Canadian Fuel Economy numbers out...

[myzmak]

For those who live in Canadia, we finally have the 'official' numbers:

http://www.bmw.ca/ca/en/newvehicles/...ata/index.html

(in L/100km)

City, man/auto 13.7 / 13.9

Highway, man/auto: 9.0 / 9.7

Combined, man/auto: 11.6 / 12.0

To put those into numbers for others (using calculations from here: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nr...14WCAG_e.pdf):


M/Imp Gal (City/Hwy/Combined)

MT: 20.6, 31.4, 24.4
DCT: 20.3, 29.1, 23.5

M/US Gal (City/Hwy/Combined)

MT: 17.2, 26.1, 20.3
DCT: 16.9, 24.2, 19.6



(presumably this was done with the new 5 cycle testing that Canada is, belatedly, adopting - meaning that comparing to older figures will not be apples to apples as those will be inflated by around 10-20%)

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/effic...ks/buying/7491

Edit: After double checking the post with EPA numbers, these do seem the same (albeit with one more decimal place) meaning these are using 5 cycle testing, so comparing your older numbers may be more difficult.

[Brady1984]

This is very unexpected, the manual getting better mileage than the 7 speed DCT. Wow.

[AreOut]

so in Canada DCT consumes more? Get your sh*t straight BMW!

[myzmak]

Same as the US EPA numbers, yes, the DCT is thirstier on the North American testing.

(it isn't BMW's shit that is out of whack, it is two very different testing cycles between Europe and North America)

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by myzmak

Same as the US EPA numbers, yes, the DCT is thirstier on the North American testing.

(it isn't BMW's shit that is out of whack, it is two very different testing cycles between Europe and North America)

+1. First response from BMWNA was the opposite, but this is now confirmed (on their website). I'd still like to know how it works out that way, not that I mind, having gone MT.

[AreOut]

Originally Posted by myzmak

Same as the US EPA numbers, yes, the DCT is thirstier on the North American testing.

(it isn't BMW's shit that is out of whack, it is two very different testing cycles between Europe and North America)

hah, stupid bureacracy

btw these numbers are much more real than european, 11.6 avg for manual version sounds about right(if you don't go over the limit), in Europe it's 9.9 avg for F10 which is ridiculous...

this was also discussed before

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146755

interesting that difference between transmissions was only 0.2 liter on highway and now it is 0.7

[RPiM5]

All I have to say is this...

[SPACEMANRICK]

I always find the posted mileage figures to be way too optimistic. I drive 50% city and 50% highway and usually expect my mileage to match the city only driving mileage so for the 6 speed manual M3 I expect 13.7 L per 100 km driving 50% city and 50% highway. The mileage is not as good as I had hoped for, my 335 XI has a posted 10.3 L per 100 km in the city (which is pretty close to my actual driving 50/50) while the M3 uses 13.7 L per 100 km.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by AreOut

hah, stupid bureacracy

btw these numbers are much more real than european, 11.6 avg for manual version sounds about right(if you don't go over the limit), in Europe it's 9.9 avg for F10 which is ridiculous...

this was also discussed before

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146755

interesting that difference between transmissions was only 0.2 liter on highway and now it is 0.7

Yup.

The european numbers are very different.

https://www.bmw.co.uk/en_GB/new-vehi...nicaldata.html

...this has been discussed before on this thread too somewhate, but it is quite funny how different they really end up being.

(ie: DCT in Canadian testing on highway is 29.1 m/imp gal. in Europe testing? 42.2. ummmm.....quite a difference, boys and girls)

City numbers are a little closer ("only" up to 20% different) but.....still.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by RPiM5

All I have to say is this...

Hush up or we'll come and burn down your capitol building. Again.

[M4TW]

Originally Posted by myzmak

Hush up or we'll come and burn down your capitol building. Again.

You mean whine to the Brits and get them to do it. It's the Canadian way. (Careful, Americans are taught in school that they won the war of 1812.)

[SPACEMANRICK]

Originally Posted by SPACEMANRICK

I always find the posted mileage figures to be way too optimistic. I drive 50% city and 50% highway and usually expect my mileage to match the city only driving mileage so for the 6 speed manual M3 I expect 13.7 L per 100 km driving 50% city and 50% highway. The mileage is not as good as I had hoped for, my 335 XI has a posted 10.3 L per 100 km in the city (which is pretty close to my actual driving 50/50) while the M3 uses 13.7 L per 100 km.

I read through the link on the new testing methods. Hopefully the new testing methods mean that I will actually be getting 11 L to 12 L per 100 km driving 50/50.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by SPACEMANRICK

I read through the link on the new testing methods. Hopefully the new testing methods mean that I will actually be getting 11 L to 12 L per 100 km driving 50/50.

All depends on how you drive, where you live, etc, but it can be somewhere in that range.

