[wjones14]

Originally Posted by amw896

my commute is quite ideal but still.. I have 20km each way with minimal traffic and lights. The last 2 clicks is a quick highway onramp where I rip it the whole way so I'm excluding that. My daily commutes I'm averaging 7/100km daily (33.6mpg?) city!

There must be something wrong with my car. You're getting 33.6 city, and the other fellow was getting 32 plus. Mine's currently reading 19.0 in mostly suburban driving. It's off by almost 15 mpg!

Maybe I should print this thread out, bring mine to the dealer, and tell them to fix it.

[amw896]

Originally Posted by wjones14

There must be something wrong with my car. You're getting 33.6 city, and the other fellow was getting 32 plus. Mine's currently reading 19.0 in mostly suburban driving. It's off by almost 15 mpg!

Maybe I should print this thread out, bring mine to the dealer, and tell them to fix it.

you might have a lot more stop and go which would make a big difference. Like I said, mine is city but it's pretty ideal in terms of minimal traffic and stops. But to compare, I have a 2013 Mazda 3 mileage mule that is very comparable in terms of mpg on the same commute. Granted it doesn't have the skyactiv technology and is only 5spd instead of 6spd.

[wjones14]

I'll just throw this "real world" picture out there to show how ridiculous car forum mileage discussions get. It's an actual picture of my iDrive screen.

For fuel economy numbers that are fair to compare, go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

2016 Camaro 2SS 6.2L, 8 cyl, 6 speed manual

19 combined mpg, 16/25 city/highway

2016 M235i, 3.0L, 6 cyl turbo, 6 speed manual

22 combined mpg, 19/28 city/highway

So a difference of 3 mpg between the 6.2L naturally aspirated 455 horsepower Camaro and the 3.0L turbo 320 horsepower BMW.

[DF]

I'm in stop and go la traffic. I don't use Eco pro and shut off the stop start and I do 17.5

[mwickens]

Originally Posted by siwo

getting 9.7 km/100L which = 24.25 MPG.)

Actually I think that's 0.23 mpg. You should have that looked into!

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by wjones14

Why would anyone prefer a turbo over a naturally aspirated engine? Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't know, maybe ask Ferrari, Porsche, Mclaren, BMW, etc. why they do it?

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You love performance domestics like the GT350 or new gen SS and naturally aspirated motor characteristics like instant throttle response and linear power. I do too, but turbo technology these days is such that boost delivery is linear and consistent (assuming you don't jack with the tune) and quite tractable. This is isn't 1990s where turbo lag is immense and you're second guessing the turbo hit around the track. Yes, there is still a whiff a lag (especially in the 6MT), there's no getting around it, but is not an issue, IMO. I've driven lots of performance cars and the N55 in my M235 has the drivability of small displacement somewhat high revving V8, but with a bit more power in the low and midrange. BUT instead of getting terrible MPGs like so many V8s do around town, the N55 actually gets great MPGs for it's power (an honest to God underrated 350hp/380tq, not anything close to the "factory rating").

A few years back BMW had a high revving small displacement V8 in the M3. It was a stellar performance motor, but in order to extract the power, it required a ton of operating rpm. The motor was overly complex and not very reliable. It also suffered from a lack of power below 3000rpms and also got terrible mpgs.

I routinely see 22-23mpg in 70% city and 30% highway driving on a motor that has a mere 5,600 miles on it. These numbers will only improve over time. The numbers ARE NOT overestimated. These are hand calculated numbers which interestingly are within a tenth or two of the onboard computer. Also, I don't drive like a grandma either. I routinely run the car hard on a daily basis. Can NA V8s get good mpgs? Sure, ON THE HIGHWAY they can. Around town, they'll see about 15-20% lower mpgs than something like the N55. This is also why is many automakers are going turbo and to some extent, being forced to do so.

Lastly, I don't buy it for a second that if I drove an Camaro SS like I do my M235, it would come close to seeing the same numbers. I'm certain they'd be about 20% lower and even worse in the winter. Years ago I had a Camaro Z28 (LS1). It saw 28-29mpg in pure highway driving at 70mph. Around town? Try 15mpg. In the winter and with cold starts? True 12-13mpg. LOL With all that said, most of us didn't buy the M235 for mpgs. The fact that it gets decent MPGs for it's power to weight is icing on the cake.

The Camaro SS that you're so in love with is seeing terrible sales numbers. July 2016 sales data shows a drop of 42% between the July 2015 and July 2016 numbers. The SS' number dropped 26% from June 2016 to July 2016. The car is a performance bargain, but it has a styling problem. It's pretty terrible. It's over-styled, just like the C7. If they could dial the styling back from an 11 to an 8, they'd be selling FAR more cars. Styling is the biggest driver in sales of sporty cars. Most buyers aren't overly concerned about the SS' class leading performance. They care if it looks cool. In it's current form, the new SS (and C7) already look dated, IMO, and they're certainly not timeless designs like something the M235 definitely has.

[Kolyan2k]

So much MPG talk....when I bought M3 and asked BMW sales about MPG numbers, he was like REALLY DUDE? You are buying high performance M3, shouldn't care about MPG numbers. And he was right.....
No one cares about that because a high revving NA engine is a work of art that puts smiles on faces and makes all proper noises. The fact that it's higher maintenance and might not be as reliable is a different story and it's due to poor engineering.

[JohnnyCanuck]

With respect to mileage, note the difference between Imperial and US gallons (mentioned earlier in this thread). That said, I get absolute garbage mileage on my commute but it's not the car's fault. I have about a 13km commute but in the first 10km, I have 4 stop signs, 13 controlled intersections, and 6 or 7 more pedestrian controlled stop lights. Absolutely ridiculous.

