GetBMWParts
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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-28-2014, 06:37 AM   #287
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
5637
Rep
18,552
Posts

Drives: No BMW for now
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for posting the information and providing explanations Stav and mdss6.
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 08:26 AM   #288
cpippolo
Second Lieutenant
United_States
11
Rep
206
Posts

Drives: 2013 Cadillac ATS 3.6
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: TX

iTrader: (0)

Very disappointing. May not be able to go a week without filling up. If its 24 for the manual I'm probably out at this point.
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 08:34 AM   #289
Walt Dockery
Private First Class
18
Rep
198
Posts

Drives: na
Join Date: May 2014
Location: FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stressdoc View Post
If this follows convention the 26 is for the

standard, i.e., manual; (24) is for optional DCT.
But who knows. And who knows what this means for real life driving.

Bit of a disappointment relative to 335: 22 / 32
But is the DCT considered optional?

On the online configurator, the DCT is automatically selected as the default and a box is later checked if you want the manual, taking $2900 off the cost. The way they have it set up, seems to me DCT is standard and manual is a negative cost "option".

I hope I'm wrong, I plan to get the 6MT.
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 09:07 AM   #290
mdss6
Private First Class
mdss6's Avatar
Germany
23
Rep
129
Posts

Drives: 2018 M3 (ZCP M-DCT) on order
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Germany

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt Dockery View Post
But is the DCT considered optional?

On the online configurator, the DCT is automatically selected as the default and a box is later checked if you want the manual, taking $2900 off the cost. The way they have it set up, seems to me DCT is standard and manual is a negative cost "option".

I hope I'm wrong, I plan to get the 6MT.
Well, they certainly aren't as clear as they could be about which transmission has which rating. But for point of reference, the M5/6 is rated 2 MPG lower with the M-DCT than with the manual. And the transmissions have approximately the same relative ratios in the M5/6 as they do in the M3/4. Just based on this, it is a good guess the manual in the M3/4 has the same 2 MPG advantage.

I've not researched the experience of the M5/6 community, but I'm now curious to know if they observe any such difference when taking long trips? The combined number is approximately the same in either case, so I doubt there is a difference in most daily driving. But I'd like to know if one has longer legs on the interstate/autoroute/autobahn?

Regards

Last edited by mdss6; 05-28-2014 at 09:08 AM.. Reason: typo
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 09:08 AM   #291
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
5637
Rep
18,552
Posts

Drives: No BMW for now
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt Dockery View Post
On the online configurator, the DCT is automatically selected as the default and a box is later checked if you want the manual, taking $2900 off the cost. The way they have it set up, seems to me DCT is standard and manual is a negative cost "option".

That just means they are pushing the DCT. If it were standard, the base price would be $2900 more and the MT would be a no cost option (like with most other BMWs). If you ignore the online configurator and just look at the pricing guide, there is no ambiguity whatsoever - MT is listed as standard equipment and DCT is listed under optional equipment.
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 09:55 AM   #292
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
United_States
503
Rep
7,992
Posts

Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2020 GLE 450
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

iTrader: (3)

Garage List
GGT

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdss6 View Post
Per the last sentence of that paragraph:
"However, the combined city and highway fuel economy that is used to determine tax liability is not adjusted to account for in-use shortfall, so it is higher than the mpg values provided in the Fuel Economy Guide (www.fueleconomy.gov) and posted on the window stickers of new vehicles."

There are no cars that I am aware of with window stickers of 17/26 (or even 17/24) that have a gas-guzzler tax.

The EPA updated its testing system a few years ago with the intent to make window stickers more realistic. But it was only used to update window stickers. The testing system which generates fuel economy numbers for CAFE and gas-guzzler caluculations is different and gives higher results. I believe this is a major reason why the industry has not protested the large planned increases in CAFE as they aren't as large as they appear on the face of it. I'd be curious to know the numbers produced by this different regulatory scheme, but I suspect they are much closer to the EU numbers (which almost universally reflect much higher mileage than US window stickers).

Bottom line(s).
- The 22.5 combined number in the gas-guzzler reg is not calculated the same way as the window sticker combined number and they aren't directly comparable.
- The new M3/4 gets better mileage than other cars which are not gas-guzzlers and should not be one.
- If the maual gets 2 MPG better on the highway (26 vs 24), this is a surprising result as the taller top gear in the M-DCT would seem to predict the opposite. Does the M-DCT have significantly higher friction/losses? How else to explain? Well, other than explaining it by the manual being the number in parenthases (24).

