Fuel Economy Predictions?

[ake]

Originally Posted by pebblebeachguy

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

If you check out the M5/6 it provides a different picture.
The highway figures there are:
DCT: 20 MPG
MT: 22 MPG

(which still is weird I believe!)

[pebblebeachguy]

Well color me mystified. I guess I will have to wait and see what is listed on the Monroney.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by pebblebeachguy

So is the 26 MPG Hwy for DCT or manual?

Well, that's the question of the moment. I sent 2 emails to different BMWUSA addresses yesterday, but no response yet.

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by cpippolo

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.

2mpg difference would change your mind about an entire vehicle? To each his own, but to be honest, it seems like a completely silly reason.

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

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.

You could not be more correct in your assumption.

[JoeFromPA]

My guess is 26mpg is manual trans. There are two precedents:

1. Optioned packages, such as DCT, are put in parantheses (24) in the website listings
2. The M5 in DCT loses 2mpg compared to it's manual

Now I don't know why it would lose it, but the fact is the SAME DCT in the m5 currently does lose 2 mpg compared to it's manual counterpart.

This just gives me another reason to be smug about my manual transmission

[cpippolo]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

2mpg difference would change your mind about an entire vehicle? To each his own, but to be honest, it seems like a completely silly reason.

Perhaps it is silly, but there are a lot of good cars out there and I'm weighing the pros and cons of several. 26 mpg isn't great either...and might bail even with that. Its not really the mileage, it because of the range and small 15.8 gallon tank. I drive around 350 miles a week, and really prefer not to have to fill up more than once a week. Leave early and come home late from work, training for triathlons, and trying to spend time with my family, so spending a lot of time in gas stations isn't in my plan. I know, it only takes ten minutes, but ten minutes feels like forever when you've had a long day and just want to get home before the kids go to bed. With my combination of high speed highway, stop and go freeway traffic, and city driving I wont get anywhere near the hwy number...probably closer to the average. 20 mpg wont cut it. Maybe that means I just need to lean more towards luxury and less towards sport. Audi S6 gets 27 on the hwy and bigger tank. Not the same class and bigger than I wanted to go, but maybe a better compromise for me.

All that said, still thinking about it and want to take a test drive before making the call of whether I'll suck up the extra trips to the gas station.

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by cpippolo

Perhaps it is silly, but there are a lot of good cars out there and I'm weighing the pros and cons of several. 26 mpg isn't great either...and might bail even with that. Its not really the mileage, it because of the range and small 15.8 gallon tank. I drive around 350 miles a week, and really prefer not to have to fill up more than once a week. Leave early and come home late from work, training for triathlons, and trying to spend time with my family, so spending a lot of time in gas stations isn't in my plan. I know, it only takes ten minutes, but ten minutes feels like forever when you've had a long day and just want to get home before the kids go to bed. With my combination of high speed highway, stop and go freeway traffic, and city driving I wont get anywhere near the hwy number...probably closer to the average. 20 mpg wont cut it. Maybe that means I just need to lean more towards luxury and less towards sport. Audi S6 gets 27 on the hwy and bigger tank. Not the same class and bigger than I wanted to go, but maybe a better compromise for me.

All that said, still thinking about it and want to take a test drive before making the call of whether I'll suck up the extra trips to the gas station.

Now that totally makes sense. This may not be the car for you then. The E92 always annoyed me, but the joy of driving it always outweighed the frequent fill-ups (which also KILL the wallet). What I can say is this: Since it seems like you're utilizing it as a daily driver, I honestly think you might be able to hack a better overall mpg. I can tell you that my buddy had me take care of his 135i for a while which is rated at 20c/28h, I was able to get anywhere from 28-30 overall pretty consistently. You may not enjoy the car as much on a daily basis, but to me that would be a fair trade off for ownership of this vice something bigger/heavier. Thoughts?

[cpippolo]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

Now that totally makes sense. This may not be the car for you then. The E92 always annoyed me, but the joy of driving it always outweighed the frequent fill-ups (which also KILL the wallet). What I can say is this: Since it seems like you're utilizing it as a daily driver, I honestly think you might be able to hack a better overall mpg. I can tell you that my buddy had me take care of his 135i for a while which is rated at 20c/28h, I was able to get anywhere from 28-30 overall pretty consistently. You may not enjoy the car as much on a daily basis, but to me that would be a fair trade off for ownership of this vice something bigger/heavier. Thoughts?

