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

[BlackCobra08]

Originally Posted by Powaup

YES!! hahahhaha this just made my day!

Haha you had the same reaction post as me. When I read it was DCT that got better mpg a couple days ago it really bummed me out, but now it's the opposite feeling It's not about the money for me cause I know 2mpg isn't a whole heck of a lot financially. MT FTW cause it's more engaging, weights 55lbs less, saves you $3K and now we know is more fuel efficient.

[paddy335]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

We won't know real world mpg until we get real world data.
The Euro fuel efficiency data indicate better mpg for the DCT.
My guess is that both will get around 28-30 mpg at steady 75 mph. A/C may knock it down a bit.

I am with you on that estmiate, which is around the 8.3 litre/100km figure that's been mentioned in reviews and on BMW websites.

Those EPA figures, however they deduce them for whatever tax/political reasons, will be shown to be well wrong.

Which makes this thread a waste of everyones time

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by BlackCobra08

Haha you had the same reaction post as me. When I read it was DCT that got better mpg a couple days ago it really bummed me out, but now it's the opposite feeling It's not about the money for me cause I know 2mpg isn't a whole heck of a lot financially. MT FTW cause it's more engaging, weights 55lbs less, saves you $3K and now we know is more fuel efficient.

Yea I saw ur post to the news lol! Hey I'll take an extra 31 miles per fill up any day. 26 mpg just sounds much more reasonable than 24 mpg when you're trying to convince yourself the f8x is a good DD lol.

Another win for the 6MT team

[clbmw]

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

About time BMW got their backsides into gear and put their tri turbo into 3 and 4 series before Audi copies them. It'd be nice to have an M performance diesel

Hang on... How come you didn't get Infraction warning for posting about the Audi anyway? I did last time I mentioned something like this!

[I Love BMW's]

It seems odd to me that the 6 speed manual with one less gear gets less mpg than the 7 speed DCT.

[Bimster530i]

Originally Posted by paddy335

Those EPA figures, however they deduce them for whatever tax/political reasons, will be shown to be well wrong.

Which makes this thread a waste of everyones time

As I described in post 169...the EPA "estimates" are not actually estimates...they are measured fuel economy from a controlled test that's closest to daily driving. They are only "estimates" in the sense that they are estimates of your fuel mileage because everyone drives differently, drives in different conditions, and has accumulated different service hours on their cars. They give you a controlled number that you can use to reliably compare vehicles...not to predict your own fuel economy. There's nothing political about them...although some mfr's (Hyundai recently) have been caught lying about them.

[ZooMMM]

Stop the whining already. Would you guys rather it be 11/17mpg???

[solstice]

Originally Posted by I Love BMW's

It seems odd to me that the 6 speed manual with one less gear gets less mpg than the 7 speed DCT.

If the DCT was a slush box it would indeed be odd. When BMW slush boxes were 6 speeds they were neck in neck with the manuals in EPA numbers. With the ZF 8 speed with not only taller gearing but also tuning to smack in top gear at 30 mph or so and make them hold gears until the engine literally stutters the MT is now the thirstier choice ( if you drive your ZF in D mode ). Modern autos can also "sail" downhill and during off throttle very efficiently. Our Cayenne is a prime example of this. It can return extraordinary mpg when going just slightly downhill over extended mileage.

The DCT however is not a slush box. It is a performance box, it's geared to reach close to redline in top gear and it does not sail. It's always engaged and it downshifts fast and willingly. Maybe it also has higher friction losses than the simpler and lighter MT. That said I'm surprised they aren't closer and I would not have been surprised if the DCT were the one rated with slightly better mpg so I did not have any argument when it was thought to be reversed numbers.

[Carl L]

Originally Posted by ZooMMM

Stop the whining already. Would you guys rather it be 11/17mpg???

People are allowed to voice their opinion that BMW could have done better in 2014, we don't all have to sing from the corporate hymn sheet.

[clbmw]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Cool car.

BMW has the N57S - a production diesel I6 engine with almost identical output to the one in this concept car. Sadly, there is little to no chance it will be put in a 3 or M3. There is the Alpina D3 (with a bit less power), but not for US.

For my tastes I like more revs for a performance car, but these modern diesel engines are really something else. Cool tech either way.

I think that will depend if the RS5 Diesel version becomes a production car. I doubt BMW will allow themselves to be outdone with an S5 and RS5 and diesel RS5. Merc have already announced their S competitors in the form of AMG Sport.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by I Love BMW's

It seems odd to me that the 6 speed manual with one less gear gets less mpg than the 7 speed DCT.

Only the American cars are like that.

The European numbers are better with the DCT.



Partly tongue-in-cheek as better-DCT IS how the two are rated by the EU standard (http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=923203) but, as has been pointed out here, what matters is how the standardized testing works. I don't know exactly what the EU program involves (or what the American one does, for that matter). My guess is in actual practice, these two will be pretty similar. Depending on where/how you drive, you might do a little better or worse with one as opposed to the other.

The key (as others have noted) is to pick a standard and use it as a rough guide to compare 2 cars, not as an actual predictor of what you are going to get.

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by Powaup

YES!! hahahhaha this just made my day!

+1 manual it is

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by I Love BMW's

It seems odd to me that the 6 speed manual with one less gear gets less mpg than the 7 speed DCT.

No, the manual gets better MPG than the DCT is the latest conclusion.

[ake]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

No, the manual gets better MPG than the DCT is the latest conclusion.

I think that's what he meant... by reading his statement I assume it's just a "typo".
And still: it is odd!

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by ake

And still: it is odd!

Works for me, since manual is my choice. Real world I think they will be too close to call and will depend on your mix of driving and driving style.

[ake]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

Works for me, since manual is my choice. Real world I think they will be too close to call and will depend on your mix of driving and driving style.

Well, I believe that the more you go constant speeds where the 7th gear could come into play, the better the fuel consumption of the DCT will be vs the MT.

I had expected a better overall consumption by 1-2 miles city and 3-4 miles highway. But there are chances by electronic setup to achieve these with losing hardly any performance aspects...

[paddy335]

Originally Posted by Bimster530i

As I described in post 169...the EPA "estimates" are not actually estimates...they are measured fuel economy from a controlled test that's closest to daily driving. They are only "estimates" in the sense that they are estimates of your fuel mileage because everyone drives differently, drives in different conditions, and has accumulated different service hours on their cars. They give you a controlled number that you can use to reliably compare vehicles...not to predict your own fuel economy. There's nothing political about them...although some mfr's (Hyundai recently) have been caught lying about them.

Just curious then how they vary so much from the euro combined cycle test which is at 28.3mpg?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by BlackCobra08

Haha you had the same reaction post as me. When I read it was DCT that got better mpg a couple days ago it really bummed me out, but now it's the opposite feeling It's not about the money for me cause I know 2mpg isn't a whole heck of a lot financially. MT FTW cause it's more engaging, weights 55lbs less, saves you $3K and now we know is more fuel efficient.

More like 88lb less, but all in your favour

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by solstice

If the DCT was a slush box it would indeed be odd. When BMW slush boxes were 6 speeds they were neck in neck with the manuals in EPA numbers. With the ZF 8 speed with not only taller gearing but also tuning to smack in top gear at 30 mph or so and make them hold gears until the engine literally stutters the MT is now the thirstier choice ( if you drive your ZF in D mode ). Modern autos can also "sail" downhill and during off throttle very efficiently. Our Cayenne is a prime example of this. It can return extraordinary mpg when going just slightly downhill over extended mileage.

The DCT however is not a slush box. It is a performance box, it's geared to reach close to redline in top gear and it does not sail. It's always engaged and it downshifts fast and willingly. Maybe it also has higher friction losses than the simpler and lighter MT. That said I'm surprised they aren't closer and I would not have been surprised if the DCT were the one rated with slightly better mpg so I did not have any argument when it was thought to be reversed numbers.

I have been suspecting that the DCT has more losses than the 6MT for a while now (see here). Just the fact that it needs an oil cooler and the MT doesn't is a good indication. I believe this lower efficiency is also reflected in acceleration numbers, BWM quotes slower 80-120km/h acceleration in 5th gear (1:1 ratio for both transmissions) for the DCT relative to the 6MT.

I am still very surprised that it would show such drastically in the EPA figures. Something does not seem right.

[lucas.kent]

Originally Posted by ZooMMM

Stop the whining already. Would you guys rather it be 11/17mpg???

Thank you! Good grief.

[Bimster530i]

Originally Posted by paddy335

Just curious then how they vary so much from the euro combined cycle test which is at 28.3mpg?

Maybe they're using Imperial gallons, or a slightly different test protocol, or they use the raw test data instead of deflating it by 20% (city) and 10% (hwy) as the EPA requires? Anyways, the test is designed to allow apples-to-apples comparisons with other cars...not to predict your personal fuel economy.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by paddy335

Just curious then how they vary so much from the euro combined cycle test which is at 28.3mpg?

Imp m/gal or US?

Here is the wiki summary on how they are measured differently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ec...in_automobiles