FinLex

That is the correct CO2 figure. It all comes down to the fact that the normal version was designed with the official test in mind, whereas the Sport version was most definitely not. I suppose the sixth gear is meant for the German autobahns, which is a bit odd since I believe there are more 220d's sold in the UK than in Germany. Still, there must be some logic behind the decision, even if it ended up going wrong.

Jamboo made good points, just a few remarks... I've driven an E90 320d 163hp and an E91 330xd and read dozens of test drive reports. The boot sizes Jamboo mentioned are manufacturers' claims. In real life, there is no such difference. A Finnish car magazine measured both by fitting as many 10 litre boxes as possible in the boot. Result: Lexus 400 litres (40 boxes), BMW 420 (42). Lexus' boot is narrower between the wheel arches, but wider at the back of the car. BMW has more space in the back seat, especially for legs and feet. The difference isn't big, but it's still there. Noise level is similar when the tire size is the same. The situation is unchanged on rough tarmac, both according to my observations and the measurements of the forementioned Finnish magazine. I would give the ride quality points to BMW. It's firm but still quite comfortable, whereas Lexus is a bit too bouncy. Steering is a matter of personal preference. BMW is sharper but also quite nervous. Lexus is more laid-back. So BMW for that sporty feeling, Lexus for relaxing cruise. I think the new 177hp 320d is even a bit faster than the 220d, but for sure it gives better mileage. The difference may not be too big when cruising smoothly on A-roads or similar, but in urban driving I wouldn't be surprised if the BMW were 20 % better. There is a solution for the gearing problems of the 220d: the Sport version. The problem with that one is that the official fuel consumption test cycle doesn't like it at all. In real life, it's no less economical than the standard version, but good luck trying to get through to the officials with that fact! I would still get the 220d over 320d, because it's great VFM and an absolute beauty compared to the 3-series Saloon. Had I no need for the back doors, I just might go for a 3-series Coupe...

It's not just me and Matus, there's also at least VrmmVrmm and GJD getting that kind of readings. And many, many more outside the LOC community, I'm sure. I think no one will disagree when I say it's not simple getting that kind of mileage out of a 220d. The conditions must be right and the driving style pretty meticulous. Sadly, it seems many are not able to get there no matter what and the reason for this is pretty much the Holy Grail of truth.

Okay, no offence. Just my first thought. Haven't heard of anyone having that kind of whining sounds. The fuel consumption problems have been covered from just about every angle. Things that have been considered to have an effect include (but are not limited to) the fifth fuel injector, EGR, DPF, excess weight, driving habits, engine temperature, high idling revs, sulphur content of the fuel used and crappy engine design. Some of these might have an impact, some of them might not. All I can say for sure is that I get 48 mpg regularly and lately 50+ hasn't been unusual at all.

Well, it is a turbocharged engine, so the whine could be the turbo... Maybe the fuel consumption is a result of driving at high revs to display this whine?

Okay, thanks. The pressure is on, Tango! :D

Jamboo, I remember there was talk about this B pillar rattle, but was there conclusive evidence on what exactly is causing it? Because I've had it for a while now on the co-pilot side and recently have been hearing it from the driver side, as well. Thought it could be the seat belt system, but not sure. I guess I should consider myself lucky, since these are the only constant rattles I have. Had the dashboard cracks in winter time, but now it's been silent for a couple of months. And it's just a once-a-day kind of annoyance, anyway.

I may have been too quick to declare the 5th injector change meaningless what comes to fuel economy. Now that the weather is warmer and I've changed to my summer tires, it seems to return a bit better mpg figures than last summer. Early on the current tank, the board computer was at best showing tank avg of 5.3 litres per 100 km, that's 53.3 mpg! Now, half way through the tank, it's showing 5.6 which translates to 50.4 mpg. One thing that's getting more and more obvious is that the mileage depends heavily on the engine temp. The first 10 to 15 minutes after the start, the consumption is radically worse. I remember that someone thought this was because of the higher idling revs, but I think that's more of a cure than a cause. On my usual daily trip I hardly idle at all and still get a huge drop in the mileage after a cold start. I think the high idling is there not only to get the emissions down but also to get the engine itself faster to its normal working temperature where it returns better mileage. So it could be a way to improve mileage rather than a reason why it is so bad after a cold start.

I didn't really like the Alfa 159 2.4 diesel. The gear box was smoother than the Lex's, but the engine wasn't any eagerer despite having more (claimed) power. And the fuel consumption was absolutely terrible! Before I bought my 220d, I did a comparison test between these two with fuel economy in mind and the Lexus got a result of 42 MPG against the Alfa's 37. Even reliability excluded, I would still take the 220d over the 159.

My Lexus dealer is in Helsinki (the capital of Finland), which is a totally different driving environment compared to my own neighbourhood. That's why it's really difficult for me to get a comparable mileage reading with a 250 Auto. What I've read about test consumptions on magazines, if I got 42 with an A4 1.8TFSI then I would most likely get 38, maybe 40 at best with a 250 Auto. Not a huge difference to what I get from the diesel, but combined with the local fuel costs it's enough to keep me convinced of my choice.

I do about 20k miles a year. Fuel isn't everything, but where would the 250 Auto make up for the money it lost in fuel? In smoothness, of course, but in actual money? Insurance? No, that costs more for the 250. Maintenance? Not sure, but can't see a reason why the diesel were more expensive. What does that leave? Reliability? Well, I have not had a single fault in my 220d so far... I'm not saying that the 250 Auto is the wrong choice. Anyone driving in heavy urban traffic and especially in the UK with your fuel costs, go for the Auto. Just reminding you guys that there are circumstances when the 220d really is the one to get.

I seriously doubt it. I was able to get about 42 MPG with the new Audi A4 1.8 TFSI that I had for a test drive a couple of weeks ago. I think that engine is the very best petrol you can get today in this class. I took it for a spin just to see what mileage I'd manage to get from it, so was driving as gently as I normally do. None of that pedal-to-the-metal kind of testing...

Still getting very stable 47-48 MPG, tank after tank. There is not a single petrol car in the class that would return the same. Besides the fuel economy as such, there is another very good reason for me to drive the diesel. In Finland, diesel costs about 1.25 euros per litre, while petrol is around 1.40-1.45. I know for sure that 250 Auto is a better car, but I'm absolutely not going to pay that much extra for it!

retyred, the tick over is to cool down the turbo, as dgman said. I wouldn't be too worried about it. Unless you stop immediately after you pull out from highway, there is no need for such extra idling. Even a mile of slower driving before the destination will let the temperature of the turbo to drop down, so you can stop the engine almost at once. I would say about 30 seconds is usually enough.

Congrats, TRD1979! I'm sure it's a brilliant car. A bit over my budget, though. It would be interesting to hear about the mileage you're getting from time to time, if it's not too much trouble. Always good to know what's going on with other players on the field.

Sorry if I'm not getting this right, but are you saying the car doesn't start right after you've turned it off? Because if you are, then I think it is how it's supposed to be. This is to prevent unintentional restarts. You have to at least engage the clutch and then depress it again for the car to start. There might even be a certain time interval required for it to start again. I noticed this once when I turned the ignition off and only then remembered that I was supposed to take the CD out of the player. I pushed the start button again to get the player on, but didn't realise that I still had the clutch depressed until it was too late (or so I thought). The engine didn't start, which was a good thing because at the very moment I realised the clutch was down, I took my foot off the pedal. Now, if the engine would have started, the car would have lunged to who knows where. So it is there to prevent morons like me from causing accidents

Well, my step-up was more like 17 miles more to tank, not 170... But hey, fingers crossed!

I have to agree that the gearbox isn't the smoothest thing... 1st gear is a bit awkward, no matter how you try to get accustomed to it. But I've found a way to get around this: the Sport version is quite capable of launching on 2nd gear. In fact, it feels almost as fast as on 1st, but way smoother! The normal version is, of course, a different thing altogether because the 2nd gear there is too long for launch.

While philthy is getting 34 MPG, I'm getting 48. And I know for a fact that I couldn't get anywhere near that with a 250 auto. By the way, philthy, your getting close to the point where my car got a slight step-up in the economy (~12k miles). I hope you'll get one, too. It seems you could use it.

Just a quick note: there is a big difference between a brand new 220d and one that has 10k+ on the clock. The engine becomes a lot smoother and pulls decently from ~1500 RPM. In my experience the mileage improves a bit too, but it's not as obvious as the change in the nature of the engine.

In Finland, you can get the shorter final drive ratio on all the versions, but you can't get the Sport model with the longer ratio. There seems to be quite a bit of variation on this from one country to another, which is a bit silly if you ask me.

mrak, The only difference between the two is the final gear ratio. The gearbox is the same. What you say about the top speeds is correct in principle, but in this case it's not that simple. The sixth gear of the normal version is an overdrive, so the car can't reach max RPM on it. The sport version can hit 3600 RPM (max power) and even go beyond, reaching the top speed at 4000+ RPM. The lower consumption isn't as simple, either. True, the sport version has a lot worse official figures based on the so-called EU test cycle. This is because it is driven at about 30 % higher revs than the normal version throughout the test. In real life, there is absolutely no reason to drive the sport version this way. If you change gears at around the same revs as you would with the normal version, you'll get pretty much identical fuel economy. In fact, at speeds between 85-120 km/h the sport version is a bit better, because you can use the 6th gear whereas with the normal version you would be stuck on 5th. Above 120 km/h the 6th gear of the normal version becomes usable, which means the sport is left behind on the fuel efficiency.

I see this thread becoming the next "Are they really that bad" type of war zone. I hope I'm wrong. My car returned about 46 MPG for the first 20000 kilometres (12k miles). Since then the fuel economy improved a bit, a typical tank avg was 48-49 MPG and by 25000 (15.5k miles) the overall mileage was up to 47.1. Since I got the 5th injector changed two weeks ago, the first tank returned 47.9 MPG and the second is showing tank avg of 48.7. So for me there was a (barely) noticeable improvement after 12k, but the 5th injector mod didn't really do anything, it seems.

What can I say. I have come to respect Jamboo's objectivity only to see it collapse. That post must have all the negative experiences of the 220d ever recorded put together and generalised to concern a major part of all the individual cars on the road. I can see no basis for such generalisation. I'm particularly disappointed in the hint that all the good name Lexus has built for them is only a result of die-hard fanboys. So all those who are saying they're happy with Lexus are fanatics whose opinion shouldn't be noted? That's a bit cynical, isn't it? I'm fighting the urge to paint a completely opposite view on the 220d to balance things up. I easily could, but decided not to, because it wouldn't be any more objective than Jamboo's post. Maybe it's time to let things settle. And while I'm disappointed in Jamboo's (hopefully momentary) lack of judgement, I think I can understand him/her. It's easy to get all emotional when you've gone through all that Jamboo has and then see someone telling you that you're wrong blaming the car. So, Jamboo, I sympathize but disagree. Nothing personal, just telling it like I see it!

Since I was talking about the Jag when I mentioned 30 MPG, I took your reference to it as a counterargument. My bad. I guess we agree that a petrol car that weighs as much as the 220d can't hit the same mileage? S80 is lighter because it is FWD, it has a less rigid chassis and it is lower spec. It doesn't have better crash resistance, last gen S80 got four EuroNCAP stars while IS got five. Let me quote myself: "If you want to blame Lexus for poor engineering, I would suggest you put it on them not being able to design a solid car without excess weight." Same could be said about Alfa Romeo and Peugeot. If you want to compare the fuel efficiency of the engine as such, I think there are two prime candidates: Alfa 159 2.4 JTDM and Peugeot 407 HDi 170. Same generation cars, about the same features, about the same weight. Give these a spin and see if you can top the 220d.