That would help a lot. If I could on average even get the 24 mpg I get in my 3.6L ATS, that would work. And I really don't want a bigger heavier car. In my younger days I had 2 Miatas and and RX-8. Heaviest car I've owned in many years was a E90 335xi. I actually left BMW for my ATS because it felt more nimble that the 335i (I was shocked). I really enjoy nimble cars (but now also want a litttle luxury). The M3 semed like a fantastic compromise in terms of luxury v performance (want a decent back seat, otherwise would be looking at 911S). I want a car that I'm excited to get into, and think this would fit the bill. By the time I test drive and order we should have some early returns on fuel consumption, so have not ruled it out. Appreciate you giving me some hope. I've been thinking about this car almost every day for six months now.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by cpippolo

That would help a lot. If I could on average even get the 24 mpg I get in my 3.6L ATS, that would work. And I really don't want a bigger heavier car. In my younger days I had 2 Miatas and and RX-8. Heaviest car I've owned in many years was a E90 335xi. I actually left BMW for my ATS because it felt more nimble that the 335i (I was shocked). I really enjoy nimble cars (but now also want a litttle luxury). The M3 semed like a fantastic compromise in terms of luxury v performance (want a decent back seat, otherwise would be looking at 911S). I want a car that I'm excited to get into, and think this would fit the bill. By the time I test drive and order we should have some early returns on fuel consumption, so have not ruled it out. Appreciate you giving me some hope. I've been thinking about this car almost every day for six months now.

I found that fuel consumption numbers from owners is pretty much useless indicators of what you will get. A much better method is to check what your mpg is in your current car vs it's EPA numbers. That's very likely where your average will be on an F8X vs it's EPA numbers. For example I'm getting 1.5 mpg over the EPA city number as average in my E90 M3. I assume to get the same with the F80, i.e 18.5 mpg.

You get 24 mpg vs the EPA 18 mpg city rating on your ATS. So I would except you to get 6 mpg over the 17 mpg city on the F80. I.e 23 mpg average.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by solstice

I found that fuel consumption numbers from owners is pretty much useless indicators of what you will get. A much better method is to check what your mpg is in your current car vs it's EPA numbers. That's very likely where your average will be on an F8X vs it's EPA numbers. For example I'm getting 1.5 mpg over the EPA city number as average in my E90 M3. I assume to get the same with the F80, i.e 18.5 mpg.

You get 24 mpg vs the EPA 18 mpg city rating on your ATS. So I would except you to get 6 mpg over the 17 mpg city on the F80. I.e 23 mpg average.

I'm getting 15+ average for my urban/suburban driving in my E92; 18-19 would make me satisfied. I only average under 200 miles a week, though.

[BlackCobra08]

Originally Posted by ake

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.

Brian Cooley is my other favorite car reviewer other than Chris Harris, I hope this helps (start at 11:43 for EPA info).

[cpippolo]

Originally Posted by solstice

I found that fuel consumption numbers from owners is pretty much useless indicators of what you will get. A much better method is to check what your mpg is in your current car vs it's EPA numbers. That's very likely where your average will be on an F8X vs it's EPA numbers. For example I'm getting 1.5 mpg over the EPA city number as average in my E90 M3. I assume to get the same with the F80, i.e 18.5 mpg.

You get 24 mpg vs the EPA 18 mpg city rating on your ATS. So I would except you to get 6 mpg over the 17 mpg city on the F80. I.e 23 mpg average.

That might be a reasonable indocator of what to expect, but I'm not sure it translates as well when going from a naturally aspirated engine to a turbo. I agree though that fuel consumption numbers from few users is not overly informative, unless its something like a highway number with the cruise set at 65 for an extended time on flat terrain (gives you an idea of what might be achievable). However, looking at the average from a large group is probably more informative than the EPA numbers that are generated from a very specific protocol that still doesn't really reflect the real world, but it will be a while before we have much of that data.

Maybe the car will be so fantastic I wont care. If that's not the case, might wait a bit.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by cpippolo

That might be a reasonable indocator of what to expect, but I'm not sure it translates as well when going from a naturally aspirated engine to a turbo. I agree though that fuel consumption numbers from few users is not overly informative, unless its something like a highway number with the cruise set at 65 for an extended time on flat terrain (gives you an idea of what might be achievable). However, looking at the average from a large group is probably more informative than the EPA numbers that are generated from a very specific protocol that still doesn't really reflect the real world, but it will be a while before we have much of that data.

Maybe the car will be so fantastic I wont care. If that's not the case, might wait a bit.

What's achievable is like trying to predict your finish time at the Boston Marathon from the winning time. Same thing with using a large group of averages, you can't predict your mpg by that just as you can't predict your finish time. You need a reference to your specific driving and the best you got is your current car and it's mpg vs the EPA. Turbo car or not shouldn't make a difference here.

[ake]

Originally Posted by BlackCobra08

Brian Cooley is my other favorite car reviewer other than Chris Harris, I hope this helps (start at 11:43 for EPA info).

