Official F80 M3 / F82 M4 EPA MPG gas mileage: 17/26 MPG

[M4TW]

A wing nut theory that I have been entertaining (to add to all the others that occupy my mind on a daily basis) is that the marginally less mpg than predicted might be due to a juicier map aimed at North America. Maybe they want this first batch to be ringers in order to win the hearts and minds of motorists and reviewers alike so they turned up the wick ever so slightly. This would give them the option of turning it down a bit in subsequent updates if it causes too many warranty heartaches. This appeared to be the case with the N54 335 when it was introduced.

Anyway. It's a nice theory no?

[solstice]

Originally Posted by M4TW

A wing nut theory that I have been entertaining (to add to all the others that occupy my mind on a daily basis) is that the marginally less mpg than predicted might be due to a juicier map aimed at North America. Maybe they want this first batch to be ringers in order to win the hearts and minds of motorists and reviewers alike so they turned up the wick ever so slightly. This would give them the option of turning it down a bit in subsequent updates if it causes too many warranty heartaches. This appeared to be the case with the N54 335 when it was introduced.

Anyway. It's a nice theory no?

Seriously doubt it but it might be clever of us early adopters to never accept a SW update until some other gung-ho members here has loaded it. It's happened more than once that owners has reported loss of power of FI cars after SW updates.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by myzmak

I likely did not seek out earlier things you had to say to complain about this new car you don't own and likely have no interest in (making one wonder why you are here dumping on it....if only there were a word for doing that, but there probably is not and it will probably never be invented and I digress......).

In any event:

You do understand that EPA ratings aren't a promise to the good people of Grimsby individually that they will achieve those numbers on their actual drives, right? They are standardized tests on specific cars? And you also do know that the Americans changed their tests in 2008 (so, depending on what year your M3 was, it may/may not be comparable to your 435).

For the moment I will also assume you are using the right gallons in your calculations (if you are looking at the Canadian specs from our gov't, those ratings are in m/imp gal, which arent the same as our friends down south use).

All of which is to say: so what? You get different fuel economy in two different cars. Ok then. Most people do. Or, put another way, two things that are different are not the same. A strong tautology.

The folks who have tested (ie: actually driven the new F80, unlike, say, you) have actually done some fuel calculations and they have reported better economy than the E90. You should read their reviews.

Apart from that, if you don't think as a matter of very basic physics that a 3.0L turbo in a lighter car will be more efficient than a 4.0L NA V8 in a heavier car then I suppose the laws of math and physics have ceased to exist in Southern Ontario. In that case, I will watch for Mr Mansbridge to report on these developments with great interest but otherwise there is probably not much more than can be reasonably said to you.

Firstly, since I've owned an E36, E46 and E92 M3 there's a reasonably good chance that I may some day own an F80/82. If I do get an F82 DCT I'll expect to average something less than 21 mpg (U.S.) based on the simple fact that the EPA ratings for my 435i are better than for the M4 (highway, city and average).

[IMrMark]

Too bad UAE has been off enjoying his car and living life I would love to know how the mileage has held up from his initial posts. Would be interesting to compare!

[seccsc]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

Audi's tri-turbo RS5 TDI concept is a nice blend of economy and performance. Would be nice to see this produced.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2014...n=awdailydrive

This is awesome and keeps everyone (BMW) on their toes. If this was in a sedan form, sign me up!

[Carl L]

Originally Posted by seccsc

This is awesome and keeps everyone (BMW) on their toes. If this was in a sedan form, sign me up!

BMW are out ahead of Audi with diesels. There's been a 3-liter tri-turbo BMW diesel available in the 5-Series and X5/6 for three years now. 375 bhp and 545lb/ft. And 40mpg.

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by gago1101

It is annoying hearing all the ranting about the fuel economy. And you complain why BMW abandoned the V8. It is because of people like you. If you want performance driving machine with good fuel economy, go by a BMW diesel or a 328. It will be more than enough and likely more performance than you can handle- for all of you that are concerned about fuel economy.

