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

[Mako]

Originally Posted by mxa121

Comparisons to cars with much larger engines and much less specific power output seems trivial. In general, a smaller engine that is "hopped up" if you will, consumes more fuel than a similar sized engine that is less potent.

17/29 C7_________6.2L 450hp__72 hp/L 3298 lbs 0.28 cD (Drag coefficient)
17/26 M4_________3.0L 425hp_141 hp/L 3530 lbs 0.34 cD (e92 M was 0.31)
19/25 CLA45 AMG__2.0L 355hp_177 hp/L 3487 lbs 0.23 cD (thats low drag!!)
(You are welcome for providing that juicy little list )

vs C7
M4 engine that produces twice the specific output in combination with more drag, shorter gearing, and more weight (all negatives) produces (in this case incrementally) less fuel economy.

vs CLA45 AMG
The CLA engine produces more specific output in combination with a lower drag coefficient and less weight, yet produces less fuel economy than the M4 (AWD doesn't help).

Do not underestimate the power (see what I did there) of specific outputs relative to fuel efficiency.

You should add the S6

V8 4.0L 420hp 406 torque 4398 lb curb weight 17/27 mpg
0-60 3.7 with launch control

[paddy335]

Originally Posted by Maddict3

who cares? who buys the M4 for economy.

For many of us outside the US/Middle East fuel consumption is a very real consideration for any car purchase - high or low end. Might not be a deal-breaker, but certainly a factor.

[paddy335]

Originally Posted by ake

I want an M3 Diesel!!! I'm waiting on that one for ages already. It would be the perfect car in Europe!

Alpina D3. And you could get a wagon.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Powaup

CAFE might not be the biggest push for the next gen M3/M4 to come out with a hybrid engine but China's emission laws will be (In my opinion)

It would mean dozens of other cars become hybrids in the same timeframe. Very little chance of it if you really consider what would need to happen in the next seven years. My suggestion is to put your bet on something far less dramatic, or shift your timeline another decade into the future.

[M Vier]

Hmmm... 114 posts already!! I'm still getting it. And I'm excited

Originally Posted by Powaup

Now could you explain why the DCT is more fuel efficient when it is in fact heavier then the the 6MT?

6th gear in 6MT is almost identical in ratio to 6th gear in DCT.

7th gear in DCT has a better overdrive gear ratio leads to lower RPM at same speed. Thus, less consumption and better mpg.

From BMW:

Manual gear ratios – IV/V/VI -- 1.18/1/0.85:1

Automatic Transmission ratios -- V/VI/VII 1/0.84/0.67:1

They both have the same final drive ratio of 3.46 :1

Relax! I have 6MT too

[paddy335]

I don't think the 17/26mpg number will be borne out to be correct. They are way too high. That's 9-14 litres/100km, which is a level I think BMW would lose significant face/customers for in Europe and other parts of the world.

The figure I have seen in a couple of reviews is 8.3 litres/100km (28+mpg), which is listed as a single figure so implies it is combined cycle. Seems much more realistic.

Maybe I am missing something in not understanding the way EPA makes it's estimations?

[M3guy3]

Originally Posted by StealYourFace

Awesome news.

I would still like to see a deeper 6th gear (like GM F bodies and Corvettes since the late 80's) since it has the torque at lower revs now. 6th is used for steady highways speeds anyways.

Still good news in the right direction.

I still would love a clean used e90 M3, since an F80 is not in my financial future, but that SUV like gas mileage is still a very tough pill to swallow (along with those pesky rod bearings). It's a shame, because the e90 M3 is one of my absolute favorite cars. I have to think that if it didn't have a ridiculously short 6th gear, and was more around the .7 to 1 range, it would get around 10% better highway mileage, less engine wear ect.

keeping in mind. The E90 m3 was made for people with money. many people my self included bought new M3s, which could cost 70k. I never once cared about my MPG, i could afford the car and fuel.I wont say its s shame the car didnt have better MPG. because lots of people could afford it. i still to this day dont really care about MPG.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by paddy335

I don't think the 17/26mpg number will be borne out to be correct. They are way too high. That's 9-14 litres/100km, which is a level I think BMW would lose significant face/customers for in Europe and other parts of the world.

The figure I have seen in a couple of reviews is 8.3 litres/100km (28+mpg), which is listed as a single figure so implies it is combined cycle. Seems much more realistic.

Maybe I am missing something in not understanding the way EPA makes it's estimations?

No one can understand EPA's numbers! But, you cannot convert US figures to Euro, because the tests are totally different. Real world is the proof, and I'm confident the newbie will be -25% better than the E9X.

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

No one can understand EPA's numbers! But, you cannot convert US figures to Euro, because the tests are totally different. Real world is the proof, and I'm confident the newbie will be -25% better than the E9X.

