Fuel Economy Predictions?

[mdss6]

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.

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.

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.

[///Mangler]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

I did not buy the E90 M3 because of the poor gas mileage.
If I did not get the F80, I would get a 4 cyl diesel. If I could afford it, I would get an i-8.

The data on the BMW configurator puts fuel consumption at 8.3/8.8 l /100km = about 26 mpg. the 6% better fuel efficiency of the DCT might push me over the $2900 / 89 lbs hump... Any thoughts as to whether that is a real difference in everyday driving?

Is that imperial gallons?

T

[jbockrd]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Agree. But 16/17 which includes a mix of city/highway seems to be about the forum average on M3Post.

I am 17.4 right now with a mix of city and highway and I just had a 320i as a loaner and it only got 23.5 avg mpg. I cannot imagine the new M4 being mid 20s with mpg in mixed driving!!

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by jbockrd

I am 17.4 right now with a mix of city and highway and I just had a 320i as a loaner and it only got 23.5 avg mpg. I cannot imagine the new M4 being mid 20s with mpg in mixed driving!!

I agree. That's why I think it'll come in around 20mpg for the average use-case. Some will do better of course, and some will do worse.

I do think that for those long road trips where you blow through a whole tank (or multiple tanks) on the freeway, the car has the potential to do much better that the E9x M3 does today.

[jbockrd]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I agree. That's why I think it'll come in around 20mpg for the average use-case. Some will do better of course, and some will do worse.

I do think that for those long road trips where you blow through a whole tank (or multiple tanks) on the freeway, the car has the potential to do much better that the E9x M3 does today.

I take mine to the mountains of NC 1-2 times a year, so I could imagine that being an easy possibility. I only got 18.5 on those trips (plus a huge traffic ticket in VA!!)

[solstice]

Having owned both N54 and N55 cars as many others here I expect similar mpg for my mixed commute at around 18 mpg. Much worse when pushing the car, likely low 10s. The E90 M3 gives me 15mpg on the commute and single digits when pushed. I don't reflect over mpg for these cars, they are more than worth it, especially the E90 M3.

[Cortexiphan]

Official figures are already out, in the 'virtual showroom'
According to them;

M4 DCT gives 21.2 MPG city, 35.1 MPG Hway, 28.3 MPG Combined (11.1 l, 6.7 l, 8.3 l/100km)

M4 6MT gives 19.6 MPG city, 34.1 MPG Hway, 26.7 MPG Combined (12.0 l, 6.9 l, 8.8 l/100 km)

[jbockrd]

Originally Posted by Cortexiphan

Official figures are already out, in the 'virtual showroom'
According to them;

M4 DCT gives 21.2 MPG city, 35.1 MPG Hway, 28.3 MPG Combined (11.1 l, 6.7 l, 8.3 l/100km)

M4 6MT gives 19.6 MPG city, 34.1 MPG Hway, 26.7 MPG Combined (12.0 l, 6.9 l, 8.8 l/100 km)

CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE THAT!! like I said before, the 320xi I just drove had combined 23.5!! that must have been Jesus driving the test runs

[tdizzle]

Originally Posted by Cortexiphan

Official figures are already out, in the 'virtual showroom'
According to them;

M4 DCT gives 21.2 MPG city, 35.1 MPG Hway, 28.3 MPG Combined (11.1 l, 6.7 l, 8.3 l/100km)

M4 6MT gives 19.6 MPG city, 34.1 MPG Hway, 26.7 MPG Combined (12.0 l, 6.9 l, 8.8 l/100 km)

Is that using the UK/imperial gallon or some sorcery?

[filip75]

Originally Posted by tdizzle

Is that using the UK/imperial gallon or some sorcery?

Using the standard L/100km to US MPG converter: Converter

8.3l/100km is 28.34 MPG (US)
8.8l/100km is 26.73 MPG (US)

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by Cortexiphan

Official figures are already out, in the 'virtual showroom'
According to them;

M4 DCT gives 21.2 MPG city, 35.1 MPG Hway, 28.3 MPG Combined (11.1 l, 6.7 l, 8.3 l/100km)

M4 6MT gives 19.6 MPG city, 34.1 MPG Hway, 26.7 MPG Combined (12.0 l, 6.9 l, 8.8 l/100 km)

YEAP I WAS RIGHT

where in the showroom did u see this data by the way

[hadeed]

35mpg highway?? That is better than the 435.... Huh???

