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

[///M5Bruno]

Not very good IMO.

[mxa121]

Originally Posted by ///M5Bruno

Not very good IMO.

my 335i is rated 17/26 and has 300 hp 300 lb-ft
new M3/4 is rated 17/26 with 425 hp 406 lb-ft

In your opinion, what is very good for this car, and do you think that number is feasible for the engine layout/size/power? Also, can you provide some competitive cars with specific epa ratings that you would think is very good?

[V1.47fan]

Originally Posted by mxa121

my 335i is rated 17/26 and has 300 hp 300 lb-ft
new M3/4 is rated 17/26 with 425 hp 406 lb-ft

In your opinion, what is very good for this car, and do you think that number is feasible for the engine layout/size/power? Also, can you provide some competitive cars with specific epa ratings that you would think is very good?

A lot of tuned N54's with 425hp+ owners report 30+ mpg highway...not bad for what can be a high 11 second car.

[pjpoon]

I owned a '97 e36 4dr M3 for 12 years. Mileage was rated 20/28/23, city/highway/combined. However they changed the testing in 2008 and the ratings would've been 18/26/21 under the new testing
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=13313
So my new M3 will have about 175 more horsepower and torque, have gobs better handling and acceleration with essentially the same EPA rating. Pretty good IMO

[svc0x80]

Originally Posted by V1.47fan

A lot of tuned N54's with 425hp+ owners report 30+ mpg highway...not bad for what can be a high 11 second car.

My tuned N54 was lucky to see 16mpg.

[svc0x80]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

seriously?

Higher rpm = increased fuel consumption.

More power = requires more fuel. You can simply produce less torque/power and still rev high.

[M2Crew]

BMW promised 25% better mileage than that of the S65. They delivered.

[r3dbimmer89]

Originally Posted by mashoutposse

BMW promised 25% better mileage than that of the S65. They delivered.

+ 1 ...I dunno what ppl expected.

[dhoggm3]

Originally Posted by pjpoon

I owned a '97 e36 4dr M3 for 12 years. Mileage was rated 20/28/23, city/highway/combined. However they changed the testing in 2008 and the ratings would've been 18/26/21 under the new testing
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=13313
So my new M3 will have about 175 more horsepower and torque, have gobs better handling and acceleration with essentially the same EPA rating. Pretty good IMO

Good perspective. I "only" had my E36 4-door for 9 years. Kinda shows how far we've come with this comparison.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by V1.47fan

A lot of tuned N54's with 425hp+ owners report 30+ mpg highway...not bad for what can be a high 11 second car.

Yes, I agree that is good - better than EPA numbers right (even with the tune)?

Now let's see what M3/M4 owners report so we are doing an apples/apples comparison.

[ncM]

I thought GOOD mpg was the tradeoff for turbo complexity, sound, etc. The Mustang 5.0 was a tick faster than the old M3 notwithstanding inferior lb/hp and distribution, runs on regular gas and dino oil, sounds good, is simple and reliable, and rates 17/26mpg with 6MT and a not too slippery profile. The 5.0 mill weighs about 30lbs more than the new M3's. Slap a supercharger on a 5.0 and would still probably cost the manufacturer less than the F8x engine. Maybe it will make sense when we get the full test articles on the F8x.

[Carl L]

Originally Posted by svc0x80

More power = requires more fuel.

That's a fallacy.

[Carl L]

Originally Posted by mxa121

my 335i is rated 17/26 and has 300 hp 300 lb-ft
new M3/4 is rated 17/26 with 425 hp 406 lb-ft

In your opinion, what is very good for this car, and do you think that number is feasible for the engine layout/size/power? Also, can you provide some competitive cars with specific epa ratings that you would think is very good?

The SLK55, 415bhp with a 5.5L V8, manages 19 and 28.

Porsche's Carrera S with a 400bhp 3.8L 911 S does 20 and 27.

These are closer to "very good" than 17/26 from less CCs.