And I expect so too, but a 25% improvement with a 25% decrease in cylinder count -- from 8 to 6 -- might be the biggest factor in that change as opposed to [fill in with anything that comes to mind].

[desertfox73]

Originally Posted by clbmw

I cannot help thinking when reading pages of posts complaining, why are you buying an M3 or M4 for fuel efficiency?! Just buy something efficient (eg 328d) and keep your M3 for the weekend.

Wait...so for people upset about the cost of fueling up their M3, your suggestion is to buy another BMW?

Person 1: the cost of fueling this sucker up is going to be a lot!

You: just buy a second BMW, that should be cheaper.

Good call.

[e1000]

Where's the Prius 'ring time thread?????

[paddy335]

Originally Posted by desertfox73

Wait...so for people upset about the cost of fueling up their M3, your suggestion is to buy another BMW?

Person 1: the cost of fueling this sucker up is going to be a lot!

You: just buy a second BMW, that should be cheaper.

Good call.

Come on man, he just works in veeeeery long pay-back timeframes

[solstice]

The important thing was to avoid guzzler tax since that's money flushed down the toilet. The rest of the extra gas consumed we are getting something for.

[Eichler1]

Hey, that's about what I get with my 2013 Mustang GT convertible with its NA 5.0 liter V-8. I've owned an E93 M3, so I understand Ford's Coyote V-8 is no S65, but the 7,000 RPM-redline motor is no slouch, is reasonably efficient and of course offers that instant NA response (and also that NA-related relative lack of torque at low RPM). Anyway, Ford promises improved mileage from the Coyote in the 2015 Mustang. So I guess you don't necessarily need a turbo to attain efficient dynamics.

[SOM3]

Originally Posted by Eichler1

Hey, that's about what I get with my 2013 Mustang GT convertible with its NA 5.0 liter V-8. I've owned an E93 M3, so I understand Ford's Coyote V-8 is no S65, but the 7,000 RPM-redline motor is no slouch, is reasonably efficient and of course offers that instant NA response (and also that NA-related relative lack of torque at low RPM). Anyway, Ford promises improved mileage from the Coyote in the 2015 Mustang. So I guess you don't necessarily need a turbo to attain efficient dynamics.

That sounds pretty good for 5.0 liter engine.

Most people looking at NEW M3s don't look at Mustangs or pay that big of a deal to gas mileage.

Having said that I'm not one of those people.

[KevinM]

Just a side note to the conversation...Wow, I cannot believe that the typical F8x buyer cares about a city rating of 17 vs. 20 mpg or a highway rating 25 vs. 30 mpg or so. The car was made to be more efficient in the context of more power, and I do believe the context of the power (much more low-end torque to state the obvious) is the key to accepting the numbers. I'll still be keeping my archaic S62 and S54, but I'm in...

[ADRQ0811]

Who cares about mpg when you are buying a car like m3/m4 like really is that a deal breaker for somebody

[gago1101]

Originally Posted by I Love BMW's

Someone who has driven the car a few hundred miles told me it was getting just under 29 mpg at Interstate cruising speeds.

Based on my own experience, I typically get 2-3 more mpg's on the highway than the published BMW EPA numbers so it sounds feasible to me.

Amazing how you guys get better fuel economy than EPA numbers. Do all of you drive like grannies? I have never been able to get closer than 5 mpg to the EPA highway miles. I do not see myself buying an M3 and being light on the throttle, seems like an oxymoron.

As long as there is no gas guzzler tax, we are okay.

[ORIGIN M.]

I'd buy pure electric M3/4 as long as it was best driving & handling car on market and kept same basic style.

[M3guy3]

Originally Posted by red-sauerkraut

I'd buy pure electric M3/4 as long as it was best driving & handling car on market and kept same basic style.

.

[Paul-Bracq-BMW]

From the French BMW Site: https://www.bmw.fr/fr/new-vehicles/M...echniques.html

Official figures are:

Consommation en cycle urbain en l/100 km 12,0 [11,1]: Urban Cycle: 19.6 mpg (Dct: 21.19 mpg)
Consommation en cycle extra-urbain en l/100 km 6,9 [6,7]: Extra-Urban: 34.08 mpg (DCT: 35.10 mpg)
Consommation en cycle mixte en l/100 km 8,8 [8,3]: Mixed: 26.73 mpg (28.34)



For comparison purposes e92 M3 (manual) official figures:

Consommation urbaine 17.7 l / 100 km: 13.29 mpg
Consommation extra-urbaine 9.3 l / 100 km: 25.29 mpg
Consommation mixte 12.4 l / 100 km: 18.97 mpg

BIG difference between the 2.

[Tyler0630]

i get 11 mpg average. weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

once my m4 is delivered ill probably get about 14 mpg. weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee