While that is true, I feel a little unsafe using cruse control - I feel like it removes you a little too much from the driving and potentially slows your reactions down as you need to come back into full driving mode. Even just the act of lifting off the gas slows you a little instantly, whereas if you have cruise control on you have to get to the brakes before any slowing occurs.

I settle by keeping my finger nervously hovering over the buttons to reduce speed and my foot hovering near the brake.

My numbers were for 75+ (sometimes ++) going through Kansas (for the person asking about gas type, I'm afraid that I am not sure if Kansas uses ethanol or not). It seemed like manually driving doesn't seem to make milage much worse than 27 usually in constant driving speed between 70-85. But using cruise control coming back from Kansas through Colorado, we were able to get 32 and 34 MPG on two tanks in a row.

Interestingly, although I did not do much testing of this it seemed like I was able to get better mileage from driving using the paddle shifters to shift, than my wife was using the automatic as-is (because I could keep it in a higher gear than the automatic wanted to be in sometimes).

Well, I can't with good conscience advocate the slowing bit, but I will endorse the cruise control even with my misgivings. :-)

 

2200 on the car. 24mpg on the computer since new. Just did a 264 mile fill and got 28.81 actual and 31.5 on the computer when I was done with highway only portion of 188 miles. (Your mileage will vary).

 

Lightyr raises an important issue regarding the MPG as reported by the Countryman's computer: it's usually quite optimistic. This is actually an issue with the way the BMW (Seimens) software algorithms calculate MPG information using sensor information. It has been an issue on each of the 3 BMW autos I own/have-owned, my MINI, and my R1200RT motorcycle.

I can improve the accuracy of the OBD-calculated MPG figures (as compared to hand-calculation) if I zero-out both the Average MPG value and the Average Speed value at each fill-up. This took the ~+10% optimistic ODB MPG value to ~+2% optimistic on two 5-series, a 3-series, and my MINI. Interestingly enough, when I use this technique on the R1200RT, the ODB-calculated MPG is only +0.9% optimistic at its worst and spot-on about 80% of the time.

Another take-away from this is that most comparisons of MPG among those who post lack the same measurement standard. Considering that ODB-calculated MPG varies so widely, the data reported is neither very accurate nor derived from the similar driving conditions. In fact, it is so difficult to report meaningful, standards-based data that one might conclude the data is of little value except to the OP for her/his historical tracking purposes. After all, the EPA is STILL struggling with a standards-based evaluation system!

However, mileage discussions will continue. Perhaps more meaningful data could be represented through an agreement that everyone posts HAND-CALCULATED MPG data instead of introducing the additional skew imparted by the OBD algorithm-derived MPG data.

Just a thought...

 

1500 miles on the car, and I am averaging 26mpg, with 50/50 city/hwy driving. I use the drain the tank and fill technique, and compare to the computer. So far, the computer is matching the manual calc. I am not driving easy - car is just too much fun.

 

I have just over 600 miles on my ALL4 now, and was a bit disappointed with the first tank around town, which got only about 21 mpg. The second tank was better, with more highway miles, but still only 25 mpg (no cruise). I'm really hoping it will improve as the engine completes it's break-in period. For the second tank I put in 89 octane gas. Are most people using 93? Is there a difference in gas mileage with the higher octane?

 

My first few tanks were not great either but coming from an old X5 it was a dramatic improvement . 6,000 miles later it's averaging 27-28 MPG. Have always used 91.

 

21.5 for me NYC traffic driving, 19k on car, average was reset at 10k.

 

By the way, my calculations are hand computed, not with the on-board computer, and the mileage was with gas containing 10% ethanol, but not sure if that matters either. From other threads it seems that the higher octane may give better performance (but not necessarily better mpg), particularly with hotter temps outside. With our current winter heatwave of 50 degrees (F), I'm not so concerned.

 

can you feel a difference in power when using the 89 gas? Since it's a turbo, I would think that it would benefit with the 91 octane....

 

293 miles on odometer, 1st tank of gas after free tank, 243.1 on tank, 9.9 gallons = 24.54 mpg with indicated 24.1. Mixed driving on LIE and stop and go. Today 66 miles mixed LIE and stop and go, averaged 28.3 indicated. Top speed to date 79 mph indicated. 91 octane with 10% ethanol both tanks.

 

In my R60 I get 21-24 mpg on mixed city/hway, not very conservative driving (quick starts and 80+ on the freeway wherever it seems appropriate). BTW on the couple tanks where I consciously drove conservatively I didn't get noticably better mileage. My experience has been that the computer mpg estimate is always 1-2 mpg optimistic compared to an odo/gals calculation. I'm alternating tanks of Shell, Chevron, HEB and Sam's Club gas (29 tanks so far) - always 93 oct with ethanol. As a bit of a surprise, with one fill-up exception, Sam's gas has given me the best mileage. I've had one tank of Shell that seemed to give peppier performance - but that's purely subjective. I do plan on doing a few tanks of 89 to see wht difference there is - but The General is still too much fun to drive for me to make the lower octane choice as I face the pump!

 

2012 CMS 3600 Miles, 32.1 MPG indicated onboard. Mostly highway, 92 Octane

 

I'm not sure what gas the dealer used, but I haven't noticed any difference in performance on the second and third tanks (with 89) than the first (possibly with 93 octane). Of course, now I'm curious, so will try out a higher octane next time, and see if it runs differently. I know the ALL4 is not as speedy out of the gate as my RAV4, but I assumed it's because it feels a lot heavier. Maybe she's just a bit sluggish with the 89 gas?! There is a lot of black exhaust on the tailpipe. Is that a gas quality-related thing?

 

This is almost exactly what I'm getting. At first I obsessed over every tenth, but now I just drive without regard to price per gallon or mileage. I like driving the car too much to overly baby the gas peddle.

 

22,133 on the odo.
My long count mpg reads 27.8. I havent reset it since driving off the lot.
I've been using the trip mpg counter to avg my milage per fill-up and I'm seeing around 25.5 mpg in mixed hwy/city driving.
Picked up my 11' CMS All4 6/22/11
22k in just over 6 months... yep.

 

Yep, I'm getting about 23 mpg in town, right about 30 on the highway and 26-27 mixed. Now has 4000 mi. and seems maybe to be improving. I've also found it's much more fun just to drive the car and not worry about it. I don't find my mileage changes much anyway. Love this car!

 

I find my best mileage comes with keeping the engine under 3000 rpm's. With the automatic this is easy to accomplish.

 

I plan to run through several tanks of gas entirely in sport mode to see what kind of mileage difference I get. Has anyone else made such a comparison?

 

No, but I'm planning to go through a tank on "snow" mode, and see what that does to my mileage. We're finally getting our first real snowfall of the season, and it's been a blast to see how my ALL4 does with traction. It's really slippery out, and there've been accidents all over the place, but my Countryman is doing great! I can get it to slide a little if I take a turn too fast, but it grips the road immediately with it's claws and runs steady on. Fantastic!

 

What are you people getting ">30 mpg" smoking? Really, I haven't gotten > 26.5 mpg yet in my All 4 "S" automatic and it's been 1 year. I've tried everything: cruise, coasting, low speed, etc. Cold weather is the worst - this thing is like a gas guzzling slug.

 

miniobx,

It's one thing if you are not getting the mileage you thought. It's another to say people are 'smoking something' when they report what they see. Attached is the spreadsheet showing the first 9,000 miles of fuel replacements in my MINI. I've averaged over 29MPG for the time, and I could care less if you believe me or not.

Maybe you have a problem with your car...

Mark

 

Thanks for your excellent records! I'm going to try to match this performance when we get our CMS4. I'll post on Fuelly.

 

I am getting the same average you are getting. I posted my data somewhere (in another related post I think). I pretty much said the same thing you did about people getting over 30mph. I figure it must be my roof rack or bike rack on the back and how and where I drive. But even if I drive easy I still don't get much better.

 

Strange, I have a manual CM All 4 2012 and I have been getting 31-32 on the highway and 27-28 around town. My combined is usually right at 30 mpg.

I live at 8000 feet, lots of hills and valleys. I usually run 75 on the highways and stop and go traffic in town.

So far no problems with this vehicle, not even effected by the recall. Hope it keeps it up!

 

Ironically seems that people with All 4's seem to have better mileage than standard Countryman S. I've had mixed traffic conditions so I have hovered around 26. Coming from a Corolla I was averaging 320 miles a tank. Countryman its been about 300 miles a tank. When you fill up and the trip computer tells you hey you should get 370 a tank, kinda stabs you in the side when you don't reach it. I know stars and moons have to line up 93 octane, cruise control, no traffic, etc. I guess I expected more.