Regards
That was what I was trying to get at in my post #267,
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2020 MB GLE 450
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 10:16 AM   #293
Carl L
Major
Carl L's Avatar
195
Rep
1,250
Posts

Drives: '15 M3
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: West Coast

iTrader: (0)

Thumbs down

Pretty dreadful fuel economy for a 3000cc engine in 2014, especially when compared to more powerful AMG Mercedes (all stats in US gallons and from MB.com and BMW.com):

-The E63 with a bi-turbo 5.5L with 550bhp and Four Wheel Drive manages 16 and 23.

-The SLK55, with a 5.5L V8, manages 19 and 28.

-Porsche aren't great with MPG yet even the 400bhp 3.8L 911 S does 20 and 27.

So 16 city is the same as the heavy, more powerful 4WD E63. The biggest issue though is that doing 24 mpg when taking a long trip means range is again going to greatly disappoint. Considering the pathetic range of the E9x, this really is a very poor showing from BMW.
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 10:24 AM   #294
Stevens21234
Lieutenant
101
Rep
524
Posts

Drives: F80 + 991.1 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: MD

iTrader: (0)

I'll have to retract my earlier gas guzzler statements.

As discussed previously, the MPG used to calculate gas guzzler tax is different than the EPA MPG label numbers (by a factor of about 1.25 to 1.3).

I can determine this by comparing cars applicable to gas guzzler here (see the M3 convertible combined MPG of about 20.8 calculated for gas guzzler):

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420b13037.pdf

to EPA sticker fuel economy here for the M3 convertible (16 MPG):

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...le&srchtyp=ymm

F80 will have a combined gas guzzler calculated MPG of about 26 (assuming combined MPG of 20), above the 22.5 threshold needed to bypass the gas guzzler tax. The 26 is NOT what users will be experiencing as the combined 20 mpg on the sticker is used to reflect that.

I'm happy there's no tax, but still disappointed in the numbers. See article here where BMW communicated to the author the car would get 26 combined for manual and 28 combined for DCT:

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2014...iews/140509868
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 10:36 AM   #295
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
United_States
503
Rep
7,992
Posts

Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2020 GLE 450
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

iTrader: (3)

Garage List
MPG

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevens21234 View Post
I'm happy there's no tax, but still disappointed in the numbers. See article here where BMW communicated to the author the car would get 26 combined for manual and 28 combined for DCT:
Likely citing European numbers.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2020 MB GLE 450
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 10:49 AM   #296
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
5637
Rep
18,552
Posts

Drives: No BMW for now
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl L View Post
The biggest issue though is that doing 24 mpg when taking a long trip means range is again going to greatly disappoint. Considering the pathetic range of the E9x, this really is a very poor showing from BMW.
I strongly suspect that, with this particular car, burning through a tank in high gear at legal and quasi-legal speeds will net you better than the advertised highway number. In any case with the ~16 gallon tank we are talking about a minimum range of 400 miles in this scenario which is already doing much better than the E9x's low 300's that most could achieve as a best case. And it would not surprise me at all to eventually see reports of 450 miles or perhaps even more.
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 11:12 AM   #297
Brosef
Brigadier General
Brosef's Avatar
United_States
849
Rep
3,430
Posts

Drives: F90 M5
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brosef View Post
I've noticed a number of you guys are confusing mileage with consumption. as someone pointed out already on this forum, a decrease in consumption is worth more than just the same percentage increase in mileage. here's the quick math:

e90 M3 (highway, then city):

20 miles / 1 gallon = 20 mpg
14 miles / 1 gallon = 14 mpg

if consumption decreases by 25%, that means that to go those same distances, you need 25% less fuel. so, in both instances, you only need 0.75 gallons. let's rerun the math

20 miles / .75 gallons = 26.7 mpg
14 miles / .75 gallons = 18.7 mpg
the 17 city figure definitely seems low relative to BMW's claim that the new car is 25% more efficient. but it looks like the highway number is quite close. see my previous calculations above.
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 11:15 AM   #298
Carl L
Major
Carl L's Avatar
195
Rep
1,250
Posts

Drives: '15 M3
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: West Coast

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
I strongly suspect that, with this particular car, burning through a tank in high gear at legal and quasi-legal speeds will net you better than the advertised highway number. In any case with the ~16 gallon tank we are talking about a minimum range of 400 miles in this scenario which is already doing much better than the E9x's low 300's that most could achieve as a best case. And it would not surprise me at all to eventually see reports of 450 miles or perhaps even more.
I hope you are right, I really do. 450 miles would be acceptable, 400 is still on the low side given that when I'm taking long trips the only reason I stop is to fill the car's tank not empty mine.
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 11:17 AM   #299
solstice
Brigadier General
1607
Rep
4,602
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3 6MT
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
I strongly suspect that, with this particular car, burning through a tank in high gear at legal and quasi-legal speeds will net you better than the advertised highway number. In any case with the ~16 gallon tank we are talking about a minimum range of 400 miles in this scenario which is already doing much better than the E9x's low 300's that most could achieve as a best case. And it would not surprise me at all to eventually see reports of 450 miles or perhaps even more.
I agree, it's always been like that. Our Cayenne for example with it's 3.6 l NA engine, AWD drivetrain and relative to cars poor aero gets close to 30 mpg on cruise control at 70 mph while rated at 23 mpg. My E90 M3 gets 25 mpg while rated at 20 mpg. I think the F8X will easily cruise at 30 mpg on the hwy. The DCT however does not "sail" like modern torque converters, it's fully engaged all the time which saps gas compared to say an ZF 8 speed 335i otherwise I would think 35 mpg would be possible at hwy for the F8X on cruise control.

However when you drive the car you can't expect it to be responsive and generate big power at any rpm without burning some more fuel. Absolutely no surprise here. Just as expected.
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 12:15 PM   #300
Sir Loin
M3AT LOVER
Sir Loin's Avatar
United_States
268
Rep
1,850
Posts

Drives: Silverstone F80 M3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
I strongly suspect that, with this particular car, burning through a tank in high gear at legal and quasi-legal speeds will net you better than the advertised highway number. In any case with the ~16 gallon tank we are talking about a minimum range of 400 miles in this scenario which is already doing much better than the E9x's low 300's that most could achieve as a best case. And it would not surprise me at all to eventually see reports of 450 miles or perhaps even more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solstice View Post
I agree, it's always been like that. Our Cayenne for example with it's 3.6 l NA engine, AWD drivetrain and relative to cars poor aero gets close to 30 mpg on cruise control at 70 mph while rated at 23 mpg. My E90 M3 gets 25 mpg while rated at 20 mpg. I think the F8X will easily cruise at 30 mpg on the hwy. The DCT however does not "sail" like modern torque converters, it's fully engaged all the time which saps gas compared to say an ZF 8 speed 335i otherwise I would think 35 mpg would be possible at hwy for the F8X on cruise control.

However when you drive the car you can't expect it to be responsive and generate big power at any rpm without burning some more fuel. Absolutely no surprise here. Just as expected.
I am thinking about the same thing. With so much low end torque, one should be able to short shift at 3K RPM from 1st to 7th (or 6th with MT) and quickly get to highway cruising speed without much effort from the engine.
__________________
2015 F80 M3 | SSII ext SO int | M-DCT | 19" Black Wheels
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 12:23 PM   #301
stressdoc
Moderator
stressdoc's Avatar
Dominica
461
Rep
10,646
Posts

Drives: BMW i8; Toy 4runner TRD pro
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Waco TX

iTrader: (0)

My thoughts: My E90 gets about 30mpg highway; with smaller tires I was able to get 32 mpg.

The F80 has wider stickier tires, more aero resistance, hence I guesstimate 28mpg cruising about 75mph.

I have switched my order back to manual tranny.
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 01:30 PM   #302
khanyam4
Major
khanyam4's Avatar
Cambodia
478
Rep
1,415
Posts

Drives: NA
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 33.7743 N, 117.9380 W

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl L View Post
Pretty dreadful fuel economy for a 3000cc engine in 2014, especially when compared to more powerful AMG Mercedes (all stats in US gallons and from MB.com and BMW.com):

-The E63 with a bi-turbo 5.5L with 550bhp and Four Wheel Drive manages 16 and 23.

-The SLK55, with a 5.5L V8, manages 19 and 28.

-Porsche aren't great with MPG yet even the 400bhp 3.8L 911 S does 20 and 27.

