BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Thanks for the link.

Let me get this straight? Gas consumption is a flaw? Do you want 500 hp or 50?! I cannot understand how anyone criticizes gas consumption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
I agree with you Jerry.

Here is what Autocar said about the Gallardo, the only other production V10 5ltr engine out there(Porsche GT limited production).

So will people with £117,000 to spend care about how much it costs to fuel? Possibly not - but that's just as well, because a Gallardo won't return more than 16mpg. Our test average of 13.6mpg included some hard treatment, but the basic message is clear: 492bhp from 10 cylinders in a 1.5-tonne car equals dreadful fuel consumption. People will care about the car’s range though, and the 90-litre tank means it’s possible to put 300 miles between fills.

Quite a bit worse than the M5, but it seems they wouldn't mind the consumption if the M5 cost £117,000.

So surely the big issue with the consumption is the small tank and poor touring range. Not the fact that to produce 500+bhp requires a 20ish mpg best touring return.

Also they say about company car tax whilst talking about the consumption, IMO totally irrelevant as you pay a set amount for the fuel tax no matter how much you use. Not sure how the new system works fully but that’s my understanding from when I had company cars. So you can use as much fuel as you like and it costs me no more in tax than running any other 3ltr+ car. Please correct me if this is wrong under the new system.

Sacha...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
MEnthusiast said:
Thanks for the link.

Let me get this straight? Gas consumption is a flaw? Do you want 500 hp or 50?! I cannot understand how anyone criticizes gas consumption.
IMHO when you are buying any performance car the fuel consumption should be the last thing on your mind. I cannot get my M3 lower than 15.8 l/100km (city) It would be nice to get it lower ;) .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,412 Posts
Nice article, thank you for posting.

"Unlike its one-dimensional AMG and Audi counterparts it has such depth of character that you could drive one for months without fully experiencing all its qualities"

I think the comment about depth of character speaks highly of about what we all love about our M cars.

With regard to the fuel comments, I think they are totally irrelevant for this type of vehicle. When the fuel gauge start to get low, she gets filled and that is that.
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
While range can be an issue, it just means more time to stop and admire the lines- oh wait a minute- it might really be an issue on the E60! hiha

The bottom line is this: 15 years ago or so you would get a Lambo or Ferrari that made 250-300bhp and got 6-10 mpg on a good day. Now they complain that cars make roughly double the power, seat more people, are more useful and get double the gas mileage?! If you want to find things to complain about on the E60, they are there. But its not the fuel economy. :M5launch:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,886 Posts
ceaza said:
IMHO when you are buying any performance car the fuel consumption should be the last thing on your mind.
Absolutely agree. This really shouldn't be one of the criteria they use, unless the fuel consumption is just godawful. That's like evaluating it on cost to operate, or off-road performance. Gas mileage is just not a significant factor for someone who wants to spend over $100K on a high performance car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
881 Posts
Keep in mind the following: when the magazines test a car like the M5 they are using full throttle far more than any of us would on a day-to-day basis. In fact the fuel consumption figures that the magazines state are almost an average of what one would find when using the car in town and at the track. MY E39 M5 would routinely return about 6-8 mpg on track days. If you combine that with in town driving, one would state that the E39 M5 gets about 10-12 mpg. In fact in a combination of in town and highway mileage, my M5 returned about 16-18 mpg, (US), or about 18-20 mpg Imperial.
Hence do not confuse magazine recorded fuel consumption figures with what most of us will realize in the 'real' world.

HOWEVER, the E60 M5 is not an economy car, so who the hell cares? Even in Europe where taxes on petrol are insane an owner knows that the fuel costs will be 3 times higher than those of a 535d for the M5.
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Its probably about the same or worse. Our SL55 gets ~13mpg overall. There is some energy used to run the SC. This is one of the reasons MB will eventually go away from the SC.
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
I think the two companies have ever diverging takes. MB is going for displacement.

MB has a 2 tier approach:

1: V8 AMG cars: 6.3 NA V8 engine. Lots of power, lots of torque, lots of weight.

2: V12 AMG cars: 6.0 bi-turbo engine. 600+ bhp/ 730+ lb ft/ I think those numbers will go to ~700bhp/800+ lb ft when they have their new trannys out.

These cars are for those wanting a highway stormer.

BMW is making cars that are no doubt fast, but want other attributes too. Each approach has its merits. Overall, I prefer the BMW approach.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,780 Posts
MEnthusiast said:
Thanks for the link.

Let me get this straight? Gas consumption is a flaw? Do you want 500 hp or 50?! I cannot understand how anyone criticizes gas consumption.
Thats because you are an American Jerry :thumbsup:

If you had to pay more than 1 US dollar for 1 liter of fuel. ( I belive 1 US gallon is app 3,7 liter or so ) That means + 4 US dollars for 1 US gallon), youn also wold cinsider fuel economy a factor.

But you are right, a big engines wants his food.

If you use the power you will have to accept a huge consumtion, but I think that any modern engine should be able to run at 10/100 on normal trafic at +/- 100 kph.

Even our B7 will do that. On my honeymood thrue Europe I averaged on the Bi Turbo 12litr/100 km and less than 10 on normal roads.

Same with the B10 Bi Turbo.

the B12 on the other hand is a thursty devil. Any thing less than 13 liter is difficult.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
I think the real issue is range - on my long trips I get tired of passing the same cars over and over because I've had to fill up. I really would have liked a bigger fuel tank..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,780 Posts
Gus said:
I think the real issue is range - on my long trips I get tired of passing the same cars over and over because I've had to fill up. I really would have liked a bigger fuel tank..
Thats where the B7 is great. A range of up to 900 km ( 550 miles) is not to bad.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top