[M5 TT]

Originally Posted by JOHNBMWM5

On my test drive I did notice this, car wanted 7th gear till 65/70MPH !!!, this to me was down to LOW torque, put me off the car a bit, however this was X4M which just got in my Garage I think the X3M is an inch or more narrower so going to try that one out early next year.Car does like the fuel though, I nursed it too 25 MPG, and then drove normal and got 20MPG just, this is low compared to my F90 M5 CP with gives 24/25 MPG normal with some booting.

Yeah both my F10 M5s were better. RIS today, see if it improves once slackened off with more miles.

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by zeusrazvy

Official numbers are identical between the two? X4M had the RIS?

Yep it had 1400 miles on it.
X3M 1"+ narrower according to BMW.

[zeusrazvy]

Originally Posted by JOHNBMWM5

Yep it had 1400 miles on it.
X3M 1"+ narrower according to BMW.

When I got the car .. first 150 miles i had 18 mpg avg.. now I can see it going up day by day... I was thinking that after the RIS will improve even more?

When you got your M5 how it was before the RIS? First 1500 miles ? It had 25mpg straight away or after a while?

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by zeusrazvy

When I got the car .. first 150 miles i had 18 mpg avg.. now I can see it going up day by day... I was thinking that after the RIS will improve even more?

When you got your M5 how it was before the RIS? First 1500 miles ? It had 25mpg straight away or after a while?

24/25 out of the box, never really changed. Obviously if I hammer it things go down quickly.

[DC X3M40i]

Long Island to Rochester New York

[aliu0]

Hi Guys

I'm considering to buy this year an X4MC. I do about 15-18k Miles per year (25-30k km), that's why i am curious about the fuel consumption of this incredible car.
Some time has passed and i think a lot of you have done a few miles with the X3/4M.

Do you have any updates on the fuel consumption (real life, highway)?

[AlexFL]

Originally Posted by aliu0

Hi Guys

I'm considering to buy this year an X4MC. I do about 15-18k Miles per year (25-30k km), that's why i am curious about the fuel consumption of this incredible car.
Some time has passed and i think a lot of you have done a few miles with the X3/4M.

Do you have any updates on the fuel consumption (real life, highway)?

I average 16.2 mpg and I don’t hold back (never in comfort, only Sport and Sport+). I think you should be averaging 10-11 l/100 km in Switzerland. Du wirst mit dem Auto garantiert viel Spass haben!

[aliu0]

Originally Posted by AlexFL

I average 16.2 mpg and I don’t hold back (never in comfort, only Sport and Sport+). I think you should be averaging 10-11 l/100 km in Switzerland. Du wirst mit dem Auto garantiert viel Spass haben!

Thanks! How many miles have you done so far?
16.2 mpg would be around 14.5 L/100km, getting 10-11 L/100km in a long term avarege would be great. Absolutes Traumauto, wünsche dir auch weiterhin viel Spass!

Any other numbers?

[spta97]

I’m still in the break-In and have been nursing it but almost all local. I’m averaging between 11-12 MPG.

Seems off.

[aliu0]

Originally Posted by spta97

I’m still in the break-In and have been nursing it but almost all local. I’m averaging between 11-12 MPG.

Seems off.

That's a lot, but has to get better.

I was reading also in the M5 F90 Forum and that car is actually doing quite good with its mpg. That's why i am surprised about the high consumption on the X3/4M.

[spta97]

Originally Posted by aliu0

That's a lot, but has to get better.

I was reading also in the M5 F90 Forum and that car is actually doing quite good with its mpg. That's why i am surprised about the high consumption on the X3/4M.

I was expecting better than my 2007 5600 lbs V8 truck.

Most of my driving is local though so this may be the cost for this engine.

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by aliu0

That's a lot, but has to get better.

I was reading also in the M5 F90 Forum and that car is actually doing quite good with its mpg. That's why i am surprised about the high consumption on the X3/4M.

Aside from the significant differences in 'Cd x A' of the F90 and F97 models (which will profoundly affect mpg at higher speed), a ton of variables go into the final mpg numbers we share when just discussing the F97 here in our Sub-Forum. Some time ago in the G01 threads I tried to analyze how tires and wheel weights might affect mpg. I soon realized that goal was impossible as atmospheric conditions have such a profound impact on fuel consumption there'd be no way to identify subtle effects from changes in tire and wheel weights.

I attempted to control the variables as best I could with each set - uninterrupted Interstate travel set on cruise and then data collected (data set measurement stopped if I had to pull off for fuel etc). Same Interstate segments with similar altitude at the start and end of each segment. Same 93 Octane gas. Similar cargo (mainly just my wife and I give or take 30 lbs of luggage).

I was surprised to see the marked variation in mpg cold vs hot weather. Can't just be due to tire psi as those aren't that different even though the tire temps vary signficantly. Some suggested more O2 in the air allows for more fuel burn with higher power in the cold (reason why lower DA provides for faster times at the Strip). And it was suggested this is the reason high altitude travel gets better gas mileage given the decreased O2 available (see 'sor's numbers at 5,000 feet). Best mpg (and worst power) should therefore be expected at hot, high altitudes. Pilots understand this when trying to take off from high airfields in hot weather, as do folks towing heavy loads through mountain passes in the Summer.

So if one has this amount of variation at constant speed, same gas, same load, roughly same tire pressures - just with variation in atmospheric conditions, imagine the additional variables with inner city (bumper-to-bumper, stop-start) traffic, driving style, drive settings (Eff/D1 vs Sport/D2 vs Sport+/D3)... Huge variability. And obviously the speed of HWY travel makes a huge difference in the 56.9 mph vs 79 mph results (as would be expected).

But, FWIW, in town with Eff/D1 I get around 19 mpg, Sport+/D3 drops to around 15, HWY with cruise at 79 mph, around 20.5 mpg. Really tough to control one's driving style while in Sport+/D3 (and doubt many of us chose this performance class for the mpg numbers).

[AlexFL]

Originally Posted by aliu0

Thanks! How many miles have you done so far?
16.2 mpg would be around 14.5 L/100km, getting 10-11 L/100km in a long term avarege would be great. Absolutes Traumauto, wünsche dir auch weiterhin viel Spass!

Any other numbers?

With a bit more passive and reasonable driving, I could be averaging 18-19 mpg. Problem is that I drive too much in Sport+/D3 because it's so incredibly fun. Also consider that unlike Switzerland, the speed limits here in South Florida are only "softly enforced". This doesn't help the fuel economy either.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by JOHNBMWM5

On my test drive I did notice this, car wanted 7th gear till 65/70MPH !!!,

I'd never noticed what gear it's in and when so when I saw this I checked last night, on the flat just flowing with the traffic mine gets into 7th before 50mph.

[spta97]

Originally Posted by Max Well

Aside from the significant differences in 'Cd x A' of the F90 and F97 models (which will profoundly affect mpg at higher speed), a ton of variables go into the final mpg numbers we share when just discussing the F97 here in our Sub-Forum. Some time ago in the G01 threads I tried to analyze how tires and wheel weights might affect mpg. I soon realized that goal was impossible as atmospheric conditions have such a profound impact on fuel consumption there'd be no way to identify subtle effects from changes in tire and wheel weights.

I attempted to control the variables as best I could with each set - uninterrupted Interstate travel set on cruise and then data collected (data set measurement stopped if I had to pull off for fuel etc). Same Interstate segments with similar altitude at the start and end of each segment. Same 93 Octane gas. Similar cargo (mainly just my wife and I give or take 30 lbs of luggage).

I was surprised to see the marked variation in mpg cold vs hot weather. Can't just be due to tire psi as those aren't that different even though the tire temps vary signficantly. Some suggested more O2 in the air allows for more fuel burn with higher power in the cold (reason why lower DA provides for faster times at the Strip). And it was suggested this is the reason high altitude travel gets better gas mileage given the decreased O2 available (see 'sor's numbers at 5,000 feet). Best mpg (and worst power) should therefore be expected at hot, high altitudes. Pilots understand this when trying to take off from high airfields in hot weather, as do folks towing heavy loads through mountain passes in the Summer.

So if one has this amount of variation at constant speed, same gas, same load, roughly same tire pressures - just with variation in atmospheric conditions, imagine the additional variables with inner city (bumper-to-bumper, stop-start) traffic, driving style, drive settings (Eff/D1 vs Sport/D2 vs Sport+/D3)... Huge variability. And obviously the speed of HWY travel makes a huge difference in the 56.9 mph vs 79 mph results (as would be expected).

But, FWIW, in town with Eff/D1 I get around 19 mpg, Sport+/D3 drops to around 15, HWY with cruise at 79 mph, around 20.5 mpg. Really tough to control one's driving style while in Sport+/D3 (and doubt many of us chose this performance class for the mpg numbers).

All my in town driving (with the exception of 2-3 10 second sport runs) has been in D1 with the RPMs Max at 3k.

I’m not in bumper to bumper but rather light to light.

That said, my 11-12 MPG seems really low, no?

Edit - I have the comp. Not sure if that makes a difference.

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by Wills2

I'd never noticed what gear it's in and when so when I saw this I checked last night, on the flat just flowing with the traffic mine gets into 7th before 50mph.

Yes but you have 8 gears and 8th is high up the speeds.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by JOHNBMWM5

Yes but you have 8 gears and 8th is high up the speeds.

I know that, I think you meant "waited" until 65/70 mph? Which makes more sense.

[ghstm2]

Originally Posted by harperium

The X3 M40i on cruise around 70 mph gets about 30 mpg (at least for me).

The M and M40i are basically the same weight and aerodynamic shape (except the M doesn't have dynamic grill vents). So why is the X3 M less efficient?

Because you can't keep your foot off the pedal with that that much HP under the hood?

[ScottyRyan2019]

As for the M40i vs X3MC.... We had an M40i for almost two years and close to 30,000 miles. The M40i would get 27 to 29 MPG all day long at 60 MPH and around 18-19 MPG in town.

The X3MC is significantly less than that, around 20-21 MPG at 60 MPH and about 13-14 MPG in town (this is running BP 93 octane in Minnesota...I have experienced poorer gas mileage during the winter months here in Minnesota when running ethanol based gas).

[M5 TT]

Not my car but a mates. Steady run on Motorway between 70 and 80. Pretty good I thought.

[Zero71]

Originally Posted by Waterbelly

Unfortunately, that is not how physics works.

Moving the same mass at the same velocity in the same medium for the same amount of time uses the same amount of energy.

He is asking the right question, and I honestly don't have a great answer. The X3M uses a ton more gas to accomplish the same feat.

Sound? Heat? I dunno where the gas goes.

That doesn't make sense either. An X3 20d or 20i is going to be of similar weight and is going to be moving at the same speed for the same time with way lower fuel consumption than either of them. It'd be wonderful if a big powerful engine could rocket us to 60 in the blink of an eye, yet deliver massive mpg when cruising, but such a thing doesn't exist outside electric vehicles.

Ultimately Wills2 is right, more power = less fuel consumption. This guy gives a pretty good "why"...

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-car...he-same-weight

[M5 TT]

Low comprssion engine wont be helping MPG.
X3m is only 9.3:1. great for whacking up the boost
B58 11.0:1
M5 10.1:1