Gas consumption better?

[uhn2000]

     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

Ok well I am not sure how many of you are doing on the fuel consumption front but I will go on record as saying that SO FAR this car is not better then my previous 911 (Targa4S) which I really pushed and only slight improved over the M5 E60 and I am still in break-in mode. I have MT and its always a good way to really gauge an engine's fuel efficiency because you are shifting (when you should) and not a computer. I was in my buddies car the other day and he has DCT, for him to get great efficiency I rarely saw the RPM needle go above 2krpm.

Here are some numbers..

Currently I am at 550km: 19.2L/KM = 12.25 MPG
My 911 over 20,000km was: 15.5L/KM = 15.8 MPG
My e60 over 16,000km was: 20.5L/KM = 11.47 MPG

I will admit that most of my driving is city based (not highway/freeway) but I always find it interesting to see what the manufacturers say I should get versus what a real world scenario is like. Yes its better then the e60 but not by much.

Here is the converter I used for my US friends http://calculator-converter.com/l_10...per_100_km.php

[nybimmerfan]

Mine is a mixture of city/highway and I average between 19 - 20 mpg. During my ED, I logged between 20 - 22 mpg. So all in all it is not bad. BTW, I have a 6-speed manual transmission.

[uhn2000]

Originally Posted by nybimmerfan

Mine is a mixture of city/highway and I average between 19 - 20 mpg. During my ED, I logged between 20 - 22 mpg. So all in all it is not bad. BTW, I have a 6-speed manual transmission.

Thats 11.76L/KM that is literally almost twice as good as mine?? K maybe I need to rest this thing and start from scratch? On a side note how are you liking the MT - love mine!

[avi8tir]

why would you think that a 4.4L TT V8 would get better gas mileage than your 3.6L H6 Porsche?

[Bimmer6]

Funny post who actually buys a 560 hp car, and watches the fuel consumption. That's like buying two double cheese burgers, fries, milk shake, and wash it down with a diet drink(:

[335(EX)(EYE)]

Hahahahahahahha

[Danmar]

agree that mileage in an F10 would be a very minor consideration. On the other hand range is more of an issue, especially in the E60.

[CarolinaM5]

Did mainly highway driving yesterday, was able to get 21mpg averaging 75mph.

[nybimmerfan]

Originally Posted by uhn2000

Thats 11.76L/KM that is literally almost twice as good as mine?? K maybe I need to rest this thing and start from scratch? On a side note how are you liking the MT - love mine!

You probably meant 11.76 kilometers per liter or 11.76KM/L. I love the manual for my driving here in NY but for the tracks the DCT will be much better as (computer) shifting is faster -- we only used M5s with DCT during the 2-day M Performance School at Greenville that I attended in November.

[GAS99]

I have to say that I am getting 23+ on the highway, even though it is not why I got this baby, it is a nice adder to the equation. I am not complaining about it. I don't baby it, just run at 75 even and leave her in the economy setting while on the highway, especially since insane mode is one button away, so passing is not an issue either.

[bobblehead]

I am in TO, same as you.

to-date:
7000km - cumulative overall avg 15.2 litres/100km - 85% local // 15% highway and driving at mostly D1, efficient mode. (For the 1st month of delivery, I remembered I was getting around 14.5 litres/100km - but that was in around Sep)

compared to my prev car which was 2011 550xdrive (35,000km) - cumulative avg was around 14.5 litres/100km in the summer; 15.5 litres/100km in the winter

[LAKEOM5]

Originally Posted by Bimmer6

Funny post who actually buys a 560 hp car, and watches the fuel consumption. That's like buying two double cheese burgers, fries, milk shake, and wash it down with a diet drink(:

I do! I like the taste of diet over regular. Reg is too sugary.

Diet probably tastes worse but I've been drinking it so long I now prefer it.

You're welcome for this worthless post. Btw I don't care about the mpg either.

[Rob///M5]

Originally Posted by LAKEOM5

I do! I like the taste of diet over regular. Reg is too sugary.

Diet probably tastes worse but I've been drinking it so long I now prefer it.

You're welcome for this worthless post. Btw I don't care about the mpg either.

+1

[Bimmer6]

Originally Posted by LAKEOM5

I do! I like the taste of diet over regular. Reg is too sugary.

Diet probably tastes worse but I've been drinking it so long I now prefer it.

You're welcome for this worthless post. Btw I don't care about the mpg either.

Funny .......we have to have some humor sometimes. Just parked the M5 from a nice spirited drive down some back roads. In the garage until week, man I love driving this car never board!

[maem2501]

15.9 MPG with 90% city driving

[uhn2000]

Haha, love the responses to my original post - LOL. My point was why make it Turbo Charged using fuel consumption as your premise when in fact its not that much better? I wanted to share my numbers out of interest and see if indeed I was totally off base or needed to reset the counter. If I wan't to save gas I would have bought a hybrid or electric car!

Snow has melted away, can't wait to drive again tomorrow!

[Danmar]

Originally Posted by uhn2000

Haha, love the responses to my original post - LOL. My point was why make it Turbo Charged using fuel consumption as your premise when in fact its not that much better? I wanted to share my numbers out of interest and see if indeed I was totally off base or needed to reset the counter. If I wan't to save gas I would have bought a hybrid or electric car!

Snow has melted away, can't wait to drive again tomorrow!

OK I see your point. Expect my new f10 in early April. Won't drive it in snow. But the way TO is going that won't be a problem. Have a E63 in Arizona and hardly ever have the top up.

[cpiguy]

For what it's worth, I get the exact same mileage as I do with my e92 M3, 17.1 mpg. BTW, this is about 50% highway 50% city.

[jump]

I can say with near certainty that other m5 owners like myself are not tracking our fuel economy because we are concern about the cost of fuel. I track mine because Im a competitive person and I like knowing the numbers.

Currently I just use the cars tracking system but I've considered using fuelly.

http://www.fuelly.com/

[johntomferg]

Home to Work (and work to home) is approx 25 miles 1 way.
Of that, approximately 10 miles is city (stop lights, max speed of 30-40mph) and the remainder is typically interstate at 60-80 mph depending on whether the "Decatur 200" is in full swing.

I get just over 20 MPG even when I have 1 or 2 instances of "acceleration."

That said, to put it in perspective with my previous car (2006 Infiniti M45), I was only getting around 19 MPG on the same commute.

The M5 is a much more substantial car and I'm very satisfied with the power vs fuel economy figure.

[thebishman]

18.9 mpg (US) in 3500 miles; average speed over the same miles, 39.6 mph.
Bish

[Munit]

I think the point here which someone elluded to is the entire damn premise for M going turbo was efficiency!!! Without better efficiency than the benefit of the turbo is an absolute farse. So we get lag, low redline grunt monsters and no better mileage. I agree they are seeing no better mileage than hard driven e90 m3's and very mildly better than e60 m5's.

This is really big proof that M could have left the M department ALONE and stuck to their bread and butter, high revving race enginess and maybe lost 1-2 mpg on each car average in the M department which would not have any effect on fleet wide numbers.

And as owners say, what M buyer gives a crap about mileage? So at the end of the day the reason for going turbo and the benefits are really none. Low end torque wooo hoo