05-31-2014, 09:55 PM | #1 |
Lieutenant
351
Rep 458
Posts |
Official F80 M3 / F82 M4 EPA MPG gas mileage: 17/26 MPG
Featured on BIMMERPOST.com 17 MPG city, 26 MPG highway (Manual), 24 MPG highway (DCT) Moderator/Admin addendum: Also directly from BMW - 20 MPG combined (Manual), 19 MPG combined (DCT) - There is no Gas Guzzler Tax. The formula used for combined gas mileage as it applies to the GGT is different from the one used for the EPA combined number on the window sticker. |
05-31-2014, 10:06 PM | #2 |
Major
140
Rep 1,242
Posts
Drives: 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida's Emerald Coast
|
As the S54 actually delivered 24 mpg on highways, is this another instance of understating mpg or the real deal? If it's the latter, 2 mpg more with all the new tech from the last fifteen years plus FI isn't exactly overwhelming.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2014, 10:34 PM | #6 |
demoted
453
Rep 1,172
Posts |
26/17. Well, my 435i xDrive 8 AT is rated at 30/20. Right now I'm averaging 11.1 l/100 km versus 12.4 with my E92 M3 DCT (same roads, same speeds). Oops! Could be that there is really no improvement here.
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2014, 10:37 PM | #7 |
Lieutenant Colonel
73
Rep 1,603
Posts
Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WHO DAT NATION
|
Physics? The S54 made 333 hp. More power = more fuel.
__________________
2015 SO/SO MT M3 :: Exec : Lighting : Adaptive : HK : CF trim : Full leather : DAP : Black 19's : sunshade
Crystalline tint 40%/70% on windshield : M performance mirrors, spoiler, splitters : Status Gruppe CF lip : RKP diffuser : Fully dechromed Bavsound Stage 1 : V1 Savvy hardwired : Self-coded |
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2014, 11:01 PM | #8 |
Major
140
Rep 1,242
Posts
Drives: 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida's Emerald Coast
|
seriously?
Higher rpm = increased fuel consumption.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2014, 11:25 PM | #9 | |
Commander-In-Chief
2115
Rep 8,918
Posts
Drives: 2023 M2 Coupe, 2020 GLE 450
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
|
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2014, 11:32 PM | #10 | |
...
11825
Rep 15,400
Posts |
Hey we are already in hippies, so you could just take your bra off for us Greg, and we have this thread in the bag again!
Lups, your number one fan in the stripping field, unfortunately here probably the only fan in this category.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2014, 11:59 PM | #11 |
Major
192
Rep 1,292
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 12:44 AM | #13 |
Private First Class
47
Rep 164
Posts |
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!! Last edited by ZGM3; 06-01-2014 at 12:54 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 12:45 AM | #14 |
Banned
43
Rep 1,147
Posts |
Notice a huge gap in performance between two cars and then read your above post again.
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 06:27 AM | #16 |
Moderator
7510
Rep 19,370
Posts |
Generally, but keep in mind:
- Redline for the S55 is only 300 RPM lower than the S54 - EPA testing probably does not even take the engines near redline, or if it does it would be only very briefly. - The S55 makes about 100 more horsepower than the S54. It seems like a reasonable trade-off. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 06:38 AM | #17 |
Second Lieutenant
66
Rep 285
Posts |
Source? All of the other BMWs with DCT and manual options get better mileage with the manual (M6, Z4is, 135i)
Last edited by cpippolo; 06-01-2014 at 06:57 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 06:51 AM | #18 | ||
Major
140
Rep 1,242
Posts
Drives: 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida's Emerald Coast
|
Quote:
Quote:
Redline: Reports to date indicate widespread shortshifting of the S55 which would improve mpg versus redline shifting. EPA: That's speculation but reasonable IMO. HP: Yes, but you're not saying hp is greater factor than rpm where mpg is the subject, are you? Some will certainly find the trade off reasonable while others will not. It is what it is.
__________________
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 07:04 AM | #19 |
General
21115
Rep 20,741
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Power output is generally directly proportional to more fuel used. You need 30% more fuel to produce 30% more power.
Running at higher RPM also uses more fuel due to higher friction losses, but not at the same rate as the RPM increase. Running at 30% higher RPM does not necessarily burn 30% more fuel. Since during the EPA test, redline and maximum power are not used often if at all, both would have little impact on the EPA rating. How efficient an engine is at low power and low RPM usually translates in good EPA ratings. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 07:23 AM | #20 |
Captain
75
Rep 991
Posts
Drives: 2015 BMW M4
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 07:31 AM | #21 |
Banned
43
Rep 1,147
Posts |
You're not a very bright fellow, are you? It is all proportional as someone already mentioned. In any event I'm done responding to you.
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 07:31 AM | #22 | |||
Moderator
7510
Rep 19,370
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|