It is funny, I was just on EPA website and looking at the list of gas guzzlers. Essentially, any car that has a soul is a gas guzzler, including all the Ferraris, Lamborghinis and the Veyron. If you want anything close to race car performance, do not expect a car to have good fuel economy. Good fuel economy comes with Prius-like features and turbos, and thanks to you, the new M3 has turbos, so go enjoy.

Naa, bmw killed V8 because of US fuel economy regulations (and taxes)

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by Carl L

Contender for most asinine post of 2014. Telling people that MPG concerns mean we should be driving 328s. Good lord. This will be my fifth bought-new M-car and the fourth M-car of mine that will see track time. Comparisons to super cars is just ridiculous though, try taking a moment to consider how each are used.

Much more annoying are new members like you who tell us what we should and shouldn't be talking about, not to mention your blaming of members here for the new car having turbos (why is that a bad thing?) belies total ignorance to the fact this is 2014 and manufacturer decisions on emissions are being driven by a whole lot more than enthusiasts on an online forum.

+1 thank you

[gago1101]

Originally Posted by Carl L

Contender for most asinine post of 2014. Telling people that MPG concerns mean we should be driving 328s. Good lord. This will be my fifth bought-new M-car and the fourth M-car of mine that will see track time. Comparisons to super cars is just ridiculous though, try taking a moment to consider how each are used.

Much more annoying are new members like you who tell us what we should and shouldn't be talking about, not to mention your blaming of members here for the new car having turbos (why is that a bad thing?) belies total ignorance to the fact this is 2014 and manufacturer decisions on emissions are being driven by a whole lot more than enthusiasts on an online forum.

Okay, take the supercars away and lets talk about the current AMG C63, another gas guzzler. Wouldn't you love to have the C63's V8 in your new M3?

Manufacturer's decisions on emissions are driven by a lot of things, but for a niche car like the M3, the enthusiasts demands have a lot of weight, IMHO. I am not blaming anyone. It is just funny how people complain about loosing the V8, while at the same time complain about fuel economy.

I think the reason M3 may not be as raw or as before is because everyday conveniences of a daily driver, such as fuel economy and comfort have taken precedence. For some this may a be a good thing, but not for all.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by gago1101

Okay, take the supercars away and lets talk about the current AMG C63, another gas guzzler. Wouldn't you love to have the C63's V8 in your new M3?

No. I think the post LCI W204 is a fine car, but I wouldn't take the trade off. If I wanted that, I'd get an E90

Manufacturer's decisions on emissions are driven by a lot of things, but for a niche car like the M3, the enthusiasts demands have a lot of weight, IMHO.

With respect, your HO overstates the importance of people like you and me and the rest of the losers (I mean 'enthusiasts') who waste time on these forums.....

Most people buying this car don't care about the number of cylinders. They care about performance. If you can give as good performance (or better) with less (weight, emissions, etc) it is a seller. And selling as many cars as possible, not just a handful to self-described enthusiasts, is the business of BMW. And it is a business.

I am not blaming anyone. It is just funny how people complain about loosing the V8, while at the same time complain about fuel economy.

Those people are fools, and they are not the people currently disagreeing with you.

Again, BMW is a business. Very large tax burdens (BMW and MB were far and away the most fined companies pre-2008 in the states and the taxes in the US and EU have gone up big time since then) is stupid business. No shareholder will stand for that and, let's not fool ourselves, those are the people BMW cares about. We are a means to that end.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by gago1101

I think the reason M3 may not be as raw or as before is because everyday conveniences of a daily driver, such as fuel economy and comfort have taken precedence. For some this may a be a good thing, but not for all.

On what personal experience or evidence can you talk about the rawness of the F80 vs other years?

[gago1101]

Originally Posted by myzmak

On what personal experience or evidence can you talk about the rawness of the F80 vs other years?

No personal experience or evidence, but watching a few recent first drives, many complain about the engine feel and claim that M3 has lost its heart or soul. I do have personal experience with the M5 though, which has definitely gotten less raw over the years. I hope this is not true for the F80 M3. I guess I will find out when I take delivery in Munich in July.

