BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
E92-lighting
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      01-19-2008, 09:37 PM   #1
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

M3 mileage rating: 14/20

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2008.pdf
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 09:49 PM   #2
e36jakeo
Captain
 
Drives: 2008 M3 6 Speed MT!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northern CA

Posts: 624
iTrader: (0)

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).
__________________
Driving sideways: It's not faster, but damn it's more fun!
e36jakeo is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 09:50 PM   #3
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Thanks Ruff for the info. So, what does this translate to in terms of GGT?
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 09:51 PM   #4
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

Posts: 1,942
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by e36jakeo View Post
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 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 09:52 PM   #5
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

Posts: 1,942
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
Thanks Ruff for the info. So, what does this translate to in terms of GGT?
$1,300 or $1,700.
devo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 09:55 PM   #6
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
$1,300 or $1,700.
Why the "or"?

Also, I don't see anything on DCT. It says manual tranmission.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 09:57 PM   #7
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

Posts: 1,942
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
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.

Last edited by devo; 01-19-2008 at 10:22 PM.
devo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 10:07 PM   #8
e36jakeo
Captain
 
Drives: 2008 M3 6 Speed MT!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northern CA

Posts: 624
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
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.
__________________
Driving sideways: It's not faster, but damn it's more fun!
e36jakeo is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 10:11 PM   #9
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

Posts: 1,942
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by e36jakeo View Post
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.
devo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 10:15 PM   #10
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,560
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by e36jakeo View Post
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 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 10:20 PM   #11
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,560
iTrader: (1)

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.

Last edited by swamp2; 01-19-2008 at 10:36 PM.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 10:45 PM   #12
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2008 M3 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 6,774
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
NO WAY

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
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.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2008 M3 Coupe - Alpine/Fox Red/Carbon
2015 M4 pre-ordered 4/13
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 10:47 PM   #13
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon View Post
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.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 10:51 PM   #14
e36jakeo
Captain
 
Drives: 2008 M3 6 Speed MT!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northern CA

Posts: 624
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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).
__________________
Driving sideways: It's not faster, but damn it's more fun!
e36jakeo is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-19-2008, 11:15 PM   #15
CnoteMD
Commander in Chief
 
CnoteMD's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 BMW 535i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA

Posts: 1,035
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M5  [0.00]
2006 330i  [0.00]
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
__________________
2008 BMW 535i Space Gray, Black Leather, Dark Bamboo Trim| Sport Automatic with Paddles | Sport Package
2008 BMW M5 (gone, but not forgotten) Space Gray, Silverstone Merino Leather, Madeira Walnut Wood Trim | 7speed SMG | All options
Mods: Corsa Exhaust | RPI Ram Air Intake | H&R Sport Springs | Rogue Engineering 12mm spacers
CnoteMD is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2008, 12:11 AM   #16
Hans Delbruck
BMW & MB - friends in my garage
 
Hans Delbruck's Avatar
 
Drives: C63, 135i, 1959 BUICK
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Posts: 1,285
iTrader: (0)

That's a bummer.....
Hans Delbruck is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2008, 12:40 AM   #17
pfenton
New Member
 
Drives: 2004 bmw 745 LI
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: salt lake city, UT

Posts: 9
iTrader: (0)

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
pfenton is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2008, 01:03 AM   #18
REP1KRR
My other car is a Scooter'ia
 
REP1KRR's Avatar
 
Drives: M3 Saloon
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salt Lake City

Posts: 1,226
iTrader: (5)

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)
REP1KRR is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2008, 01:12 AM   #19
ChitownM3
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2001 SS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burbs of Chicago

Posts: 489
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by REP1KRR View Post
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?
ChitownM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2008, 02:37 AM   #20
REP1KRR
My other car is a Scooter'ia
 
REP1KRR's Avatar
 
Drives: M3 Saloon
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salt Lake City

Posts: 1,226
iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownM3 View Post
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.
REP1KRR is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2008, 06:53 AM   #21
Keto
Major
 
Keto's Avatar
 
Drives: 550i M-sport AW
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: N'awlins

Posts: 1,227
iTrader: (1)

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?
Keto is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2008, 09:06 AM   #22
CnoteMD
Commander in Chief
 
CnoteMD's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 BMW 535i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA

Posts: 1,035
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M5  [0.00]
2006 330i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by CnoteMD View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by REP1KRR View Post
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keto View Post
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.
__________________
2008 BMW 535i Space Gray, Black Leather, Dark Bamboo Trim| Sport Automatic with Paddles | Sport Package
2008 BMW M5 (gone, but not forgotten) Space Gray, Silverstone Merino Leather, Madeira Walnut Wood Trim | 7speed SMG | All options
Mods: Corsa Exhaust | RPI Ram Air Intake | H&R Sport Springs | Rogue Engineering 12mm spacers
CnoteMD is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST