknowledged the technological progress made in automatic transmissions in recent years stating that "as automatic transmissions -- as well as the CVT versions -- have become more efficient and gained added gears, the fuel mileage gap between manual and automatic transmissions has narrowed."

[danewilson77]

O k.

I get same mph in manual ZHP, that I did in auto 325i.

HTC Thunderbolt+TT

[Pooters]

Just FYI I get 28.5-29 MPG to and from work... average.