M3 11 miles per gallon.

[Steved]

Originally Posted by FifthStreetz

is it confirmed that the M3 gets 11MPG? Is this city driving or total average?

We were driving uphill, wringing the engine out in most gears and changing gear dozens of times in each driving stint. This included full throttle burn-outs (for the magazine pics) and dozens of sideways drifts (mainly for fun, but they look good in pictures too).

So what would you expect to get? I got about the same in the RS4 we used as a comparison and yet averaged 23-24mpg on the drive down to Southern Spain.

[EmUc]

I averaged 8-9 MPG with my E46 M3 last time in driving school. I get 21.6 MPG in daily driving and about 29-30 MPG on the highway doing 75-80 mph. The point is the magazine test drive mileage doesn't mean much. Yea it won't be a gas sipper but I wouldn't draw conclusions so early.

[nusevad]

Originally Posted by Steved

We were driving uphill, wringing the engine out in most gears and changing gear dozens of times in each driving stint. This included full throttle burn-outs (for the magazine pics) and dozens of sideways drifts (mainly for fun, but they look good in pictures too).

So what would you expect to get? I got about the same in the RS4 we used as a comparison and yet averaged 23-24mpg on the drive down to Southern Spain.

Thanks for the explanation Steve, i feel alot more comfort now haha.

[///Murdock]

Originally Posted by FifthStreetz

is it confirmed that the M3 gets 11MPG? Is this city driving or total average?

no.

the M3 mileage will be much higher

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by ward

the old one had about 1000-1500 gas guzzler tax, and it got better mileage than this one

Well, BMW claims the new M3 gets 8% better mileage than the the E46 version. I assume this is in relaxed driving, where it is entirely possible. Using the full 414 hp is bound to use more fuel than the 333 hp one did, though 8-10 on the track with my E46 is normal.

No way to know what the guzzler tax will be until it is tested to EPA standards for the US. You won't be able to directly compare EPA numbers with the old models, either, because the tests have been changed for 2008 for more "realistic" estimated numbers. The tax will still be based on the old mileage protocol, though.

[nusevad]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

No way to know what the guzzler tax will be until it is tested to EPA standards for the US. You won't be able to directly compare EPA numbers with the old models, either, because the tests have been changed for 2008 for more "realistic" estimated numbers.

How much was the guzzler tax on your E46?

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by FifthStreetz

How much was the guzzler tax on your E46?

$1,300 (20.5 - 21.4 mpg, 55% city, 45% hwy).

[nusevad]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

$1,300 (20.5 - 21.4 mpg, 55% city, 45% hwy).

Cool,
so theoretically if the new M3 does gets 8% better fuel economy, perhaps our gas guzzler tax wouldnt be as high.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by FifthStreetz

Cool,
so theoretically if the new M3 does gets 8% better fuel economy, perhaps our gas guzzler tax wouldnt be as high.

It's possible. The thing is we don't know BMW's test conditions and how they relate to the EPA test, nor how they were weighted city/hwy. As long as mileage is not much worse I will be okay. If it's better I will be ecstatic--buying a V8 in these days of heightened awareness on global warming does give me pause.

[Tobizach]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

It's possible. The thing is we don't know BMW's test conditions and how they relate to the EPA test, nor how they were weighted city/hwy. As long as mileage is not much worse I will be okay. If it's better I will be ecstatic--buying a V8 in these days of heightened awareness on global warming does give me pause.

Fuel wise compared with your typical SUV there isnt much too be concerned about.

[ruff]

GregW,
Very informative posts. We will all be buying or not buying the M3 for slightly different reasons. I would guess those using the M3 as a daily driver are more interested in the mileage than those who don't. I understand that the M3 has a lot of horses to feed and they must be fed. My question is, how will the mileage to horsepower to performance ratio be in relation to it's competition. To me, this shows the quality of engineering in the motor. The 335 is so attractive because it can get better mileage than it's competition, yet out run it. Of course, this is in large part due to direct injection and FI. The M division is deservedly lauded for it's engineering prowess, but it seems the M5 and M3 motors are very thirsty for their small displacement. I understand they rev higher than most of the competition, but they also lack torque which generally accompanies high rev power plants. The thing that stuck out for me with these limited reviews ,besides the steering, which by the way I think they will fix, is how the majority of the journalists made a point to emphasise the M3's poor mileage. These journalist knew they were driving a 420 horsepower sports car very hard and have driven other sports cars very hard, but have you ever seen so many reviews that seemed enamored by the poor mileage? Hopefully, part of it was the efficient dynamics malarky drilled into their head before they drove it. Now if BMW says the E92 is 8% or more efficient, doesn't testing actually have to back it up? Few talk about American engineering, but I believe the vette engines are the best engineered production engines in the world. They are simple in design, reliable, less parts to break down, such as fancy throttle bodies, vanos etc, etc. Loads of useable horsepower and torque on a commute or the track and the great mileage in relation to its competition. And the powerplant is based on a very old pushrod design. Quit frankly an amazing feat. Love the saying, "keep it simple stupid." I won't buy a Vette because it is not as practical and I have never been enthralled with them. Like others here, there is just something too alluring about the M Division.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by ruff

GregW,
Very informative posts.

Thanks--my intent is to provide as much useful information as possible and enter reasonable discussions, but try to avoid extreme rhetoric that seems the fad lately.

We will all be buying or not buying the M3 for slightly different reasons. I would guess those using the M3 as a daily driver are more interested in the mileage than those who don't.

The M3 has and will be my daily driver. Too many people here are arguing fine points of a few horsepower or other data that has nothing to do with the way most of us use our cars. Unless you're racing, the minutia of specs doesn't mean much, and the M3 is not born to be a race car. The M3 will continue to be a well-rounded high-performance car that is perfect for many, but not all.

