05-09-2014, 04:25 PM | #199 |
Major
238
Rep 1,022
Posts |
|
Appreciate
1
|
05-09-2014, 05:55 PM | #200 |
Commander-In-Chief
2115
Rep 8,918
Posts
Drives: 2023 M2 Coupe, 2020 GLE 450
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
|
Actually, when driven hard the economy improvement will be far less than the 20-25% that has been quoted. I would bet more like 10% max.
__________________
Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA 2023 M2 Coupe - Brooklyn Grey/Cognac/CF, 6MT; 2020 MB GLE 450 Last edited by GregW / Oregon; 05-09-2014 at 09:09 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-09-2014, 07:05 PM | #201 |
Major
2037
Rep 1,198
Posts |
Seriously?
__________________
11’ E92 ///M3
15’ F82 ///M4 18’ G30 540i ///Msport 21’ G20 ///M340i 24' i20 iX xDrive50 |
Appreciate
0
|
05-11-2014, 02:14 PM | #202 | |
Banned
866
Rep 6,248
Posts |
Quote:
If the F80/82 gets combined 20mpg, consider yourself very lucky, and very light-footed. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-11-2014, 02:55 PM | #203 |
Banned
39
Rep 996
Posts
Drives: 2002 BMW M5 2007 E60 550i
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elk Grove, CA
|
If I get more than 10 mpg, I'll be disappointed. I must not be driving it the way it's meant to be driven.
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-11-2014, 04:05 PM | #204 |
Lieutenant
21
Rep 481
Posts |
Where did you get that number from? I don't believe that... I bet it's going to be around 19-20 city and 30-32 highway in the end.
__________________
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
|
05-11-2014, 04:29 PM | #205 | ||
Banned
866
Rep 6,248
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
The old M3 was rated at 14/20. BMW says to expect up to 25% improvement, which would translate to ~17/25mpg. Why would you think 19/30? Last edited by SamS; 05-11-2014 at 04:40 PM.. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
05-11-2014, 05:02 PM | #206 | |
Lieutenant
21
Rep 481
Posts |
Quote:
Of course 14/20 and just the addition of 25% brings it to 17/25. I still believe that we will see more. The 335i is rated with 23/33 as far as I know and I just don't see it going far down from that (both 6 cyl, 3l, AT). I know that the 8th gear will cut it a little here, but I believe not that much as it is a cruising gear for high speeds (and don't tell me 75mph or 85mph are high speeds ) Furthermore (and I know the cycles are not identical, but you can compare the improvements there and try to judge what will happen to it in the States), the new M3 AT uses 8.3l/100km vs the old usage of 11.2l/100km (official EU figures). We could end up with 18/29 ... I could well live with that
__________________
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
|
05-11-2014, 05:20 PM | #207 | |
Banned
866
Rep 6,248
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-11-2014, 06:15 PM | #208 |
Facetious
109
Rep 530
Posts |
Do we have any real numbers without people making crazy guesses? 28mpg is crazy, but 20 is also pretty stupid. Should be about 22-23
__________________
Current: '15 BMW M4 (6MT), '08 HD Dyna Street Bob
Previous: '06 BMW 330Ci; '06 Mercedes CLK-350; '04 Acura TL A-Spec; '95 BMW 318ti; '92 Mercury Cougar; '94 Honda Accord |
Appreciate
0
|
05-11-2014, 06:44 PM | #209 | |
Lieutenant
21
Rep 481
Posts |
Quote:
I can just tell that my brother drove his E92 (2008) at the upper end of the rating and our driving styles match pretty well. So whatever it is, I should be above the combined figure. I'll let you know (the first tanks include Autobahn though, there I expect a higher figure of course).
__________________
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
|
05-11-2014, 06:52 PM | #210 | |
Lieutenant
21
Rep 481
Posts |
Quote:
MT: city 12.0l/100km highway 6.9l/100km combined 8.8l/100km DCT: city 11.1l/100km highway 6.7l/100km combined 8.3l/100km EPA rating is not yet available to my knowledge... But still, a guess of 28mpg highway is not necessarily crazy, nor is 20mpg stupid... so far it's all guessing within certain boundaries.