[filip75]

Originally Posted by jFran

35mpg highway?? That is better than the 435.... Huh???

According to BMW.com, 435i gets 8.1 - 7.9l/100km (6sp/auto), which translates to 29.04 MPG (US) and 29.77 MPG (US) - COMBINED, while the Highway numbers are: 6.2 and 6.1 (37.94 / 38.56 MPG US)

[nicknaz]

Originally Posted by Cortexiphan

Official figures are already out, in the 'virtual showroom'
According to them;

M4 DCT gives 21.2 MPG city, 35.1 MPG Hway, 28.3 MPG Combined (11.1 l, 6.7 l, 8.3 l/100km)

M4 6MT gives 19.6 MPG city, 34.1 MPG Hway, 26.7 MPG Combined (12.0 l, 6.9 l, 8.8 l/100 km)

wow. that's impressive.

That are many 2014 model year economy cars that struggle to hit 35mpg highway (Even if they have a higher EPA sticker)

[mdss6]

Originally Posted by filip75

Using the standard L/100km to US MPG converter: Converter

8.3l/100km is 28.34 MPG (US)
8.8l/100km is 26.73 MPG (US)

Originally Posted by filip75

According to BMW.com, 435i gets 8.1 - 7.9l/100km (6sp/auto), which translates to 29.04 MPG (US) and 29.77 MPG (US) - COMBINED, while the Highway numbers are: 6.2 and 6.1 (37.94 / 38.56 MPG US)

Yes. But US EPA numbers are always lower than the EU numbers and will certainly lower than these numbers for the new M3/M4. Additionally, the EU numbers were released more than month ago and are not new to this website. Most people will likely find the lower EPA numbers (when released) will more accurately reflect what the car will be capable of in their use, not the rather optimistic EU numbers.

[mdss6]

Originally Posted by nicknaz

wow. that's impressive.

That are many 2014 model year economy cars that struggle to hit 35mpg highway (Even if they have a higher EPA sticker)

They would be impressive indeed if they were EPA numbers. But are not. The "US" listed here is a reference to EU figures being converted to US units (miles/gal vs liters/100km), not that they are in anyway endorsed by the US EPA.

[filip75]

If the real combined number is around 22-24, I'll very happy.

[Cortexiphan]

Originally Posted by Powaup

YEAP I WAS RIGHT

where in the showroom did u see this data by the way

Under efficiency:
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicle...UNxlYYHhlpsOUf

Btw, I think it's normal that they are close to 435i numbers. Because with so much torque, only touching the gas pedal slightly would make the car move easily. Or at the highway speeds that they test the fuel consumption (Which is like 60 mph) this car would be at 7th speed and at very low rpms, thanks to the torque. So considering this car has loads of torque at low rpms, and that it's lighter than 435i or E92 M3, I think these numbers shouldn't be surprising. Currently, I have 17.4 mpg average on my trip computer. I would expect around 23-24 MPG from the new M4.

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by mdss6

Yes. But US EPA numbers are always lower than the EU numbers and will certainly lower than these numbers for the new M3/M4. Additionally, the EU numbers were released more than month ago and are not new to this website. Most people will likely find the lower EPA numbers (when released) will more accurately reflect what the car will be capable of in their use, not the rather optimistic EU numbers.

If you do the conversion for a 428 it works fine so not sure EPA numbers are that different :

[STooK]

If you can get 20mpg combined on the m3 I would be impressed. I'm getting about 18mpg combined on my stock 335i in the winter and about 21 in summer.

[Benjamin]

It's getting to the point where you cannot accept the numbers on the window sticker. This is especially true if the car has auto start/stop at stop lights/drive thru or if the car has eco modes.

I do not want auto start stop in this car nor will I use an eco mode unless I'm road tripping in it and I doubt that will happen very often. Even on a road trip you might need to have some fun doing highway pulls!

[stressdoc]

Originally Posted by ///Mangler

Is that imperial gallons?

T

No the conversion is to US mpg.