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

BlackCobra08 · 06-02-2014, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brosef

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.

You can disagree all you want, but it's the truth. Look at gears 5-7 all being less than a 1.0 ratio...meaning overdrive. http://www.corvette7.com/forums/atta...0&d=1375557350

Also it has cylinder deactivation, essentially making it a 3.1L 4 banger whenever you want, which explains why.

Powaup · 06-02-2014, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt Dockery

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.

I see I see. I just hope I can get better fuel economy in my M4 than I get in my 528 e39, getting 21mpg there and ~440 miles per tank

GregW / Oregon · 06-02-2014, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Powaup

I see I see. I just hope I can get better fuel economy in my M4 than I get in my 528 e39, getting 21mpg there and ~440 miles per tank

How large a tank? F82 is down to 15.9 from E92's 16.6.

Powaup · 06-02-2014, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Powaup

I see I see. I just hope I can get better fuel economy in my M4 than I get in my 528 e39, getting 21mpg there and ~440 miles per tank

How large a tank? F82 is down to 15.9 from E92's 16.6.

Why would they make it smaller?

e39 has a 18 gallon tank I believe

jc05e46m3 · 06-02-2014, 02:11 PM

M3guy3 · 06-02-2014, 02:22 PM

the stingray gets 17 city and 29 highway. weird how a v8 can match the M4.

GregW / Oregon · 06-02-2014, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Powaup

Why would they make it smaller?

e39 has a 18 gallon tank I believe

Strictly for packaging constraints, I assume.

I Love BMW's · 06-02-2014, 03:02 PM

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.

Powaup · 06-02-2014, 03:22 PM

Quote:

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.

Imperial or US and do you happen to know if it was a DCT model?

autopal · 06-02-2014, 04:14 PM

17/26, that's the exact ratings on my 2009 335i. So, I really don't see anything to complain about

pkimM3r · 06-02-2014, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mxa121

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

granted you stay out of boost. but who does?!

JoeFromPA · 06-02-2014, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M3guy3

the stingray gets 17 city and 29 highway. weird how a v8 can match the M4.

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?

omegaSMP300 · 06-02-2014, 04:47 PM

Nothing to write how about. Is it better? Yes. But it could have been better. Let's hope the performance reviews/comparisons are great. As stated you don't buy a M car for fuel economy. Mind you part of the reason I went Porsche over Aston is for the better "all aroundness" (including gas consumption and reliability). Not that I wouldn't have loved an Aston (one day maybe).

1stm3f80 · 06-02-2014, 05:02 PM

Would it really make a difference if it was 19 or 20 city instead of 17 gas is like 4 bucks who cares.

kgroschi · 06-02-2014, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddict3

who cares? who buys the M4 for economy.

+1

That's the least I care about. As long as it's over 15 mpg I'm ok with it

blackshan · 06-02-2014, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1.47fan

Quote:

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.

I also think these numbers are just safe numbers because on long drives my 335 averages 30 mpg.

rick berry · 06-02-2014, 05:27 PM

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

Ghetto2315 · 06-02-2014, 05:40 PM

Not sure what all the hoopla is about. Coming from a 12' E92 M3, I am thrilled that my upcoming F82 M4 will get these quoted MPG figures. The thing that my 12' E92 M3 needed the most was a larger fuel tank to give me some range...

solstice · 06-02-2014, 05:52 PM

You want your M3 to be responsive and powerful? That means boost as soon as you press the accelerator at any rpm. You want it to beat the E9X M3 around the ring? That mean optimal track gearing. You want your M3 to be as light as possible? That mean no 8th / 7th overdrive gear. All these factors are detrimental to hyper mileage. This car can not afford to give up anything with this little engine if it's going to compete decently with the past M3s and future competition.

I'm very happy BMW prioritized performance over mpg when working within the scoop of this platforms capabilities. Enough already with transforming the M3 to a rolling rainbow warrior.

dlbrooks18 · 06-02-2014, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Powaup

I was expecting 30 mpg on granny mode, at least 28 but instead I'm getting 24 at the most.. I hope the range on a full tank is more than 400 miles.. Now I see why the next gen M4 is going to be 4 cylinder hybrid no way we're gonna make that 35 mpg combined with these current engine layouts

+1

antzcrashing · 06-02-2014, 05:55 PM

i now see 6mt is 24 mpg hw, damn thats pretty awful. So yea turbocharging did not help much, oh wait i see that e92 was 14/20, wow that was absurdly bad. How do people afford these cars?

I Love BMW's · 06-02-2014, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Powaup

Quote:

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.

Imperial or US and do you happen to know if it was a DCT model?

