Fuel Economy Predictions?

[Stevens21234]

And if the 17/26 figures stand, there will be a gas guzzler tax.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by Stevens21234

Is anyone underwhelmed by these numbers? 17 and 26? I was hoping for 25 to 26 combined. this is atrocious as BMW had quoted drastically higher numbers at the onset and then downward recalibrated the figures to being 25% higher than the old M3.

About what I was expecting. Combined should be 20-21, far better than the E9X's 16. What quote are you talking about? I've always heard 20-25% better.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by Stevens21234

And if the 17/26 figures stand, there will be a gas guzzler tax.

No, I don't believe so. It's not a straight average. E9X had far smaller tax than you would think looking at the raw EPA numbers.

[Stevens21234]

^You're right. It's usually worse than a straight average. We're looking at 20 mpg combined with a 17/26 breakdown. That would be about $1700.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...0&rowLimit=200

Scroll to the bottom to the BMWs with a 17/26 breakdown and you'll see.

[Sir Loin]

Originally Posted by Stevens21234

^You're right. It's usually worse than a straight average. We're looking at 20 mpg combined with a 17/26 breakdown. That would be about $1700.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...0&rowLimit=200

Scroll to the bottom to the BMWs with a 17/26 breakdown and you'll see.

Maybe BMW knew the US EPA numbers were low enough for the gas guzzler tax and tried to re-run the tests and that is why it took so long to get the EPA rating, and still get hit with the tax?

[ake]

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Maybe BMW knew the US EPA numbers were low enough for the gas guzzler tax and tried to re-run the tests and that is why it took so long to get the EPA rating, and still get hit with the tax?

I have to admit, if this is for real and based on the figures it hits gg tax: that sucks!
Especially seeing that Ford made it without (at least for the V6 model with either MT or AT) on their Mustang it is kind of disappointing!

So, going forward from here, how would it work? Does the dealer put the respective tax amount on top of my invoice which I have to pay? Or is this covered by BMW in the end for the cars already ordered?

[Wah]

Yes, if they add $1700 on top of my order, I will be pretty pissed.

[filip75]

Gas guzzler? Are we getting it?

[JoeFromPA]

Wow, these numbers are not strong to me considering the level of efficiency supposedly built in the engine and the f30 platform.

A gas guzzler tax would be exceedingly dissapointing.

[filip75]

Can they add the gas guzzler tax at the time of sale? I already paid for the car as a pre-order and now have to wait for 2 months to get it

[Sir Loin]

Originally Posted by filip75

Can they add the gas guzzler tax at the time of sale? I already paid for the car as a pre-order and now have to wait for 2 months to get it

100% of the car price as deposit? That seems excessive.

[filip75]

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

100% of the car price as deposit? That seems excessive.

Military order. Financing had to be done and paid to the factory before production begins

[solstice]

17/26 has gas guzzler tax?
Our 2013 Cayenne is rated 17/23 and had no gas guzzler tax in 2013.

Is the requirements that much tougher in 2014? That sucks, no gas guzzler tax is definately one of the advantages I counted on for this car vs. the old

Otherwise 17/26 seems right about what I expected and that it will translate to about 18 mpg for my commute just as I get 15.5 with my E90 M3 with it's 15/20 mpg rating.

[Sir Loin]

Originally Posted by filip75

Military order. Financing had to be done and paid to the factory before production begins

Nice. Full payment months prior for a good discount, still a good deal.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by solstice

17/26 has gas guzzler tax?
Our 2013 Cayenne is rated 17/23 and had no gas guzzler tax in 2013.

Is the requirements that much tougher in 2014? That sucks, no gas guzzler tax is definately one of the advantages I counted on for this car vs. the old

Trucks don't have GGT.

Otherwise 17/26 seems right about what I expected and that it will translate to about 18 mpg for my commute just as I get 15.5 with my E90 M3 with it's 15/20 mpg rating.

Right about what I was expecting too. But like you and others, the GGT possibility has caught me way off guard. For some reason I didn't think we were in any danger of that, even as I'd figured about 17/25 rating from EPA testing.

So what is the minimum we needed to be at to avoid the tax? I know it's based on the combined rating. I guess I should just go look it up but it'll have to wait til tomorrow.

[onatuesday]

My 2014 RS5 (16 city, 23 highway, 18 combined) didn't have a gas guzzler tax. I'll be appalled if the M4 has a GG tax

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by trinim3

My 2014 RS5 (16 city, 23 highway, 18 combined) didn't have a gas guzzler tax. I'll be appalled if the M4 has a GG tax

That confirms the F8x won't have one either then, no?

I don't think they update the GG tax law year by year do they? I could be wrong about that, but I thought the numbers/brackets were fixed and did not change.

[Carl L]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

Wow, these numbers are not strong to me considering the level of efficiency supposedly built in the engine and the f30 platform.

A gas guzzler tax would be exceedingly dissapointing.

Fully agreed. Fuel economy is boon to both the environment and owners (especially with regard to range). These figures are off by about 2mpg CITY and 3 mpg HWY from what they should be in a 3.0L gas engine in 2014, regardless of output.

[Stav]

If these are the numbers there is no gas guzzler tax. There is what the EPA calls in-use shortfall and the mpg to calculate the gas guzzler tax is based on 10-30% better mpg than what is printed on the window label.

This is how the RS5 gets no tax.

[Carl L]

Originally Posted by Stav

If these are the numbers there is no gas guzzler tax. There is what the EPA calls in-use shortfall and the mpg to calculate the gas guzzler tax is based on 10-30% better mpg than what is printed on the window label.

This is how the RS5 gets no tax.

Could you explain this further, please? I have no clue as to how the RS5 avoids it.

[Stav]

Originally Posted by Carl L

Could you explain this further, please? I have no clue as to how the RS5 avoids it.

Take a look at this PDF - second page, second paragraph:

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f12068.pdf

It explains the in-use shortfall.

[mdss6]

Originally Posted by Stav

Take a look at this PDF - second page, second paragraph:

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f12068.pdf

It explains the in-use shortfall.

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