FinLex

So are saying you could match your current mileage with a XJR? S40 D5 is smaller than 220d and weighs a lot less. S80 2.4 weighs less than 220d. Are you getting my point, yet?

The cars weigh the same and have similar torque, which means they are equally fast when driven in torque band. Outside its torque band the 220d is slower because the smaller displacement makes the engine less flexible. Still, the power-to-weight ratio gives a very accurate description of the performance of these two. And that is in real life, not on paper. Reviews show it, too. If you give the BMW extra credit for having six cylinders, fine. I don't. Maybe it's a bit more refined, but Lexus is plenty good for me. I wouldn't be so sure on BMW getting closer to its claimed figures than 220d. BMW's latest engine generation is a prime example of how the engine/gearbox combo can be heavily optimized for the official test and nothing else. Auto Motor und Sport listed the tested cars that were furthest away from the official figures. There were three BMWs and a Mini on the top 10! To be fair, I must say that the GS 450h was the worst but the 220d wasn't anywhere near the top. And this isn't just an one time deal with BMWs, there are lots of tests showing the same trend.

Jamboo, This sulphur thing isn't the whole story, but it could well be a part of it. As to the 525d, where is the big difference between it and the 220d? They weigh the same, they have the same torque, BMW has 20 more hp, BMW claims 45.6 and Lexus 44.8. BMW's engine was introduced to the public two years later than the 220d, so it is a bit more advanced: it manages to give similar fuel economy while giving a bit more power. No surprise there. Both have been tested by Auto Motor und Sport in Germany and both had a test consumption around 9 litres per 100 km, which translates to 31.4 MPG. So when driven aggressively (as that magazine does), they both return about the same mileage. PS. The reason for the recall was the potential coking of the 5th injector and the limp home mode that sometimes resulted from it.

I think any modifications on the gear ratios will cause problems with the authorities. The cars are tested for emissions as delivered by the manufacturer, and gear ratios are a big factor in the test results. Modify them and you'll end up having a car that is not officially approved for road traffic. Technically it should be relatively easy to change the standard final drive for another, but because of the forementioned problem I wouldn't recommend it.

I kind of got that. But are you talking about petrol cars with similar power and weight? Because no matter how I drive my 220d, it gives me similar mileage to my Corolla 1.6 petrol driven the same way. The Corolla weighs 450 kgs less and has a whopping 110 hp, not to mention the lethargic torque... Yes, driving style makes a lot of difference with the 220d. But this is more because of the huge amount of weight being accelerated every time you push the throttle than because of the engine being extraordinarily thirsty. You really need to keep the momentum when driving the 220d, or you will end up with a drop in the mileage. That's just physics. I must further stress the weight of the 220d. Let's see, petrol cars that weigh about the same... Audi A6 3.2 FSI Quattro weighs 20 kgs less. BMW 530i weighs 55 kgs less. Now, get this: Jaguar XJR weighs just 5 kgs more! Would the Jag give you 30 MPG when driven aggressively? Sure it will go faster, but it will take A LOT more fuel. 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. Well, that and the gear ratios...

It's not the reason for the bad mileage, in general. It's just one factor that results in fluctuating tank averages. My point is that there is no reason to panic if one tank is worse than another: there is at least this one built-in reason for such things. I don't have any deeper knowledge on the structure of the d-cat system, but I think it has some way of knowing when it should clean itself up. So my money is on sensors rather than a fixed time interval.

Hi there and welcome! I got a recall on the fifth injector about two weeks ago (mentioned it earlier in this thread). The injector was changed, but I was told that I already had the latest ECU update. Didn't make a big difference, but maybe a bit better fuel economy since.

Life is a bitch. You can't even drive like a lunatic and still get 50 MPG. By the way, when the diesel particulate filter burns the nasty stuff it's been gathering, it uses extra fuel. I'm not sure how often this takes place, but I would guess only once in a while. I've noticed a slight drop in the tank average sometimes with no obvious reason, and I've come to think this is because of the DPF cleaning itself up. I try not to get all paranoid on just one bad tank average reading, but rather keep track on the long term. Another advantage of this is that it evens up the measurement errors that sometimes occur both on the onboard computer and when calculating the consumption filling up the tank. On the gearing, I mostly agree. The normal version is a bit odd and the first gear a bit awkward. But I understand why they opted for it: to get a low official CO2 result. The Sport version is more user friendly: I can get a quick(ish) launch using the 1st, or I can take off smoothly on 2nd gear (without slipping the clutch).

That sounds reasonable. It's just funny that the official specs for the vehicle height are the same.

Can anyone come up with a reason why they would use different springs for the diesel? To me, it would seem logical to use the same since there is practically no difference in weight. Or could it not be the springs that make the difference in height?

I hope so, too. For a while, I considered not taking it in. If it ain't broken... In the end, I decided to trust that Lexus Finland knows better than me. Coming to think about it, I should have taken the old injector so they could put it back if the new one doesn't work! But so far so good.

This could very well be the reason or at least one of them. Since 2004, all diesel fuel sold in Finland has been ultra-low on sulfur. The EN590 standard allows diesel to include 0.01 mass percent of sulfur, whereas the national limit in Finland is 0.001 or below.