Thanks! That actually gave some more great insights!
It still does not solve my big question mark why the differences come up for DCT/MT over the EU figures. I thought these were more alike... but maybe it is due to the stopping and the acceleration sections.
And as I cannot change my transmission anymore anyways... well, nothing further to worry about I guess.

[stressdoc]

Get a BMW diesel

Originally Posted by cpippolo

Perhaps it is silly, but there are a lot of good cars out there and I'm weighing the pros and cons of several. 26 mpg isn't great either...and might bail even with that. Its not really the mileage, it because of the range and small 15.8 gallon tank. I drive around 350 miles a week, and really prefer not to have to fill up more than once a week. Leave early and come home late from work, training for triathlons, and trying to spend time with my family, so spending a lot of time in gas stations isn't in my plan. I know, it only takes ten minutes, but ten minutes feels like forever when you've had a long day and just want to get home before the kids go to bed. With my combination of high speed highway, stop and go freeway traffic, and city driving I wont get anywhere near the hwy number...probably closer to the average. 20 mpg wont cut it. Maybe that means I just need to lean more towards luxury and less towards sport. Audi S6 gets 27 on the hwy and bigger tank. Not the same class and bigger than I wanted to go, but maybe a better compromise for me.

All that said, still thinking about it and want to take a test drive before making the call of whether I'll suck up the extra trips to the gas station.

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by cpippolo

That might be a reasonable indocator of what to expect, but I'm not sure it translates as well when going from a naturally aspirated engine to a turbo. I agree though that fuel consumption numbers from few users is not overly informative, unless its something like a highway number with the cruise set at 65 for an extended time on flat terrain (gives you an idea of what might be achievable). However, looking at the average from a large group is probably more informative than the EPA numbers that are generated from a very specific protocol that still doesn't really reflect the real world, but it will be a while before we have much of that data.

Maybe the car will be so fantastic I wont care. If that's not the case, might wait a bit.

I agree with the concept he is saying, but you're right, a FI car will yield different results. In fact, they typically yield even better results. For what you're trying to use it for 90% of the time, I think you can easily see 28-30. Spirited and fun driving, however, don't expect much more than 18-20. Track and city fun? 12-16. I dont think you should be alarmed in any sense and if you've been thinking about it for 6 months, you should just take a leap of faith. Your results will probably coincide with your driving style. Keep the faith

[IMrMark]

I went back and took a look at the numbers that UAE posted when he did some of his earlier driving; his seemed a lot better than what EPA is claiming (Sir Loin had a nice grid, UAE was rolling between 25-34 US MPG).

eh.. I too was hoping for a better "official" number, but honestly, this number is what I get now. I expect to drive a little above, as I do now, so it's still a win for me regardless. And if the prior numbers we've seen are at all a true indication of what could be (granted, a single sample which statistically means nothing)... well, whatever, I'll remain cautiously optimistic/hopeful.

[GregW / Oregon]

From BMWUSA (with patent theft from Apple):

"Hi Gregory,

Thanks for contacting the BMW Genius Team regarding the 2015 BMW M4.

The estimated miles per gallon for the the 2015 BMW M4 is 26 with the M Double-clutch Transmission with Drivelogic and 24 with the manual transmission.

If you need it, you can also access a team of Geniuses at your participating authorized BMW center. A list of our BMW centers and their contact information can be found on our website at: http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/conte...r/default.aspx.

The BMW Genius Team is available Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., ET. You can reach us at 1-844-4GENIUS (443-6487).

Make a BMW product expert your new co-pilot.

Brittany Fout
BMW Genius
Representative"

[Carl L]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

From BMWUSA:

"Hi Gregory,

Thanks for posting, Greg. That's great news for the likes of me who are DCTing it.

[mkoesel]

Thanks for doing the legwork on that and posting it Greg. I think this is reliable - they called it right with the contrast stitching being included on the seats and other areas for the black leather interior options.

Still it would be nice to properly vet these guys. We should each pick a tough question that can be answered via Sir Loin's FAQ post compilation and see if they get it right or perhaps even find mistakes in the information pointed to there.

[GBPackerfan1963]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

From BMWUSA (with patent theft from Apple):

"Hi Gregory,

Thanks for contacting the BMW Genius Team regarding the 2015 BMW M4.

The estimated miles per gallon for the the 2015 BMW M4 is 26 with the M Double-clutch Transmission with Drivelogic and 24 with the manual transmission.

If you need it, you can also access a team of Geniuses at your participating authorized BMW center. A list of our BMW centers and their contact information can be found on our website at: http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/conte...r/default.aspx.

The BMW Genius Team is available Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., ET. You can reach us at 1-844-4GENIUS (443-6487).

Make a BMW product expert your new co-pilot.

Brittany Fout
BMW Genius
Representative"

BMW following Apple with the Genius idea.