__________________
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 ] Last edited by ake; 05-11-2014 at 07:08 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-11-2014, 07:02 PM | #211 | ||
Banned
866
Rep 6,248
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
05-11-2014, 07:14 PM | #212 | |
Facetious
109
Rep 530
Posts |
Quote:
G'day
__________________
Current: '15 BMW M4 (6MT), '08 HD Dyna Street Bob
Previous: '06 BMW 330Ci; '06 Mercedes CLK-350; '04 Acura TL A-Spec; '95 BMW 318ti; '92 Mercury Cougar; '94 Honda Accord |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-11-2014, 07:30 PM | #213 | |
Banned
866
Rep 6,248
Posts |
Quote:
Second, as an ///M owner, you will soon realize the potential for spirited driving can often wreck any EPA estimates. Third, you live in San Antonio, which means your A/C is blowing 10 months out of the year (mpg eater!). Fourth, I didn't realize BMW historically underestimates mpg. My experience is that their estimates are accurate. Fifth, 22 combined is what many F30 335i owners get. Why would an M3 realistically get the same/better? Worse overdrive ratio, wider tires, similar weight, etc. And if you're comfortable saying 22mpg is "realistic", then why is 20mpg "pretty stupid"? Certainly you know a 10% variance can be chocked up to driving styles, temperature, even traffic variations. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-12-2014, 10:50 AM | #214 | |
Major
287
Rep 1,449
Posts |
Autoweek is quoting that
Quote:
http://www.autoweek.com/article/2014...868#ixzz31W56u
__________________
201X ???? Coming soon
2015 F80 M3 AW/SO - Going Going Gone! |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-12-2014, 12:23 PM | #215 | |
Colonel
107
Rep 1,997
Posts |
Quote:
I'd put my money on 22-23 combined with about 18-20mpg city and 28-30mg hwy. Then again we all know some of us can be gentle to the ole girl and top 32mpg hwy and maybe hit 22ish in the city. With some 'spirited' driving one shouldn't expect anything amazing though. I bet a bit of WOT runs here and there will knock the combined into the teens really quickly. I see that my lowly 335i. If I drive conservatively I can get 27mpg in the city and 35 on the hwy. But more realistically, I'm seeing closer to 23 city and 31 hwy. If I get on it quite a bit then teens will reveal themselves. That last autox day dropped me from 25 mpg combined to 20 (burned about 1/4 of a tank) really quick. Short story, YMMV (literally) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-13-2014, 01:02 PM | #217 | |
Brigadier General
875
Rep 3,450
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-13-2014, 01:10 PM | #218 |
Banned
1
Rep 61
Posts |
He is actually right, I used to get 17-18mpg combined in my 335 vs 14-15 in M3. Merely 7-8% improvement. This is when you drive it "properly" which if you dont, you are wasting your money.
These fuel economy numbers are merely for EU laws, not really practical for the M people |
Appreciate
0
|
05-13-2014, 01:40 PM | #219 |
Colonel
1795
Rep 2,997
Posts |
People,
Why is it unreasonable to expect a 27-29mpg highway rating? It's a direct injected 3.0 liter running decent gearing, it should be able to maintain a steady state 65-70mph without really dipping into any boost. + Efficiency dynamics etc. Now I don't expect a great combined number, but I can personally foresee getting 30mpg on a straight highway trip. For whatever it's worth, my 5.0 liter S62 gets 24mpg on straight highway. You need to understand that the S65 was a particularly inefficient engine when it comes to fuel consumption. It probably should not be benchmarked as the background expectation, as it consumed a significant premium of fuel for a fairly aerodynamic 3600 pound RWD car. I'm expecting 21-22mpg combined with a highway rating of 27-28mpg, due to comfort mode/eco pro and various BMW tricks to eek out the MPG rating. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-13-2014, 02:23 PM | #220 |
Brigadier General
3445
Rep 4,981
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
|
|