If I drive very fuel conscious in Eco Pro mode without using the paddles, I can get about 22 to 24 mpg (US) ... however, bored as shit. If I actually drive the car, that drops massively and I get awful mileage but then I love the car. It works out to about a 60km difference between fills.

[DF]

Originally Posted by Kolyan2k

So much MPG talk....when I bought M3 and asked BMW sales about MPG numbers, he was like REALLY DUDE? You are buying high performance M3, shouldn't care about MPG numbers. And he was right.....
No one cares about that because a high revving NA engine is a work of art that puts smiles on faces and makes all proper noises. The fact that it's higher maintenance and might not be as reliable is a different story and it's due to poor engineering.

Not for nothing the exhaust note on the m4 is dreadful.

[wtfbrah]

How did this turn into a MPG discussion? I am honestly blown away that people would care about +/- 5MPG differences when buying a fifty thousand dollar sports car. If it's somewhere near 15-20, I'm good. I'll deal with 10 when I drive aggressively.

[wjones14]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

I don't know, maybe ask Ferrari, Porsche, Mclaren, BMW, etc. why they do it?

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You love performance domestics like the GT350 or new gen SS and naturally aspirated motor characteristics like instant throttle response and linear power. I do too, but turbo technology these days is such that boost delivery is linear and consistent (assuming you don't jack with the tune) and quite tractable. This is isn't 1990s where turbo lag is immense and you're second guessing the turbo hit around the track. Yes, there is still a whiff a lag (especially in the 6MT), there's no getting around it, but is not an issue, IMO. I've driven lots of performance cars and the N55 in my M235 has the drivability of small displacement somewhat high revving V8, but with a bit more power in the low and midrange. BUT instead of getting terrible MPGs like so many V8s do around town, the N55 actually gets great MPGs for it's power (an honest to God underrated 350hp/380tq, not anything close to the "factory rating").

A few years back BMW had a high revving small displacement V8 in the M3. It was a stellar performance motor, but in order to extract the power, it required a ton of operating rpm. The motor was overly complex and not very reliable. It also suffered from a lack of power below 3000rpms and also got terrible mpgs.

I routinely see 22-23mpg in 70% city and 30% highway driving on a motor that has a mere 5,600 miles on it. These numbers will only improve over time. The numbers ARE NOT overestimated. These are hand calculated numbers which interestingly are within a tenth or two of the onboard computer. Also, I don't drive like a grandma either. I routinely run the car hard on a daily basis. Can NA V8s get good mpgs? Sure, ON THE HIGHWAY they can. Around town, they'll see about 15-20% lower mpgs than something like the N55. This is also why is many automakers are going turbo and to some extent, being forced to do so.

Lastly, I don't buy it for a second that if I drove an Camaro SS like I do my M235, it would come close to seeing the same numbers. I'm certain they'd be about 20% lower and even worse in the winter. Years ago I had a Camaro Z28 (LS1). It saw 28-29mpg in pure highway driving at 70mph. Around town? Try 15mpg. In the winter and with cold starts? True 12-13mpg. LOL With all that said, most of us didn't buy the M235 for mpgs. The fact that it gets decent MPGs for it's power to weight is icing on the cake.

The Camaro SS that you're so in love with is seeing terrible sales numbers. July 2016 sales data shows a drop of 42% between the July 2015 and July 2016 numbers. The SS' number dropped 26% from June 2016 to July 2016. The car is a performance bargain, but it has a styling problem. It's pretty terrible. It's over-styled, just like the C7. If they could dial the styling back from an 11 to an 8, they'd be selling FAR more cars. Styling is the biggest driver in sales of sporty cars. Most buyers aren't overly concerned about the SS' class leading performance. They care if it looks cool. In it's current form, the new SS (and C7) already look dated, IMO, and they're certainly not timeless designs like something the M235 definitely has.

This is a great response to my recent negative posts. I would have to agree with almost all your points. You're not exaggerating fuel economy numbers like others to make your point. You don't need to.

Sales numbers mean nothing to me though. It's not like the 2 Series is a great selling car. What do they sell - 7,000 per year? Chevy sells 10 times as many Camaros, even during a slump.

I'd just like to say that I really, really like my M235i. I've never owned a car as well put together as this. I've never owned a car this comfortable. It really is a driver's car. I like the steering feel. The clutch (with an aftermarket clutch stop) is perfect. The brakes look cool, have great pedal feel, and I noticed no fade in two separate track day sessions. And yes, I have seen the occasional 22 combined mpg in 70/30 suburban/highway driving, which is very good considering the power output.

It's just my nature to always be dwelling on the next car - it took a lot longer for this to happen with my previous Mustang than it has taken with the BMW. I don't discount the possibility that if I test drove a 2SS, I might end up hating the size, lack of visibility, or relative cheapness. Realistically, I'm sticking with the M235i throughout the 4 year warranty period. Why not? It's a fun car, a pleasure to drive, and it's got a certain grace to it.

[siwo]

Originally Posted by mwickens

Actually I think that's 0.23 mpg. You should have that looked into!

Brainfart lol. 9.7L/100km haha.

[GotNotch]

Originally Posted by DF

I'm in stop and go la traffic. I don't use Eco pro and shut off the stop start and I do 17.5

Exactly what I get with the same driving conditions.

[wtfbrah]

I always thought starting the engine used a decent amount of gas, and that start-stop would be inefficient.

[Dylan86]

Originally Posted by wtfbrah

I always thought starting the engine used a decent amount of gas, and that start-stop would be inefficient.

That's old school diesel talk right there, and isn't even relevant in new diesel engines. It takes no more fuel to start the car as it does to idle for .5 seconds. Just more wear on the starter motor, if anything..

So if one were in stop/go traffic for extensive periods of time, it would become beneficial I would think.