Login
![]() |
|
![]() |
10-29-2007, 07:21 AM | #1 |
Private
![]() ![]() 7
Rep 69
Posts |
Real world fuel consumption ...
I promised some time back to document the actual real world fuel consumption of the new E92 M3 versus my previous E46 M3, so here goes ...
Old M3 with > 80,000 miles was averaging over 28mpg on my daily commute from 18 miles West of Glasgow into the city and general running around with only the occasional thrash to the limiter in each gear. New M3 with > 2,000 miles is currently averaging over 24mpg used in the same way. I was sure I read somewhere that the new car was to be 15% more fuel efficient due to the new technology (brake regeneration etc.), but maybe I just imagined that ![]() Anyhoo, I'm pretty happy with this given the additional performance ![]() I also recall that there were a few brave bets on the outcome of this, so I'd be delighted to hear if those bets are now going to be honoured .... DC |
10-29-2007, 07:23 AM | #2 |
Reincarnated
113
Rep 4,227
Posts |
Thought it was 8% more efficient?
![]()
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 09:05 AM | #3 |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 280
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Thanks for the update. I've been trying to make sense of that efficiency improvement statement as well. It might be referring to the engine only. The E92 M3 is heavier; it would be hard to lower the overall efficiency with a 8 cylinder engine.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 09:15 AM | #4 |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 26
Rep 563
Posts
Drives: 2007 E92 M3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
|
I agree - does anyone have the manufacturer's E46 M3 fuel consumption figures to hand?
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 09:54 AM | #5 | |
Moderator
![]() 3766
Rep 17,319
Posts |
Quote:
![]() I agree your mileage seems pretty good given the additional performance the car delivers: Old E46 M3 = 28MPG = 23.3 MPG US New E92 M3 = 24MPG = 20 MPG US I am curious, can you post average speed of your car (from the instrument cluster and/or IDrive)?
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 09:56 AM | #6 |
Moderator
![]() 3766
Rep 17,319
Posts |
It could also perhaps be talking about volumetric efficiency, i.e. less fuel per unit of displament (but still more overall).
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 11:52 AM | #7 |
Commander-In-Chief
![]() 384
Rep 7,873
Posts
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
|
Efficiency
I was looking for that 8% quote. All I found in the original press release is this: "Over and above specific output of 105 hp per litre, average fuel consumption in the EU test cycle of 12.4 litres/100 km (equal to 22.8 mpg Imp) offers a clear expression of the engineering skill so characteristic of the engine specialists at BMW M GmbH." I did not find it in the engine press release, either.
__________________
![]() Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA 2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF 2012 ML350 |
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 02:10 PM | #8 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 280
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 02:28 PM | #9 |
Moderator / European Editor
1038
Rep 6,748
Posts |
It's quite easy: The E46 M3 had 13.4l/100km on the EU standard consumption test, the new one needs 12.4l/100km for that test procedure: Makes an improvement of 8%. Problem is only that this test standard has nothing to do with rl driving behaviour.
Best regards, south |
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 03:35 PM | #10 |
Driving !
![]() 16
Rep 276
Posts |
Thats not bad
![]() I'm only getting 28mpg average, same driving conditions pretty much, from an 06 325 !!!
__________________
2011 520d M Sport - Carbon Black - M Tech - 19" Wheels - Oyster / Black - Dark Ash - Professional Nav - Bluetooth - Visibility Pack - M Rear Spoiler - Whiteline Rear Tails
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 06:05 PM | #11 | |
Commander-In-Chief
![]() 384
Rep 7,873
Posts
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
|
US Gas Guzzler tax
Quote:
The tax is derived from the mileage test done by the EPA and is roughly (but not exactly) the following formula: (1/(.495/City MPG + .351/Highway MPG)) + .15. Since the EPA tests have changed for 2008, they results will be converted back into equivelents for the old tests to apply the tax. This is the tax chart: Unadjusted MPG (combined)* / Tax at least 22.5 / No tax at least 21.5, but less than 22.5 / $1000 at least 20.5, but less than 21.5 / $1300 at least 19.5, but less than 20.5 / $1700 at least 18.5, but less than 19.5 / $2100 at least 17.5, but less than 18.5 / $2600 at least 16.5, but less than 17.5 / $3000 at least 15.5, but less than 16.5 / $3700 at least 14.5, but less than 15.5 / $4500 at least 13.5, but less than 14.5 / $5400 at least 12.5, but less than 13.5 / $6400 less than 12.5 / $7700 The E46 M3 was hit with $1,700, because it came in just under 20.5 mpg. If the 8% improvement BMW claims on the European cycle were to hold for the EPA tests, the tax may go down to $1,000 for the E92 M3. No predicting right now where it will fall, but people need to remember to allow something in their budget for it. Thanks to SanDiegoBMWFan for reminding me of this.
__________________
![]() Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA 2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF 2012 ML350 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 07:58 PM | #12 |
Lieutenant General
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 400
Rep 10,367
Posts |
US vs EU
Well here is the real question. Are US EPA mpg ratings as "unreal" as EU ratings. Is the improvement BMW quotes for the M3 based solely on changing EU standards or is it indeed a true apples to apples comparison (even given that the test does not match real world driving in the first place)? I sure hope they correlate becuase the better the EPA mpg rating the car gets the less GGT we will have to pay.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 08:39 PM | #13 |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 280
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Didn't EPA modify the US test significantly for 2008, which resulted in the Prius' rating to go down to 48 from 62 or something to that effect? My understanding is that the new test results in the rating to drop for most cars and not just for the Prius.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 11:20 PM | #14 |
Commander-In-Chief
![]() 384
Rep 7,873
Posts
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
|
EPA ratings
Yes, I noted that in my post. The New EPA ratings will be translated to the old figures for the purposes of the GGT. The 335i went from 19/28 to 17/26 under the new tests. For a model like the M3, which was not tested previously, they must have formulas to do the conversion.
__________________
![]() Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA 2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF 2012 ML350 |
Appreciate
0
|
10-30-2007, 05:02 AM | #15 | ||
Moderator / European Editor
1038
Rep 6,748
Posts |
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Best regards, south |
||
Appreciate
0
|
10-30-2007, 05:24 AM | #16 |
Enlisted Member
![]() 4
Rep 36
Posts |
My real life figures involve spending £60 - £65 to fill the tank every 170 - 190 miles. Approx 20 - 30 miles less range than my old E46 - pretty much as expected.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|