Fuel Economy Predictions?

[ixse]

Originally Posted by brava09

Since the new M3 has about the same horsepower as the old M3, I would expect the fuel economy to be similar, if driven the same manner.

wow.... just wow.... its mind blowing how clueless some people are...

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by ixse

wow.... just wow.... its mind blowing how clueless some people are...

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.

[Cortexiphan]

Originally Posted by brava09

Since the new M3 has about the same horsepower as the old M3, I would expect the fuel economy to be similar, if driven the same manner.

Seriously?

[SamS]

Originally Posted by Carl L

Why? Displacement aside, it's a drastically different engine. 34 Euro mpg combined is 28 US mpg and I reckon it'll do it unless you drive like you should be on a track. Just look at Mercedes' latest 5.5 liter gets and compare that to their previous 5.5s (or 5.4Ls).

34mpg EU cycle is not the same testing cycle as US uses to estimate mpg. So that 28mpg number is rubbish.

If the F80/82 gets combined 20mpg, consider yourself very lucky, and very light-footed.

[GBPackerfan1963]

Originally Posted by SamS

34mpg EU cycle is not the same testing cycle as US uses to estimate mpg. So that 28mpg number is rubbish.

If the F80/82 gets combined 20mpg, consider yourself very lucky, and very light-footed.

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.

[ake]

Originally Posted by SamS

If the F80/82 gets combined 20mpg, consider yourself very lucky, and very light-footed.

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.

[SamS]

Originally Posted by GBPackerfan1963

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.

Bring some extra $$ for filling up while you're doing ED, then

Originally Posted by ake

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.

Based on my real-world experience with both my E92 M3, and my AH3 (N55). Considering an F30 w/N55 and 8AT gets about 32hwy, I would not expect an M3 to do that well considering it has 1 or 2 less overdrive gears. Most F30 335i owners don't get 20mpg in the city, how could an M3 match that?

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?

[ake]

Originally Posted by SamS

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?

There are enough that do 18/19 average already currently. If I just pick 2013 models, you can see the fuel comparison attached.

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

[SamS]

Originally Posted by ake

There are enough that do 18/19 average already currently. If I just pick 2013 models, you can see the fuel comparison attached.

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

Tell ya what, since you're getting yours soon, please quote my 20mpg post after you get yours and go through a couple of tanks. Check your mpg via the fuelly.com app or equivalent (the OBC readings are always overinflated by ~ 10%). I still bet you'll be at 20mpg, if you're taking it easy!

[filip75]

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

[ake]

Originally Posted by SamS

Check your mpg via the fuelly.com app or equivalent (the OBC readings are always overinflated by ~ 10%). I still bet you'll be at 20mpg, if you're taking it easy!

I'll do. I have to say that maybe I should try to figure how the EPA figures are actually measured a little more.
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).

[ake]

Originally Posted by filip75

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

Only the EU cycle numbers are out:

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.

[SamS]

Originally Posted by filip75

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

Seeing as how you've never owned an M3, nor a turbo-based BMW I6, and appear to disregard BMW's own estimates of a 25% increase over a 14/20mpg rating, I find it odd you would rate a 20mpg mixed estimate as "pretty stupid". But hey, what do I know?

Originally Posted by ake

I'll do. I have to say that maybe I should try to figure how the EPA figures are actually measured a little more.
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).

[filip75]

Originally Posted by SamS

Seeing as how you've never owned an M3, nor a turbo-based BMW I6, and appear to disregard BMW's own estimates of a 25% increase over a 14/20mpg rating, I find it odd you would rate a 20mpg mixed estimate as "pretty stupid". But hey, what do I know?

Not sure what does owning an M3 have to do with it, but if my non-M3 owning math is correct, 25% increase would be a range of 17.5/25mpg, and considering that BMW historically underestimates most numbers, 22 combined can be a very realistic number, especially if the 45/55 combined mpg formula is being used.

G'day

[SamS]

Originally Posted by filip75

Not sure what does owning an M3 have to do with it, but if my non-M3 owning math is correct, 25% increase would be a range of 17.5/25mpg, and considering that BMW historically underestimates most numbers, 22 combined can be a very realistic number, especially if the 45/55 combined mpg formula is being used.

G'day

First, congrats on the expected arrival of your new car. I'm sure you will get many smiles from it.

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.

[Suave]

Autoweek is quoting that

"BMW says the car should get 26 mpg (manual) and 28 mpg (dual-clutch)."

I do not see anything on BMWUSA site or elsewhere and curious where they pulled this tidbit from?

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2014...868#ixzz31W56u

[tdizzle]

Originally Posted by Suave

Autoweek is quoting that I do not see anything on BMWUSA site or elsewhere and curious where they pulled this tidbit from?

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2014...868#ixzz31W56u

That seems illogical or out of context. Was it combined or just hwy?

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)

[Stevens21234]

Does anyone know about when the figures will be out? Hoping it's not June.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by ake

There are enough that do 18/19 average already currently. If I just pick 2013 models, you can see the fuel comparison attached.

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

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

[Johnmd]

Originally Posted by Cortexiphan

Seriously?

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

[JoeFromPA]

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.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by Brosef

20 miles / .75 gallons = 26.7 mpg
14 miles / .75 gallons = 18.7 mpg

Those are the numbers I'm expecting. I routinely get 27-28 mpg in my 135 on the highway doing 75-80 mph.