[myzmak]

Wish you nothing but good vibes on that pickup.

As for the reviews, don't take them too far. Here is a long post I made a couple of weeks ago compiling comments on the E90 (which I update from time to time with new finds)

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=989324

Long story short, early reviews said the same dumb things about E90 and time proved them wrong. Let time pass on the F80 before jumping to conclusions with the chicken littles of this forum.

[Leozap]

Originally Posted by r3dbimmer89

+ 1 ...I dunno what ppl expected.

WE DEMAND AN EXTRA .5mpg!

25% of 14(current M3 mpg) is 3.5 and 14 + 3.5 = 17.5!!!!!!!

[dtn]

That is pretty great MPG for the power output. I wonder what real world numbers it will average?

[Keto]

Originally Posted by Leozap

WE DEMAND AN EXTRA .5mpg!

25% of 14(current M3 mpg) is 3.5 and 14 + 3.5 = 17.5!!!!!!!

13.6 x 1.25 = 17

Rounding error. I certainly did 13.6 in the city in my E92...

[seccsc]

Originally Posted by Carl L

BMW are out ahead of Audi with diesels. There's been a 3-liter tri-turbo BMW diesel available in the 5-Series and X5/6 for three years now. 375 bhp and 545lb/ft. And 40mpg.

I don't disagree but not in a 3 series form.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by Leozap

WE DEMAND AN EXTRA .5mpg!

25% of 14(current M3 mpg) is 3.5 and 14 + 3.5 = 17.5!!!!!!!

Though on the combined the 16 mpg to 20 mpg is exactly 25%

(and on highway driving, the increase from 20 to 26 is more like 31%)

but, yeah, as I think it was Moses or Buddha that said: "haters gonna hate, yo."

[Carl L]

Originally Posted by gago1101

Okay, take the supercars away and lets talk about the current AMG C63, another gas guzzler. Wouldn't you love to have the C63's V8 in your new M3?

Manufacturer's decisions on emissions are driven by a lot of things, but for a niche car like the M3, the enthusiasts demands have a lot of weight, IMHO. I am not blaming anyone. It is just funny how people complain about loosing the V8, while at the same time complain about fuel economy.

I think the reason M3 may not be as raw or as before is because everyday conveniences of a daily driver, such as fuel economy and comfort have taken precedence. For some this may a be a good thing, but not for all.

Sensible post and I can now see where you're coming from. That said, we still see this rather differently (which is a-okay) and I honestly prefer BMW going back to a straight-6 than going the AMG route (one reason is history, the other is that it increases choices for the consumer when brands offer very different experiences).

I would have to wait to drive it to see what I think of the rawness/purity. Harris's review said not to worry, he's a hooligan so that's a good sign. RE fuel economy, range in particular is something I'm VERY happy has increased. That weight and lap times have fallen too helps with the impression that they haven't gone away from the core identity of the car (though what that is sometimes depends on who you ask, for me the chassis has always come first with an M).

I must finish by saying look what a great success the first turbo'd M was, the 1M. Give the F8x a chance (and a darn good drive) before worrying that it's improved mileage has ruined the experience.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by Carl L

RE fuel economy, range in particular is something I'm VERY happy has increased.

As I stated earlier, with the new 60 l tank I'm only getting about 5% more range with my 435i than I got with the E92 M3 and its 63 l tank. And the 435i xDrive 8 AT shows higher mpg (city, hwy, combined) than the M4. So unless you're going to drive in ECO PRO it is dubious that range will be extended.

[Damasconian]

Originally Posted by Keto

Imperial gallons most likely.

Yes, of course. Did some research on the issue after reading your post and got better informed. There is a decent amount of difference in the two. Thanks.

[Keto]

Originally Posted by Damasconian

Yes, of course. Did some research on the issue after reading your post and got better informed. There is a decent amount of difference in the two. Thanks.