Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Except in the EPA tests, minimum shift speeds are used in order to get the best results, and your simple math isn't useful in that example. I do agree, however, that very high performance cars tend to not do well, mileage-wise. However, I still think that the M guys could've done better.
Poor example. Every Wankel suffered from poor economy due to an amazing amount of surface area in the combustion chamber, leading to major heat loss and major pollutants because of massive boundary layer problems. These were solved through the use of draconian emissions controls which further hurt fuel economy. Oil use was a part of the design, though. They fed the end seals with no way to collect that oil, therefore letting it be consumed in the combustion process. Another factor in the draconian emissions controls.
Loved that engine, though. Had an RX4 in '74.
The new RS5 is estimated by Audi to come in at 15/22, city/highway, and that car weighs about 400 pounds more than the M, according to Car and driver. More power and similar red line, as well.
My ONLY point is that I think the M guys dropped the ball in this one area. Otherwise, the car is damned close to being a paragon.
Are you HotIce's smurf or something? You two do nothing but rag on the M3. The S65 simply put, is an engineering marvel.