BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   BMW M3 and BMW M4 Forum > BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 Forum > BMW M3 (F80) and BMW M4 (F82) General Forum

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-31-2014, 09:55 PM   #1
m3ct
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2013 Audi S4, 2015 M3 MW
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Stamford, CT

Posts: 339
iTrader: (0)

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

BIMMERPOST
     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com
Just noticed bmwusa.com now lists EPA estimates of:

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.
m3ct is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2014, 10:06 PM   #2
Eau Rouge
Captain
 
Eau Rouge's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida's Emerald Coast

Posts: 959
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 BMW E92 M3  [4.50]
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.
__________________
Eau Rouge is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2014, 10:24 PM   #3
humpday
Private First Class
 
Drives: M4
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: VA

Posts: 123
iTrader: (0)

26mpg highway is pretty low. Combine that with city mpg, and the result will be awfully close to the gas guzzler tax cutoff.
humpday is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2014, 10:32 PM   #4
m3ct
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2013 Audi S4, 2015 M3 MW
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Stamford, CT

Posts: 339
iTrader: (0)

Still no mention of one in the configurator
m3ct is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2014, 10:34 PM   #5
mxa121
Lieutenant
 
mxa121's Avatar
 
Drives: M
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Atlanta, United States

Posts: 502
iTrader: (0)

I think 26 is respectable for a 425 hp 3.0 liter twin turbo.
__________________
2009 E92 M3 Jerez Black Metallic DCT 31k miles
2010 E92 335i Le Mans Blue Metallic 6MT 64k miles - sold
2009 E90 328i Le Mans Blue Metallic 6AT 43k miles
mxa121 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2014, 10:34 PM   #6
BimmerBoomer
demoted
 
BimmerBoomer's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 435i xDrive 8AT
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grimsby, Ontario

Posts: 505
iTrader: (0)

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.
BimmerBoomer is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2014, 10:37 PM   #7
Keto
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Keto's Avatar
 
Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WHO DAT NATION

Posts: 1,560
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2015 BMW M3  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eau Rouge View Post
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.
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 CF mirrors/spoiler : RKP diffuser
Dechromed with gloss black badge, grilles, side markers
V1 Savvy hardwired : Self-coded, will code locally for beer or food
Keto is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2014, 11:01 PM   #8
Eau Rouge
Captain
 
Eau Rouge's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida's Emerald Coast

Posts: 959
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 BMW E92 M3  [4.50]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keto View Post
Physics? The S54 made 333 hp. More power = more fuel.
seriously?

Higher rpm = increased fuel consumption.
__________________
Eau Rouge is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2014, 11:25 PM   #9
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,566
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by m3ct View Post
Just noticed bmwusa.com lists EPA estimates of 26mpg highway

http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/conte...n/default.aspx
Thoroughly discussed in the fuel economy thread.
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2014, 11:32 PM   #10
Lups
Brigadier General
 
Lups's Avatar
 
Drives: Peter II
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lost as usual

Posts: 3,619
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon View Post
Thoroughly discussed in the fuel economy thread.
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.
__________________
No more blog.
I hate pianos.
Lups is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2014, 11:59 PM   #11
Maddict3
Captain
 
Maddict3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 MW M4
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Miami

Posts: 959
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by humpday View Post
26mpg highway is pretty low. Combine that with city mpg, and the result will be awfully close to the gas guzzler tax cutoff.
who cares? who buys the M4 for economy.
Maddict3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2014, 12:11 AM   #12
damnitBobby
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: '07 Nissan 350Z 6MT
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Houston

Posts: 271
iTrader: (0)

26mpg is good mileage for the performance this car delivers
damnitBobby is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2014, 12:44 AM   #13
ZGM3
Private First Class
 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: california

Posts: 136
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maddict3 View Post
who cares? who buys the M4 for economy.
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.
ZGM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2014, 12:45 AM   #14
SOM3
Major
 
SOM3's Avatar
 
Drives: SO F80
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Euro

Posts: 1,003
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eau Rouge View Post
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.
Notice a huge gap in performance between two cars and then read your above post again.
SOM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2014, 05:29 AM   #15
JoeFromPA
Major
 
Drives: '15 AW M3 6MT Stripper
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SE PA

Posts: 1,283
iTrader: (0)

The F80 is not an f30 nor a e90 335. It's comparison is to the performance and output of the last m3
JoeFromPA is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2014, 06:27 AM   #16
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eau Rouge View Post
seriously?

Higher rpm = increased fuel consumption.
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.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2014, 06:38 AM   #17
cpippolo
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2013 Cadillac ATS 3.6
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: TX

Posts: 204
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by m3ct View Post
Moderator:

- Although 6MT is standard, the 26 mpg applies to the DCT. The 6MT achieves 24mpg as noted in parentheses.
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.
cpippolo is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2014, 06:51 AM   #18
Eau Rouge
Captain
 
Eau Rouge's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida's Emerald Coast

Posts: 959
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 BMW E92 M3  [4.50]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOM3 View Post
Notice a huge gap in performance between two cars and then read your above post again.
The subject is engine fuel efficiency; nothing else. Notice huge gap in technology between two I6 engines built some fifteen years apart then read your above post again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
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.

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.
__________________
Eau Rouge is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2014, 07:04 AM   #19
CanAutM3
Brigadier General
 
CanAutM3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 M4 DCT
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

Posts: 3,964
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2015 BMW M4  [4.75]
2006 Audi S4  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eau Rouge View Post
seriously?

Higher rpm = increased fuel consumption.
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.
CanAutM3 is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2014, 07:23 AM   #20
IMrMark
Captain
 
Drives: 2015 BMW M4
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Fairfax, VA

Posts: 790
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2015 BMW M4  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpippolo View Post
Source? All of the other BMWs with DCT and manual options get better mileage with the manual (M6, Z4is, 135i)
You'd have to read the other thread. BMW genius confirmed it in an email.
IMrMark is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2014, 07:31 AM   #21
SOM3
Major
 
SOM3's Avatar
 
Drives: SO F80
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Euro

Posts: 1,003
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eau Rouge View Post
The subject is engine fuel efficiency; nothing else. Notice huge gap in technology between two I6 engines built some fifteen years apart then read your above post again.
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.
SOM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2014, 07:31 AM   #22
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eau Rouge View Post
Redline: Reports to date indicate widespread shortshifting of the S55 which would improve mpg versus redline shifting.
Exactly, so that favors the S55 even more over the S54 because of their respective power curves. EPA tests likely out S55 closer to peak power than S54.

Quote:
HP: Yes, but you're not saying hp is greater factor than rpm where mpg is the subject, are you?
Power and RPM are interdependent. I'm merely saying it is important to consider the whole picture.

Quote:
Some will certainly find the trade off reasonable while others will not. It is what it is.
The huge power increase is key. Check out the non-M I6 for what the technology has done for EPA numbers when power is kept similar to the S54.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:44 AM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST