BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BMW M5 F90 (2018+) General Forums F90 M5 General Forum    F90 M5: reduced fuel capacity/range for the sake of presenting a lower weight figure?

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-23-2017, 07:13 AM   #1
Artemis
Moderator
Artemis's Avatar
28922
Rep
13,048
Posts

Drives: BMW M2 Competition
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Belgium

iTrader: (0)

F90 M5: reduced fuel capacity/range for the sake of presenting a lower weight figure?

Fuel = weight. 1 liter of vehicle petrol = 0.73722 kg (example of petrol convertor: here).

Official curb weight measurement is based on the fuel tank filled to 90% of its capacity (at least in the EU). Hence, using a smaller fuel tank allows to show a lower weight figure in the official spec sheet.

Now let's quickly compare the BMW F10 M5 (2012) with the all-new F90 M5 (2018).

BMW F10 M5 (2012) (source: here):
  • official weight: 1870 kg (DIN) / 1945 kg (EU);
  • fuel tank capacity: approx. 80 liter (83 liter according to some);
  • fuel consumption: 14.0l/100km urban - 7.6l/100km extra urban - 9.9l/100km combined.
BMW F90 M5 (2018) (source: here and here]):
  • official weight: 1855 kg (DIN) / 1930 kg (EU);
  • fuel tank capacity: approx. 68 liter;
  • fuel consumption: 14.2l/100km urban - 8.2l/100km extra urban - 10.5l/100km combined.
A couple of conclusions:
  • the F90 M5 (2018) weighs 15 kilo less than the F10 M5 (2012), but also has approx. 12 to 15 liter less fuel capacity;
  • with equal fuel capacity, both cars would weigh almost the same, the F90 M5 (2018) being slightly lighter;
  • the F90 M5 (2018) consumes more fuel than the F10 M5 (2012); hence, even with equal fuel capacity the F90 M5 (2018) would be running on empty earlier;
  • reduced fuel tank capacity/fuel range = small sacrifice ? if a customer considers 'fuel range' to be a more relevant everyday practicality feature than xx kg weight saving, then the F10 M5 (2012) wins, as F90 M5 (2012) customers will be required to visit the gas station more frequently (alike E60 M5 customers);
  • no information whether the F90 M5 (2018) had physically no room for an F10 M5 (2012) sized fuel tank or whether such fuel tank would to some extent compromise boot space.
OK, every kilo counts and Porsche seems to pull the same weight saving trick, but offers at least a bigger fuel tank as a no-cost option:
  • Cayman GT4 fuel tank capacity: 55 liter stock - 64 liter as a no-cost option (no impact on boot capacity);
  • 997.2 RS fuel tank capacity: 67 liter stock - 90 liter no-cost option
Now check the sobering range figure of the BMW F90 M5 shown in the recent promo video (which can be seen here). The needle shows that the fuel tank has been topped up. To be fair, the selected screen shot shows the highest displayed range figure and lowest mileage of the video. Even if the car had been trashed along the circuit during the previous stint (influencing the displayed range figure), the car would definitely have a better range with 12 to 15 liter fuel extra on board = less visits to the gas station required.

By the way, do you know how you can quickly shave off a little bit of body weight with zero effort ? Go see your doctor and donate blood, but don't exaggerate.

Name:  F90_M5_FuelRange.jpg
Views: 5906
Size:  178.7 KB
__________________
///M is art Artemis
Appreciate 1
A_247.50
      08-23-2017, 08:44 AM   #2
somer
Major
948
Rep
1,045
Posts

Drives: F10 M5 CP
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: FL

iTrader: (0)

Yeah, 80-83 liters, depending on weather for the F10 M5.
Appreciate 0
      08-23-2017, 08:48 AM   #3
lemetier
Plenipotentiary
lemetier's Avatar
2614
Rep
3,046
Posts

Drives: Yes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Location

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Fuel = weight. 1 liter of vehicle petrol = 0.73722 kg (example of petrol convertor: here).

Official curb weight measurement is based on the fuel tank filled to 90% of its capacity (at least in the EU). Hence, using a smaller fuel tank allows to show a lower weight figure in the official spec sheet.

Now let's quickly compare the BMW F10 M5 (2012) with the all-new F90 M5 (2018).