In the E350 I can get close to the (advertised under old standards) 8 l/100 km in highway driving (would hit it, but those standards are for driving at around speed limit, not 20-25 km/h above) and even our city driving is pretty close to it.

As always, 'your mileage may vary'.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by M4TW

You mean whine to the Brits and get them to do it. It's the Canadian way. (Careful, Americans are taught in school that they won the war of 1812.)

yeah yeah yeah (on the former)

and : on the latter.

[Tony_YYZ]

Interesting, that's a lot better than I expected. I wonder what the real-world numbers will be like.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by myzmak

For those who live in Canadia, we finally have the 'official' numbers:

(in L/100km)

City, man/auto 13.7 / 13.9

Highway, man/auto: 9.0 / 9.7

Combined, man/auto: 11.6 / 12.0

To put those into numbers for others (using calculations from here: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nr...14WCAG_e.pdf):


M/Imp Gal (City/Hwy/Combined)

MT: 20.6, 31.4, 24.4
DCT: 20.3, 29.1, 23.5

M/US Gal (City/Hwy/Combined)

MT: 17.2, 26.1, 20.3
DCT: 16.9, 24.2, 19.6



(presumably this was done with the new 5 cycle testing that Canada is, belatedly, adopting - meaning that comparing to older figures will not be apples to apples as those will be inflated by around 10-20%)

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/effic...ks/buying/7491

Edit: After double checking the post with EPA numbers, these do seem the same (albeit with one more decimal place) meaning these are using 5 cycle testing, so comparing your older numbers may be more difficult.

I don't know what the government is doing differently, but my old 2010 M3 DCT coupe was rated right on the money at 9.9 l/100 k highway and 15.4 city. I actually averaged 12.7 l/100 k. But my 435i xDrive 8 AT is rated at 6.5 highway and 10.3 city, for an average of 8.6 l/100 k. I actually average 11.1 l/100 k (same roads, same speeds). BMW's number here is 29% optimistic by my reckoning.

Now, maybe I'm doing something wrong. I don't drive in ECO PRO, but Sport (chassis only) 98% of the time, Sport+ about 2% of the time. Oddly enough, I don't have too much trouble believing 12 l/100 k for the new car with DCT, but that's only about 5% better than I was getting with the E92 M3 DCT!

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by BimmerBoomer

I don't know what the government is doing differently, but my old 2010 M3 DCT coupe was rated right on the money at 9.9 l/100 k highway and 15.4 city. I actually averaged 12.7 l/100 k. But my 435i xDrive 8 AT is rated at 6.5 highway and 10.3 city, for an average of 8.6 l/100 k. I actually average 11.1 l/100 k (same roads, same speeds). BMW's number here is 29% optimistic by my reckoning.

Now, maybe I'm doing something wrong. I don't drive in ECO PRO, but Sport (chassis only) 98% of the time, Sport+ about 2% of the time. Oddly enough, I don't have too much trouble believing 12 l/100 k for the new car with DCT, but that's only about 5% better than I was getting with the E92 M3 DCT!

Unless the 435i is a 2015 model, the numbers will be using the old 2 cycle testing. The gov't has acknowledged those old numbers will be artificially low. That is why they changed (and why, as they warn in that link I posted, you cannot compare these new numbers directly to a pre-2015 car)

Edit: this guy posits 10-20% differences.

http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/can...-testing-rules

As for your old M3, pressumably you just babied that throttle.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by myzmak

As for your old M3, pressumably you just babied that throttle.

Same roads, same speeds. Again, I'm agreeing with the numbers from 2010 - and stipulating the number from 2015 on the new F80/F82. Only trouble is that the real world improvement has been 5% - not the 25% BMW keeps trumpeting (And I can hear the echoes here.). Anyway, we'll know soon enough what people here are getting in real world driving.

[Roadkiller]

Originally Posted by RPiM5

All I have to say is this...

I miss HIMYM.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by BimmerBoomer

Same roads, same speeds. Again, I'm agreeing with the numbers from 2010 - and stipulating the number from 2015 on the new F80/F82. Only trouble is that the real world improvement has been 5% - not the 25% BMW keeps trumpeting (And I can hear the echoes here.). Anyway, we'll know soon enough what people here are getting in real world driving.

yeah, i think we had this discussion in the earlier thread.

Lets see how it works out.

(FWIW, the Auto Motor Und Sport measured 11.5 L/100 km over 521 km with a min of 7.6 and max of 14.7 during testing (which would one assumes, be a little more 'spirited' than DD))

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=998419

[AreOut]

AMS shows ~25% reduction in comparison with E92 and I'll believe them

[BimmerBoomer]

Car & Driver beat the EPA average in the 2008 E92 DCT coupe they used for their 40,000 mile long term test - 17 mpg vs. 16 mpg EPA. One can only imagine how this car was driven!