So 16 city is the same as the heavy, more powerful 4WD E63. The biggest issue though is that doing 24 mpg when taking a long trip means range is again going to greatly disappoint. Considering the pathetic range of the E9x, this really is a very poor showing from BMW.

I agree
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 05:46 PM   #303
bdoooh
Captain
United_States
89
Rep
970
Posts

Drives: 2014 SSII M5 CP
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Ohio

iTrader: (2)

Looks like the MPG figure is out on BMWUSA's site!
Attached Images
 
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 06:11 PM   #304
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
United_States
503
Rep
7,992
Posts

Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2020 GLE 450
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

iTrader: (3)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdoooh View Post
Looks like the MPG figure is out on BMWUSA's site!
As noted in post #256, thanks.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2020 MB GLE 450
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 07:22 PM   #305
pebblebeachguy
New Member
United_States
0
Rep
28
Posts

Drives: 1M and '13 M5
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Austin

iTrader: (0)

So is the 26 MPG Hwy for DCT or manual?
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 07:27 PM   #306
Vectors2final
Brigadier General
Vectors2final's Avatar
United_States
1101
Rep
3,177
Posts

Drives: 2018 F80 YMB/SS ZCP
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Austin, Tx

iTrader: (0)

Not great.... not terrible.

Fine by me. MPG is not exactly a priority when buying a performance car.
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 07:31 PM   #307
ake
Lieutenant
ake's Avatar
United_States
20
Rep
481
Posts

Drives: 2015 YMB M3 F80
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pebblebeachguy View Post
So is the 26 MPG Hwy for DCT or manual?
The homepage doesn't directly say.

And as I don't understand how the EPA figures are tested (for me every day a new hint comes up but I haven't solved the puzzle yet) only an assumption can be made: 26 for the DCT, 24 for the manual.
Why? Because of the EU ratings where DCT uses .5 liters less than the MT.

And I know that could be the wrong comparison... if that is the case I'm sorry!
One more hint: The M5 states 20 MPG on the BMWUSA, and according to the fueleconomy.gov, this is the figure for the DCT. So if I use that as measurement, the 26 should count for the DCT at M3/4 as well.
__________________
2015 ///M3 F80
[ Yas Marina Blue | Black Full Merino Leather | 19" Black-Light Alloy Wheels | M Double-Clutch Transmission | Carbon Fiber interior | Driver Assistance Plus / Lighting / Executive | Adaptive M Suspension | Harman Kardon Surround ]
Appreciate 0
      05-28-2014, 07:35 PM   #308
pebblebeachguy
New Member
United_States
0
Rep
28
Posts

Drives: 1M and '13 M5
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Austin

iTrader: (0)

Perhaps the DCT having 7 gears vs 6 in the manual gives it a higher efficiency overdrive like advantage for fuel economy.
Appreciate 0
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
2014 bmw m3, 2014 bmw m3 horsepower, 2014 bmw m3 specs, 2014 bmw m4 horsepower, 2014 bmw m4 specs, 2014 m3, 2014 m3 engine, 2014 m3 forum, 2014 m3 horsepower, 2014 m3 hp, 2014 m3 specs, 2014 m3 weight, 2014 m4 engine, 2014 m4 horsepower, 2014 m4 hp, 2014 m4 specs, 2014 m4 weight, 2015 bmw m3, 2015 bmw m3 specs, 2015 bmw m4, 2015 bmw m4 specs, 2015 m3, 2015 m3 engine, 2015 m3 specs, 2015 m4, 2015 m4 engine, 2015 m4 hp, 2015 m4 specs, 2015 m4 weight, bmw f80, bmw f80 forum, bmw f80 forums, bmw f80 m3, bmw f80 m3 s55, bmw f80 m3 sedan, bmw f82, bmw f82 forum, bmw f82 forums, bmw f82 m3 coupe, bmw f82 m4, bmw f82 m4 coupe, bmw f82 m4 s55, bmw f82 m4 video, bmw f83, bmw f83 m3, bmw f83 m4, bmw m forum, bmw m forums, bmw m3 forum, bmw m3 forums, bmw m3 s55, bmw m3 s55 engine, bmw m4, bmw m4 coupe, bmw m4 coupe forum, bmw m4 forum, bmw m4 forums, bmw m4 horsepower, bmw m4 hp, bmw m4 redline, bmw m4 weight, f80 m3, f80 m3 mpg, f82 m4, f82 m4 mpg

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52 AM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
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