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

[seccsc]

I would of expected better from M division. My N54 with Procede installed is consistently beyond 30mpg at 70 MPH.
I believe this is another item that could of made this car even better. But examples of this and the carbon fiber roof not handling a roof rack, are items that management a miss-stepped in the design of this beautiful machine.
Attention to detail is M-Divisions strong attribute but better management in these areas would of been icing on a beautiful cake. Cheers!

[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.

[Dannys M3]

If my S65 can average 20 mpg with highway and urban traffic, simple math 300 miles per tank 15 gallons per fill up. I am guessing the S55 has a 15 gallon fuel tank? I might get 375 miles per tank for 25 mpg average? I can live with that.

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

The powertrain for next M3 has not been chosen, nor did the article to which I believe you refer claim that it was. CAFE targets are a fleet average, by the way. Not every vehicle must get those numbers for the manufacturer to avoid fines.

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)

[Powaup]

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.

Guilty! sorry for bitchin I just really thought the EPA numbers would reflect 30 mpg Hwy for the 6MT so that I could brag to people about how awesome a DD the M4 is

[SpoiledBrat]

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.

M3/M4 has always been the daily driven all around awesome car. Not a weekend cruiser. If it was just for the weekend I'd get the new vette, oh wait, that still has better MPG than the new m3/4

[HP Autosport]

Originally Posted by mxa121

I think 26 is respectable for a 425 hp 3.0 liter twin turbo.

N54 135i/335i with 425 hp can easily hit 30 mpg on the highway. Perhaps BMW is just being conservative. I have drive both 328i and 528i with the N20 engines that often hit 40 mpg so anything is possible.

[igom3]

M= miserable gas mileage LOL

[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.

[ake]

Originally Posted by rick berry

If I was looking for fuel mileage I would get a diesel. M3 and M4 are about balanced PERFORMANCE.

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

[mxa121]

Originally Posted by HP Autosport

N54 135i/335i with 425 hp can easily hit 30 mpg on the highway. Perhaps BMW is just being conservative. I have drive both 328i and 528i with the N20 engines that often hit 40 mpg so anything is possible.

You are correct, anything is possible.
What you have pointed out, as some others have as well, is that a car with the same fuel rating would actually get better mpg in real world testing.

[VCP]

This is easy math. Drive the car in the perfect climate on flat(or even decline), stay out of boost and BMW has achieved their umbrella consumption target. Do you really feel 425hp TT 3.0 i6 is going to be economical? I can see myself hardly ever getting above 15mpg with this M. On that note the S65 is a guzzler no matter what you do. I have 2, 1 stock and 1 700HP Active Autowerke Level 3 and they are not that far apart in fuel mileage considering the vast power difference.

[gatorfast]

Pretty disappointing figures. I thought a big reason BMW was going with FI was to improve fuel economy. This is just marginally better mileage than the S65 gets. You would think BMW could have figured out a way to have a high revving NA engine get equivalent mileage to the new M3/4

[spool twice]

why is everyone surprised? BMW stated around 25% better, those figures are around 25% better than the S65 no?

It's the same rating as my old 2007 335i 6speed, for which I easily got 30-32mpg almost all highway at 75mph, and an easy 21-23mpg mix cycle. Add on a JB4 ISO w/ wastegate compensation set to "0" (open wastegate, no boost when cruising), add 2-3mpg on top of that. Granted, I'm sure the wastegate design is completely different on the S55, but the fact that I was able to get 4-6mpg better at steady state cruising than the EPA figures should say something about real world MPG. Also, the anti-lag mechanism for the S55 turbo's surely doesn't help if boost is always on call...boost=more fuel needed (I think, right?).

For those comparing this to an S54, the S54 was rated on the older EPA system, so the comparison isn't apples to apples. Also FWIW, my old S54 M3 can barely get 16.3mpg driving the same cycle as my S65 M3 ( I get 18.9mpg on the S65).

[M3 n X5M]

I owned a 2008 VW R32 for 5 years and it gave me 21 - 22 mpg average with spirited driving. Highway was 26 - 28 mpg. The engine was a 3.2 normally aspirated and the car was a heavy 3550 lb Golf. The EPA was rating it at 18/23 mpg.

Despite the M4 engine being widely superior in output, a turbo r32 actually bettered my mpg and cranked easily 450 hp. So, I venture to guess, in a big picture estimate the following:

Looking at these numbers, cruising mpg on the M3 or M4 may be closer to 30 hway when cruising at 70 mph, I would guess.

Looking across cars with 6 cylinder engines, with 3 liter displacements and 3500 - 4000 lb weight it seems the M3 and M4 numbers are reasonable EPA estimates. And moreover, the actual consumer values will be reasonably close and for those who play econo mode for long treks, close to 30 mpg can easily be expected.

[stylinexpat]

Originally Posted by mxa121

I think 26 is respectable for a 425 hp 3.0 liter twin turbo.

If it really does get 26 MPG in the real world it would take some babying to get those numbers with a constant light foot on the gas pedal while on the highway. If I have a constant light foot on my 2014 Cayman S which comes with a 6 speed gearbox I can see 26-27 MPG on the highway. That car weighs less and has about 100 less horsepower so for a car that weighs more and has more torque and more horsepower I would consider the 26 MPG to be pretty good. Overall the Fuel consumption of 24 and 26 MPG is not good but for the weight,performance and power of this car I would consider to be pretty good.

[BPMSport]

Although there are other options other there that yield better economy, it's a welcomed improvement from the V8 M3.

The worst car I've had consumption wise was definitely the E60 M5.

[M3guy3]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

By weird do you mean "common"?

The stingray is geared much differently and has a far better aerodynamic profile/frontal area.

People, I've said it before and I'll say it again, the comparison can be made against others but perhaps the most apt is against the e9x m3.

The f8x m3/m4 has more power, alot more under the curve, and is a notably larger vehicle and is returning significantly better fuel economy.

That's primarily because the S65 was an absolute hog but also because this is really very decent fuel economy for a ~425hp 4-door sedan weighing ~3500 pounds and with the acceleration this car is said to offer.

As a last data point, my 3950 pound e39 m5 comes with a ~394hp/369 lb/ft v8. It's geared taller than the m3, but overall it's shoved into a package that's about the same frontal area at least. It gets about 15/23.

The new m3 offers more power, more torque, and notably better fuel economy than both of M's last v8s in similar sized (or bigger) bodies.

How is this not a wonderful thing?

I truly wish it was as simple as that. On paper your point makes complete sense.

I use to get about 16-18 MPG in my E92. I was driving a 70k car and was able to afford the gas.I would gladly pay little extra for a screaming V8. IF all i cared about in my M3 was going fast. I would have a M4 on order right now.

[Gastoys]

Basically 4mpg more than the e90 and about the same as the e90 N54 motor - not bad!

Though I have been getting 31mpg in my F30 335i

[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.

[nytrus112]

Originally Posted by ZGM3

I got pretty sick and tired of filling up my BMW V8 every few days!!
I'm sure I'm not the only one.

It really sucked driving across country, the new M3 should be much better on my 950 mile treks I do multiple times a year, but I would have liked to get closer to 30 mpg when cruising at 70 MPH, I'll be happy with the better mileage though.

But I'll be the first to admit that if I get more than 15 MPG in the first month of ownership, I'll be surprised!!

Actually because of the break-in period I'm almost certain you may.

[Dethred]

I'm confused about the "disappointment"...

Is it disappointment because everyone thought fuel economy was a primary reason for the less-racy motor?

Anyways, here is some context.

2015 BMW M4
3.0 I6, 425hp 406tq (most likely under-rated)
17/26 MPG

My 2010 Acura TL SH-AWD
3.7 V6, 305hp 273tq
17/25 MPG

My 2005 Honda S2000
2.2 I4, 240hp 162tq
20/26 MPG

Seeing as the Member "UAE" posted >30mpg highway figures, my M4 will be my long-trip car for economy. I really don't understand the complaints.