BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Does anybody know how the gass guzzler figure is derived? I know it is based on MPG but are the E55 and M5 that different? It just seems a bit odd that the M5's guzzler tax is 44% higher than the E55.
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,823 Posts
The gas guzzler tax is determined by fuel economy. Here is the official explanation:


The Energy Tax Act of 1978 established a Gas Guzzler Tax on the sale of new model year vehicles whose fuel economy fails to meet certain statutory levels. The gas guzzler tax applies only to cars (not trucks) and is collected by the IRS. The fuel economy figures used to determine the Gas Guzzler Tax are different from the fuel economy values provided on this web site and the Fuel Economy Guide. The tax does not depend on your actual on-the-road mpg, which may be more or less than the EPA published value. The purpose of the Gas Guzzler Tax is to discourage the production and purchase of fuel inefficient vehicles. The amount of any applicable Gas Guzzler Tax paid by the manufacturer will be disclosed on the automobile's fuel economy label (the window sticker on new cars).

GAS GUZZLER TAX
Unadjusted MPG(combined)* Tax
at least 22.5 No tax
at least 21.5, but less than 22.5 $1000
at least 20.5, but less than 21.5 $1300
at least 19.5, but less than 20.5 $1700
at least 18.5, but less than 19.5 $2100
at least 17.5, but less than 18.5 $2600
at least 16.5, but less than 17.5 $3000
at least 15.5, but less than 16.5 $3700
at least 14.5, but less than 15.5 $4500
at least 13.5, but less than 14.5 $5400
at least 12.5, but less than 13.5 $6400
less than 12.5 $7700

* The combined fuel economy MPG value (55 % city, 45 % highway) is used to determine tax liability. The MPG value is also adjusted slightly to account for differences in test procedures made since the base year. The MPG value is not adjusted for in-use short fall. The unadjusted combined MPG of a vehicle can be approximated from the city and highway values provided in the Fuel Economy Guide and on this website by the following equation:

(1/(.495/city MPG + .351/highway MPG))+.15


Since this is an approximate calculation, the actual gas guzzler tax may be off by one tax bracket.


Here is the link: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#guzzler
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
Gustav said:
That totally makes no sense to me.
Didn't say it had to... but the fact is.. that is exactly what happened with the Corvettes, Camaros, and Firebirds.

I think it is along the lines of thought that with a manual, the average driver is not going to shift at the most fuel effecient times, causing high fuel consumption. Because fact is, their fuel ratings were very very close. GM got around it with the stupid skip shift grap, which just about everyone immediately disabled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
vndkshn said:
Didn't say it had to... but the fact is.. that is exactly what happened with the Corvettes, Camaros, and Firebirds.

I think it is along the lines of thought that with a manual, the average driver is not going to shift at the most fuel effecient times, causing high fuel consumption. Because fact is, their fuel ratings were very very close. GM got around it with the stupid skip shift grap, which just about everyone immediately disabled.
Everyone who buys a Corvette thanks GM with a knowing " wink , wink " , since the 1st to 4th " skip shift" that activates at speeds below 20 mph with light throttle can be disabled in 15 seconds with the $15 aftermarket resister kit that plugs into the solenoid , saving the buyer thousands of $$ in gas guzzler tax. OTOH, the base C5/C6 Corvettes get 27-30 mpg at freeway speed because the motor is so big and torquey it's running at 1200 rpm in 6th gear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
vndkshn said:
Didn't say it had to... but the fact is.. that is exactly what happened with the Corvettes, Camaros, and Firebirds.

I think it is along the lines of thought that with a manual, the average driver is not going to shift at the most fuel effecient times, causing high fuel consumption. Because fact is, their fuel ratings were very very close. GM got around it with the stupid skip shift grap, which just about everyone immediately disabled.
You are correct
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
bm5kw said:
OTOH, the base C5/C6 Corvettes get 27-30 mpg at freeway speed because the motor is so big and torquey it's running at 1200 rpm in 6th gear.
Valid point. I have a SC'd Camaro that puts out over 550hp and STILL gets 26-27 on the highway. I can't even remember the last time I broke 20 in the M5, if I ever have.

And the $15 resistor was the first purchase I made for both of my LS1 cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
if all the above data is correct, the implication of a $3000 guzzler tax on the m5 vs. a $1700 tax on the e55 is that the m5's combined epa mileage rating is 3 mpg lower than the e55--17 vs 20 combined from the chart.

if so, sorry to rain on the parade but imo that's a pretty lousy showing by bmw on fuel efficiency. i know these aren't economy cars but that's really bad mpg....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
Are you serious - it is a 507 V10!

If the car was 490 HP and got 3 more miles to the gallon - you would be complaining. Who cares...as long as it is fast.:M5thumbs: :M5launch:
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,823 Posts
cohenfive said:
if all the above data is correct, the implication of a $3000 guzzler tax on the m5 vs. a $1700 tax on the e55 is that the m5's combined epa mileage rating is 3 mpg lower than the e55--17 vs 20 combined from the chart.

if so, sorry to rain on the parade but imo that's a pretty lousy showing by bmw on fuel efficiency. i know these aren't economy cars but that's really bad mpg....
Given that I get no more than 22-23 mpg in not-too-spirited city driving in my 240-hp M3, and no better than 13 mpg in our 325-hp SUV, the M5's mileage seems reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
Re: Are you serious - it is a 507 V10!

stominovich said:
If the car was 490 HP and got 3 more miles to the gallon - you would be complaining. Who cares...as long as it is fast.:M5thumbs: :M5launch:
first of all i do care--all other things being equal. my point was a relative one...that the e55 (and i think other cars in this class) get much better mileage than the m5. i know it's not going to be a show stopper for anybody but it's a shame bmw couldn't engineer more efficiency as well as performance.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top