Jamboo, Again, I think your poll is very good. In fact, it's about as good as it gets with the tools at hand. Still, it's selective on many levels. The first selection is that only people with an Internet connection can apply. Okay, maybe that's a bit trivial nowadays, but that's just an example. There are many more. The poll tells us that it's not just one or two owners with MPG problems, but it doesn't really tell us, what percentage of 220d owners is actually struggling with them. And of course, it tells us nothing about the reason why people are getting poor mileage. So, the poll is a good thing, but it's not the absolute truth (if there is such a thing). I really hope we can all agree on this.

Yep. Just Finland, it seems. At least no one else has mentioned anything here. 50.4 MPG is 5.6 litres per 100 km which of course is 0.56 litres per 10 km.

The main reason was said to be avoiding the limp home mode situations, which are a result of coking of the 5th injector.

Got my 5th injector changed today due to the recall. First trip, about 90 miles A and B roads, returned 50.4 MPG. Not a big change from what I'm used to, but maybe a bit better than usual. At least it didn't get worse!

I'm totally with VrmmVrmm on this one. It's funny, actually. VrmmVrmm and I both have a Jan 07 model with about the same amount of kilometers on the clock. We both seem to have 47.1 MPG since new. We both drive predominantly below 60 mph and below 2000 RPM. We both drive mostly on extra-urban roads. Under these circumstances, the 220d returns reasonable MPG. Under some other circumstances, it seems not to. Everyone can make of that what they want, but let's try and keep our feelings under control.

Basically I'm driving fast enough not to cause unnecessary trouble to anyone and fast enough to get where I'm going in time. That is how you should be driving, too, if you really want good mileage. If you don't, stop complaining. I am NOT labouring my engine. You can hear and feel the vibration when the engine is labouring. And what is more, you're NOT getting good mileage when the engine is labouring. Try it, if you don't believe me. Before you do, don't bother considering yourself wiser than me. The torque band is there for a reason and that reason is quick acceleration. Good fuel efficiency is below the torque band.

I'm getting that by practice. I took the time to alter my driving style to fit the car. From 1st to 4th gear I drive at about 1500 RPM, 5th from 1600 RPM and 6th from 1700 RPM. That is, when going steady. If I need quick acceleration, then 2000+ RPM. I also use coasting whenever possible. When slowing down, always engine braking. About 90 percent of my driving is on highways/A-roads, about 10 percent urban. I can match 47.1 MPG with many petrol powered cars. None of them comparable with the IS, though.

Jamboo, I think your poll is just fine, but surely you can't think it's 100 percent representative? It's selective on many levels. BMW 535d weighs about 75 kgs more than 220d. BMW 320d weighs about 150 kgs less than 220d. 220d is HEAVY, and it makes a world of difference especially in urban driving.

That's 17 complaints. How many potentially happy 220d owners that leaves? Thousands, I believe. I must again remind: the official MPG figures are not Lexus' claims, but official test results. If your not matching them, it's because you're not driving in a similar way. I'm not saying you should, but if you don't, you can't really compare your mileage to the official numbers. None of the cars you mentioned weight as much as 220d. I would guess none of them have a particulate filter, either. I'm sure none of them have the DeNOx technology that the 220d has. These things are easily forgotten, because they're not as obvious as the mileage, but still they are there. Some people are bashing the engine-gearbox combo, some are not. Are you saying that the happy ones are wrong or lying? I know the 220d isn't the most fuel efficient car in its class, but combined with the weight, low emissions and torque, I'm pleased with the 47,1 MPG that I've received since new. Don't overgeneralise, please!

I'm very happy with mine, but that's just me. No problems, no complaints. Got a recall on 5th injector a couple of days ago, but haven't had problems with it either. I can't say why, but my experience on the 220d is way, way different than the general view on this forum seems to be.

I speculated in another thread a few months ago, that Lexus would have made a recall on 5th injector if they were sure that they got it figured out. I have no idea whether they have a permanent fix or are just going to replace it with a similar one. I just hope they're not going to give me a problem that I haven't had so far.

Interesting. I got an official recall on the 5th injector today, not that I've had any problems with it. Is this an international thing or just Lexus Finland?

It is a very common trend that new cars can't hit the official figures. The test cycle has been the same for too long. Car manufacturers have gotten very good in optimizing their cars for the test cycle. So it's not that the results are somehow tampered, it's just that no one drives the same way in reality. When a car is optimized for the test cycle, it isn't optimized for any other way of driving. Therefore it is possible that a car with a poor official figure is as (or even more) economical in real world than a car with a better one. A very good example of this is the difference between the normal 220d and the Sport version. According to official figures, the normal version should return almost 20 percent better mileage than the Sport. Well, it doesn't. My long term average is 47,1 MPG. A normal version with a long term average around 56 MPG ... Anyone? So, why is it so? It's simple. Lexus very aggressively optimized the gear ratios of the normal version for the official test cycle to get the best possible CO2 figure (which isn't that good, actually). The Sport version was made by giving it a shorter final gear ratio. Now, in the official test the normal version is driven exatcly on the best possible RPM throughout the test (because it was designed for that test), whereas the Sport version is driven with ~30 percent higher RPM. It's easy to see, why the difference in fuel economy isn't the same in real life: anyone with half a brain understands to upchange earlier with the Sport. This is the real problem behind standard tests: People can alter their driving styles to fit the car, whereas a standard is a standard.