M3 mileage rating: 14/20

[ruff]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2008.pdf

[e36jakeo]

Wow, that sucks! I was sure it would be more like 15/22 given that the engine is SUPPOSED to be 8% more efficient than the S54 that had a 15/22 rating. Hmmmm. Makes the efficiency of the 335i's torque monster with a tuned 400 HP seem really amazing (17/26).

[lucid]

Thanks Ruff for the info. So, what does this translate to in terms of GGT?

[devo]

Originally Posted by e36jakeo

Wow, that sucks! I was sure it would be more like 15/22 given that the engine is SUPPOSED to be 8% more efficient than the S54 that had a 15/22 rating. Hmmmm. Makes the efficiency of the 335i's torque monster with a tuned 400 HP seem really amazing (17/26).

Too bad with 400 HP, the 335 won't be getting 17/26. But you're right it is pretty bad. Even the S5 gets 16/22.

[devo]

Originally Posted by lucid

Thanks Ruff for the info. So, what does this translate to in terms of GGT?

$1,300 or $1,700.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by devo

$1,300 or $1,700.

Why the "or"?

Also, I don't see anything on DCT. It says manual tranmission.

[devo]

Originally Posted by lucid

Why the "or"?

Also, I don't see anything on DCT. It says manual tranmission.

I don't know the definitive answer, but it should be between those two numbers. It's just my guess.

[e36jakeo]

Originally Posted by devo

Too bad with 400 HP, the 335 won't be getting 17/26. But you're right it is pretty bad. Even the S5 gets 16/22.

Actually, my 335i makes about that HP with a piggyback ecu and still returns those figures. Cruising on the highway at 75 MPH I get 30 MPG. On a full tank with mixed driving I'll get 23. Romping on it in the twisties will bring it down into the teens.

Overall I'd say it gets 20% better than the M3 even with the same HP and much more torque. That is significant.

[devo]

Originally Posted by e36jakeo

Actually, my 335i makes about that HP with a piggyback ecu and still returns those figures. Cruising on the highway at 75 MPH I get 30 MPG. On a full tank with mixed driving I'll get 23. Romping on it in the twisties will bring it down into the teens.

Overall I'd say it gets 20% better than the M3 even with the same HP and much more torque. That is significant.

My 335cxi has only 1500 miles but, I am still getting 19.5 with mixed driving. I know it'll get better with some miles.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by e36jakeo

Overall I'd say it gets 20% better than the M3 even with the same HP and much more torque. That is significant.

Your tuned 335 is putting out 414 crank hp?

[swamp2]

Great find ruff.

This sure is not 8% better than 16/24 for the E46 M3. Nice marketing BMW... Maybe we got shorted on BER, we must have.

The highway figure should go up to at least 21 with M-DCT (better gearing). I'd bet the city figure will increase as well. The gearing in lower gears will hurt efficiency but the near zero shift times will probably help more than enough to offset that.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by lucid

OK, so:

"The calculation for combined fuel economy weights the city at 55 percent and the highway at 45 percent."

which means the combined number for the 6MT M3 is: 16.7

So, according to: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/index.htm

we are getting hit with $3000 for the 6MT.

The price of owning a poor man's supercar...

NOT TRUE. You aren't keeping up on this. As I explained in a previous thread (http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106336), the GGT is calculated on CAFE rating mileage, which is basically related to the old EPA test numbers. The 2008 numbers have absolutely no bearing on GGT, except that the GGT mileage numbers are extrapolated from them. So, the tax will definitely be less thans $3,000, which is what the M5/M6 pays.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

NOT TRUE. You aren't keeping up on this. As I explained in a previous thread (http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106336), the GGT is calculated on CAFE rating mileage, which is basically related to the old EPA test numbers. The 2008 numbers have absolutely no bearing on GGT, except that the GGT mileage numbers are extrapolated from them. So, the tax will definitely be less thans $3,000, which is what the M5/M6 pays.

Yep, I haven't been following up on that. Thanks for the quick heads up. I'll delete my post.

[e36jakeo]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Your tuned 335 is putting out 414 crank hp?

Very close to this number (350 WHP equates to about 400 BHP, assuming 12.5% loss).

[CnoteMD]

Taken directly from the original link:

The new testing methods cause MPG estimates for 2008 model
year vehicles to be noticeably lower than those for previous years,
even though the actual fuel economy you would achieve may be
the same. This makes it difficult to directly compare 2008 model
year vehicles with older models.

The 14/20 rating is a bit disappointing, but may not be too far off from most people's initial expectations. There is a link that allows a direct comparison for cars and the difference between the E46 and E90/92 M3 is fairly close.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

E90/92 M3 mileage (city/hwy/combined): 14/20/16
E46 M3 mileage (city/hwy/combined): 15/22/17

[Hans Delbruck]

That's a bummer.....

[pfenton]

Sad that the fuel efficiency was not as much as we hoped to avoid paying the gas guzzler tax, hopefully the dct figures should be better

[REP1KRR]

Wow. According to the [55% city, 45% highway] rule/calculation for combined fuel economy, we get 16.7 mpg, or $3000 [at least 16.5, but less than 17.5].

(14 x .55) + (20 x .55) = 16.7

Combined fuel economy is a weighted average of the City (55 percent) and Highway (45 percent) figures. (Graphic courtesy of the EPA)

[ChitownM3]

Originally Posted by REP1KRR

Wow. According to the [55% city, 45% highway] rule/calculation for combined fuel economy, we get 16.7 mpg, or $3000 [at least 16.5, but less than 17.5].

(14 x .55) + (20 x .55) = 16.7

Combined fuel economy is a weighted average of the City (55 percent) and Highway (45 percent) figures. (Graphic courtesy of the EPA)

Did you even read the posts in this thread?

[REP1KRR]

Originally Posted by ChitownM3

Did you even read the posts in this thread?

You mean, did I notice Lucid's original nearly identical question to mine had magically disappeared from the thread? Or did I miss Greg's response to the question entirely? Yes on both. Dearest apologies to all.

Relax Chai Tea.

[Keto]

Well, looks like I can continue to brag about the occasional high MPG highway stint while the reality of my stoplight-to-stoplight DD will still be sucky.

Can anyone translate the new numbers into the old numbers?

[CnoteMD]

Originally Posted by CnoteMD

Taken directly from the original link:

The new testing methods cause MPG estimates for 2008 model
year vehicles to be noticeably lower than those for previous years,
even though the actual fuel economy you would achieve may be
the same. This makes it difficult to directly compare 2008 model
year vehicles with older models.

The 14/20 rating is a bit disappointing, but may not be too far off from most people's initial expectations. There is a link that allows a direct comparison for cars and the difference between the E46 and E90/92 M3 is fairly close.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

E90/92 M3 mileage (city/hwy/combined): 14/20/16
E46 M3 mileage (city/hwy/combined): 15/22/17

Originally Posted by REP1KRR

Wow. According to the [55% city, 45% highway] rule/calculation for combined fuel economy, we get 16.7 mpg, or $3000 [at least 16.5, but less than 17.5].

(14 x .55) + (20 x .55) = 16.7

Combined fuel economy is a weighted average of the City (55 percent) and Highway (45 percent) figures. (Graphic courtesy of the EPA)

The correct combined fuel economy is listed in my earlier post (taken directly from fueleconomy.gov)

Originally Posted by Keto

Well, looks like I can continue to brag about the occasional high MPG highway stint while the reality of my stoplight-to-stoplight DD will still be sucky.

Can anyone translate the new numbers into the old numbers?

There may not be a way to convert the new numbers to the old numbers, but the fueleconomy.gov and the post above DOES convert the old numbers to the new numbers for direct comparison. Please note that the E46 M3 was rated 16/24 on the old rating system, but considered 15/22 under the new system. When you consider the significant increase in displacement and hp, I guess a slight penalty in fuel economy would be expected.