Why does the BMW 3 2.0 cost less to run than the BMW 3 1.8?

I had a 2005 BMW 3 Series 2.0-litre automatic as my main car in 2010 and I remember it being tax bracket J (190g/km),150PS, and on paper showing 35mpg on the combined cycle. I'm looking to buy a used 2007 automatic BMW 3 Series 1.8-litre to use as a run about. I assumed it would be slower than my old 2.0-litre but I was expecting better fuel economy but it's showing 30mpg Combined, 226g/km (pushing it into tax bracket L) and only 129PS. Do you know if these figures are correct, both cars mentioned are saloons, I am just confused that the lower powered unit actually costs more to run.

Asked on 12 January 2017 by Jay-1001

Answered by Honest John
BMW E90 320 i SE auto 159g/km VED band G. BMW E90 318i SE auto 155g/km, same VED band G. If your previous 320 i was an E46, our detailed data does not go back that far.
Similar questions
We have decided to purchase a year old Volvo V40. It's a second car that would have be mostly short journeys and twice weekly 40 mile commutes, doing about 10,000 miles per year. The debate we are currently...
We have a 2014 Land Rover Freelander (15,000 miles) and a 2013 Kia Rio (22,000) on 17-inch rims (big mistake for country roads). We have a budget of about £20,000 and would like to change the Kia Rio for...
I currently drive a 2005 Volkswagen Golf Plus 2.0 TDI that has done 182,000 miles. What should I replace it with on a maximum budget of £12,000? I need a workhorse to do 20,000 miles a year (80 per cent...
Related models
Superb to drive. Great handling and steering. Upmarket image. Economical diesel engines culminating in amazingly efficient 320d Efficient Dynamics at 109g/km of CO2.
 

Ask Honest John

Value my car