Now 17 and 26 is far better than the E92, and I certainly wasn't expecting anything like 40mpg like from a low-revving laggier diesel, but I was hoping for c.20/30. So BMW did well enough for me to keep my order, but not "very good" re mpg for a car this new.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by ncM

I thought GOOD mpg was the tradeoff for turbo complexity, sound, etc. The Mustang 5.0 was a tick faster than the old M3 notwithstanding inferior lb/hp and distribution, runs on regular gas and dino oil, sounds good, is simple and reliable, and rates 17/26mpg with 6MT and a not too slippery profile. The 5.0 mill weighs about 30lbs more than the new M3's. Slap a supercharger on a 5.0 and would still probably cost the manufacturer less than the F8x engine. Maybe it will make sense when we get the full test articles on the F8x.

agreed. I think for those of us in the U.S., where there's no goofy tax on engine displacement or anything like that, these numbers aren't all that impressive vis a vis some high displacement, high hp American cars. just look at the MPG's of the Vette and Mustang. the new Stingray does 17/29 mpg with a 6.2L V8 that's rated at about the same power as the M. granted, the Vette is lighter, but I would bet that if you added a 200lb passenger to make weight on-par with the M, it would still get better mileage. it's amazing what they've done with a pushrod V8.

this doesn't change the way I feel about the new M's at all, but I guess I was hoping for more in the way of fuel efficiency given what I take as a big tradeoff from the high-revving V8. 25% efficiency is no small improvement, and it's something to be happy with, but it's less impressive given the thirsty motor it's replacing.

[BlackCobra08]

Originally Posted by Brosef

agreed. I think for those of us in the U.S., where there's no goofy tax on engine displacement or anything like that, these numbers aren't all that impressive vis a vis some high displacement, high hp American cars. just look at the MPG's of the Vette and Mustang. the new Stingray does 17/29 mpg with a 6.2L V8 that's rated at about the same power as the M. granted, the Vette is lighter, but I would bet that if you added a 200lb passenger to make weight on-par with the M, it would still get better mileage. it's amazing what they've done with a pushrod V8.

this doesn't change the way I feel about the new M's at all, but I guess I was hoping for more in the way of fuel efficiency given what I take as a big tradeoff from the high-revving V8. 25% efficiency is no small improvement, and it's something to be happy with, but it's less impressive given the thirsty motor it's replacing.

True but it also uses 3 of it's 7 gears in the MT for overdrive, just so they could get that highway EPA number. Take that out of the equation and it should even out quite nicely.

[tallshortguy]

I'm a bit surprised it's not a tick higher given the n20 and n55 are among the best in their performance classes for fuel efficiency. Though I will say they did deliver the 25% improvement they were saying so I don't think anyone can say they were mislead or shocked.

[BlackLight]

Originally Posted by mxa121

my 335i is rated 17/26 and has 300 hp 300 lb-ft
new M3/4 is rated 17/26 with 425 hp 406 lb-ft

In your opinion, what is very good for this car, and do you think that number is feasible for the engine layout/size/power? Also, can you provide some competitive cars with specific epa ratings that you would think is very good?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/33907.shtml

[Lups]

http://www.polttoaine.net/

Look at those figures, and then you know why I can't get interested in consumption.

[Walt Dockery]

The only thing I'm really disappointed with is the 24 highway figure for the manual. I would rather see a taller overdrive gear for better highway mileage.

That said, w/ the number of miles I drive per year it's not a big issue. It doesn't alter my decision to buy an M3, or to buy w/ a Manual vs. DCT. It's just kind of disappointing. 17/26 I'd be happier with.

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by Boss330

It has a longer 7th gear allowing for lower rpm's during highway driving. DCT also has more efficient gear changes where the engine rpm/load is kept more constant than on a MT

But its the same for the M6 and M5 and the MT is more fuel efficient there right?

Also, maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges here but... I was watching the regular car review of a C6 vette the other day and that thing was getting 27 mpg avg out of a V8 how come that can not be achieved with our cars?

[Walt Dockery]

Originally Posted by Powaup

But its the same for the M6 and M5 and the MT is more fuel efficient there right?

Also, maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges here but... I was watching the regular car review of a C6 vette the other day and that thing was getting 27 mpg avg out of a V8 how come that can not be achieved with our cars?

The C6 IIRC was 18/28. Plenty of people reported getting > 30 real world (I always drove too fast to get that for any length of time). It had a very tall overdrive gear. It's also smaller/lower which I imagine results in less drag for highway cruising.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by BlackCobra08

True but it also uses 3 of it's 7 gears in the MT for overdrive, just so they could get that highway EPA number. Take that out of the equation and it should even out quite nicely.

I disagree. first of all, there's only one overdrive gear. 3 overdrive gears would make no sense. and yes, of course a tall gear helps highway cruising MPG. so why didn't BMW do a better job with that? no excuse, and that's my point.

but still, none of that explains the fact that the non-turbo, 6.2L V8 gets the same city consumption.