Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
I would get a more practical car. Nobody needs an M4/M3 or large SUV but people buy them because they can. If you are pinching pennies on gas you shouldn't be buying a sports oriented car.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transfer
We all like to get good fuel mileage if possible, but this is an M car and the economy of it should be the last thing on your mind. Whatever BMW claims this car will achieve for MPG, it will be with auto start/stop, Eco-Pro modes, or whatever shit they can con the EPA with. My real world MPGs for my prior M3 and wife's current X1 are well below BMW's estimates, probably because we don't use their econo nannies.
|
The quality of my driving experience - in a car that otherwise meets all my other baseline requirements - is the first thing on my mind when shopping. But in no way does that make fuel economy last or irrelevant. Everything is a trade off. You could have more performance with lighter manual cloth seats and manual windows and no AC or stereo. But most of the people on this forum on not shopping for that sort of car to drive. I know I'm not. I accept the desirable seats, stereo, NVH all have to be balanced against desirable speed, and yes fuel economy. But it is not unreasonable to expect a significant improvement in the later area. High performance internal combustion engines won't have a long future if they don't continue to improve. If BMW M focusses on customers who disdain improvements in efficiency and thump their chest while proudly repeating the horrible mileage their engine delivers - as some sort of proof that it is serious or manly - then their sales will shrink to those of the Viper. Which is built for that sort of customer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy335
Agreed. I don't actually care what mileage the M3 gets as I don't expect decent mileage in a high performance car. What I do care about is decent range.
|
But yes, ultimately for me range is more important than fuel economy. I don't like being forced to make regular repeat fuel stops, either during my work week or on a road trip. The E90s poor mileage combined with a small fuel tank was the actual deal breaker for me. If it had an 80+ liter (20+ gallon) tank it would have been just enough.
On the face of it that might not sound like a significantly more, but I like most people don't run the tank to empty. The comfortable reserve is about the same on tanks of various sizes, so the increase would have all gone into increased range- about 100 miles on the highway of useful increase. So yeah, if the E90 could have gone an extra 100 miles on a tank, that would have been enough. And I'm expecting the F80 will provide that extra range. Not through a larger tank, but through the claimed 25% improvement in fuel efficiency. If not, well it wouldn't be the first time I've been disappointed between initial announcements and product reality.