US DCT

06-02-2014, 02:11 PM	#71
jc05e46m3 Brigadier General 846 Rep 3,249 Posts Drives: '21 F90 M5 Comp Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Everywhere. iTrader: (3)	__________________ '21 /// M5 Comp - Frozen Brilliant White/Black '18 Porsche GT3 Carrara White/Black/Red - Sold '18 /// M3 - Individual Imola/Black - Sold '15 /// M4 - YMB/SO - Sold '12 E92 ///M3 ZCP - AW/FR - Sold
	Appreciate 0 Quote

06-02-2014, 02:22 PM	#72
M3guy3 Captain 131 Rep 690 Posts Drives: M3 Join Date: May 2014 Location: Michigan iTrader: (0)	the stingray gets 17 city and 29 highway. weird how a v8 can match the M4.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

06-02-2014, 03:02 PM	#74
I Love BMW's Private First Class 16 Rep 101 Posts Drives: 2011 1M BSM Join Date: May 2009 Location: Driving one of my BMW's iTrader: (0)	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.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

06-02-2014, 04:14 PM	#76
autopal Second Lieutenant 198 Rep 233 Posts Drives: 2017 340i Xdrive MPPSK Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Saskatoon SK iTrader: (0)	17/26, that's the exact ratings on my 2009 335i. So, I really don't see anything to complain about
	Appreciate 0 Quote

06-02-2014, 04:47 PM	#79
omegaSMP300 Lieutenant 65 Rep 520 Posts Drives: Macan S, Boxster GTS, R8 V10+ Join Date: May 2012 Location: CA iTrader: (0)	Nothing to write how about. Is it better? Yes. But it could have been better. Let's hope the performance reviews/comparisons are great. As stated you don't buy a M car for fuel economy. Mind you part of the reason I went Porsche over Aston is for the better "all aroundness" (including gas consumption and reliability). Not that I wouldn't have loved an Aston (one day maybe). __________________ 2017 R8 V10 Plus, 2016 Boxster GTS, 2015 Macan S, 2015 V12 Vantage S - Pending Sale, 2013 911 C4S - Sold, 2012 V8 Vantage S - Sold, 2013 DB9 - Sold, 2011 997.2 Targa 4s - Sold, 2011 E90 335i M-Sport - Sold, 2013 981 Boxster S - Sold, 2006 E46 M3 - Sold, 2010 E60 M5 - Sold, 2006 E46 M3 - Sold, 2011.5 E90 M3 - Sold, 2006 325i - Sold, 2004 Mazda6 - Sold
	Appreciate 0 Quote

06-02-2014, 05:02 PM	#80
1stm3f80 First Lieutenant 48 Rep 380 Posts Drives: F80 ///M3 Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: San Diego iTrader: (0)	Would it really make a difference if it was 19 or 20 city instead of 17 gas is like 4 bucks who cares.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

06-02-2014, 05:27 PM	#83
rick berry Second Lieutenant 11 Rep 268 Posts Drives: 2015 M4 DCT/ 2014 750li Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: marshall texas iTrader: (0)	If I was looking for fuel mileage I would get a diesel. M3 and M4 are about balanced PERFORMANCE.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

06-02-2014, 05:40 PM	#84
Ghetto2315 Colonel 831 Rep 2,352 Posts Drives: 16' BMW i8 Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: The REAL Jersey Shore iTrader: (1) Garage List 2001 BMW M3 E46 CON ... [9.50] 2016 BMW i8 [10.00] 2003 JEEP GRAND CHE ... [0.00] 2000 540i SPORT E39 [10.00] 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA ... [0.00]	Not sure what all the hoopla is about. Coming from a 12' E92 M3, I am thrilled that my upcoming F82 M4 will get these quoted MPG figures. The thing that my 12' E92 M3 needed the most was a larger fuel tank to give me some range...
	Appreciate 0 Quote

06-02-2014, 05:52 PM	#85
solstice Major General 5457 Rep 7,037 Posts Drives: 2015 M3 6MT Join Date: May 2013 Location: Seattle iTrader: (0)	You want your M3 to be responsive and powerful? That means boost as soon as you press the accelerator at any rpm. You want it to beat the E9X M3 around the ring? That mean optimal track gearing. You want your M3 to be as light as possible? That mean no 8th / 7th overdrive gear. All these factors are detrimental to hyper mileage. This car can not afford to give up anything with this little engine if it's going to compete decently with the past M3s and future competition. I'm very happy BMW prioritized performance over mpg when working within the scoop of this platforms capabilities. Enough already with transforming the M3 to a rolling rainbow warrior. Last edited by solstice; 06-02-2014 at 05:57 PM..
	Appreciate 2 Quote

06-02-2014, 05:55 PM	#87
antzcrashing Brigadier General 1909 Rep 3,215 Posts Drives: 2018 BMW 440i GC Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Eastern MA iTrader: (1) Garage List 2018 BMW 440i GC xD ... [9.75]	i now see 6mt is 24 mpg hw, damn thats pretty awful. So yea turbocharging did not help much, oh wait i see that e92 was 14/20, wow that was absurdly bad. How do people afford these cars?
	Appreciate 0 Quote