I understand that the M3 has a lot of horses to feed and they must be fed. My question is, how will the mileage to horsepower to performance ratio be in relation to it's competition. To me, this shows the quality of engineering in the motor. The 335 is so attractive because it can get better mileage than it's competition, yet out run it. Of course, this is in large part due to direct injection and FI.

Mileage/power is only one factor that shows the quality of the engineering, obviously. Admittedly, the 335i gets quite good mileage ratings (18/28, one more with auto). I have not heard what actual mileage is running compared to the generally optimisitc EPA figures. However, floor it in the 335i and I don't think the result will be as visceral as the E92 M3.

The M division is deservedly lauded for it's engineering prowess, but it seems the M5 and M3 motors are very thirsty for their small displacement. I understand they rev higher than most of the competition, but they also lack torque which generally accompanies high rev power plants.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought high torque is more tied to displacement or forced induction that revs. What example are you using? The F430 has the same hp/torque ratio as the E92 M3 (though more of each).

The thing that stuck out for me with these limited reviews ,besides the steering, which by the way I think they will fix, is how the majority of the journalists made a point to emphasise the M3's poor mileage. These journalist knew they were driving a 420 horsepower sports car very hard and have driven other sports cars very hard, but have you ever seen so many reviews that seemed enamored by the poor mileage? Hopefully, part of it was the efficient dynamics malarky drilled into their head before they drove it. Now if BMW says the E92 is 8% or more efficient, doesn't testing actually have to back it up?

Given the limited exposure most of the testers had, mileage was one of the few things they could easily quantify. I would wait for the in-depth testing before throwing in the towel on this.

Few talk about American engineering, but I believe the vette engines are the best engineered production engines in the world. They are simple in design, reliable, less parts to break down, such as fancy throttle bodies, vanos etc, etc. Loads of useable horsepower and torque on a commute or the track and the great mileage in relation to its competition. And the powerplant is based on a very old pushrod design. Quit frankly an amazing feat. Love the saying, "keep it simple stupid." I won't buy a Vette because it is not as practical and I have never been enthralled with them. Like others here, there is just something too alluring about the M Division.

Well, in engineering (and architecture, which is my profession) there are "elegant" solutions to design problems, and there are functional solutions. I consider the 'Vette engine to be a functional solution, that does remarkably well considering it's stone age roots. BMW pursues elegant solutions that are more cutting edge. I appreciate high power/displacement efficiency, rather than throwing massive displacement or forced induction at the problem, which is relatively easy. Using a "skip shift" tranny to gain mileage points but is a pain to live with rubs me the wrong way, as well. Which is better could be argued on and on, and there is not one right way, just like there is no one car for everyone.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought high torque is more tied to displacement or forced induction that revs. What example are you using? The F430 has the same hp/torque ratio as the E92 M3 (though more of each).

No, you are correct. Torque is essentially a function of displacement (forced induction increases effective displacement). An 18,000 RPM 3L F1 motor will not make appreciably more torque than a 8000 RPM 3L I6 or V6 is a passenger car. In fact, most every engine (naturally aspirated, that is) on the market will make between 70lb-ft and 85lb-ft per liter of displacement. Go ahead and look up any car from Kia to Ferrari and you will see this to be true. Even if you look at racing engines, you will not see anything over 100lb-ft per liter.

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

No, you are correct. Torque is essentially a function of displacement (forced induction increases effective displacement). An 18,000 RPM 3L F1 motor will not make appreciably more torque than a 8000 RPM 3L I6 or V6 is a passenger car. In fact, most every engine (naturally aspirated, that is) on the market will make between 70lb-ft and 85lb-ft per liter of displacement. Go ahead and look up any car from Kia to Ferrari and you will see this to be true. Even if you look at racing engines, you will not see anything over 100lb-ft per liter.

Agreed. Power, on the other hand, increases appreciably with rpm.

[schhay07]

This is the most disappointing info to me...later, M3.

[nusevad]

Originally Posted by schhay07

This is the most disappointing info to me...later, M3.

Goodbye to you too.

[M3]

They didn't make this ultra fast F1 tech 9000rpm engine to be driven at 1500-2000rpm!

[M3_2010]

Originally Posted by ChitownM3

This whole thread is ridiculous. If you can't afford gas, then maybe you shouldn't be buying a 70K car?

It is not a money issue. You have to consider the environment.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by M3_2010

It is not a money issue. You have to consider the environment.

I'm sorry I thought this was a car enthuasiast site not www.Idontshavemyarmpits.com or www.haveyouhuggedatreetoday.com

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by M3_2010

It is not a money issue. You have to consider the environment.

So buying a performance car is considering the environment?

Tell me, which performance car will you buy instead, that matches 35+ mpg that the purposely-built eco-friendly cars on the market can get?

There is only one I can think of - Tesla. But I hope you have $100k and are on the list already. Not to mention it has none of the refinement and function of them M3.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by schhay07

This is the most disappointing info to me...later, M3.

Why? Is it money?

If it is, then you must know exactly how much the M3 will cost already then, right? Because if you don't then how do you know that the MSRP won't be lower than your expectation such that the total cost of ownership is the same as or even lower than you were expecting?

Or maybe its environmental? If so, just see my post above.

Honestly what in hell are people looking for in a car? Its nuts. "Oh you mean the M3 doesn't pick up my dog's crap and also double as a Jacuzzi? Well, F**k me, I'm totally out then."

[nusevad]

Originally Posted by M3_2010

It is not a money issue. You have to consider the environment.

I think he was being sarcastic..