BMW F10 M5 (2012) (source: here):
  • official weight: 1870 kg (DIN) / 1945 kg (EU);
  • fuel tank capacity: approx. 80 liter (83 liter according to some);
  • fuel consumption: 14.0l/100km urban - 7.6l/100km extra urban - 9.9l/100km combined.
BMW F90 M5 (2018) (source: here and here]):
  • official weight: 1855 kg (DIN) / 1930 kg (EU);
  • fuel tank capacity: approx. 68 liter;
  • fuel consumption: 14.2l/100km urban - 8.2l/100km extra urban - 10.5l/100km combined.
A couple of conclusions:
  • the F90 M5 (2018) weighs 15 kilo less than the F10 M5 (2012), but also has approx. 12 to 15 liter less fuel capacity;
  • with equal fuel capacity, both cars would weigh almost the same, the F90 M5 (2018) being slightly lighter;
  • the F90 M5 (2018) consumes more fuel than the F10 M5 (2012); hence, even with equal fuel capacity the F90 M5 (2018) would be running on empty earlier;
  • reduced fuel tank capacity/fuel range = small sacrifice ? if a customer considers 'fuel range' to be a more relevant everyday practicality feature than xx kg weight saving, then the F10 M5 (2012) wins, as F90 M5 (2012) customers will be required to visit the gas station more frequently (alike E60 M5 customers);
  • no information whether the F90 M5 (2018) had physically no room for an F10 M5 (2012) sized fuel tank or whether such fuel tank would to some extent compromise boot space.
OK, every kilo counts and Porsche seems to pull the same weight saving trick, but offers at least a bigger fuel tank as a no-cost option:
  • Cayman GT4 fuel tank capacity: 55 liter stock - 64 liter as a no-cost option (no impact on boot capacity);
  • 997.2 RS fuel tank capacity: 67 liter stock - 90 liter no-cost option
Now check the sobering range figure of the BMW F90 M5 shown in the recent promo video (which can be seen here). The needle shows that the fuel tank has been topped up. To be fair, the selected screen shot shows the highest displayed range figure and lowest mileage of the video. Even if the car had been trashed along the circuit during the previous stint (influencing the displayed range figure), the car would definitely have a better range with 12 to 15 liter fuel extra on board = less visits to the gas station required.

By the way, do you know how you can quickly shave off a little bit of body weight with zero effort ? Go see your doctor and donate blood, but don't exaggerate.

Attachment 1679385
Conspiracy theory.

The size of the tank is the same across the entire G30 line. The better fuel efficiency is greater than the minor reduction in total volume. The test cycle is new a new global standard and the F10 consumes more under the same test.

Even more importantly, the instrument cluster is unlocked for film cars so the fuel level indicated is not a valid figure.

Last edited by lemetier; 08-23-2017 at 09:14 AM..
Appreciate 0
      08-23-2017, 08:50 AM   #4
RPiM5
Major General
RPiM5's Avatar
2857
Rep
7,883
Posts

Drives: Mexico Blue F10 M5(Mika)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sunny San Diego

iTrader: (0)

Interesting.

Also, 68 Liters would be even smaller than the fuel tank that was on the E60 M5.
__________________


Appreciate 0
      08-23-2017, 09:20 AM   #5
somer
Major
948
Rep
1,045
Posts

Drives: F10 M5 CP
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: FL

iTrader: (0)

For the sake of fairness, after I posted about the fuel thing the other day, I saw the pics of the first edition interior with 354km range listed and it's not even at a full tank. But according to lemetier these ranges seem to not mean much. But still, ~3 gallons less fuel even if the car i marginally more efficient kinda sucks, but not a game changer. Something like the M2 with a 13 gallon tank is something to consider.

Appreciate 1
Artemis28922.00
      08-23-2017, 09:42 AM   #6
lemetier
Plenipotentiary
lemetier's Avatar
2614
Rep
3,046
Posts

Drives: Yes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Location

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by somer View Post
For the sake of fairness, after I posted about the fuel thing the other day, I saw the pics of the first edition interior with 354km range listed and it's not even at a full tank. But according to lemetier these ranges seem to not mean much. But still, ~3 gallons less fuel even if the car i marginally more efficient kinda sucks, but not a game changer. Something like the M2 with a 13 gallon tank is something to consider.
A car without Film Preparation had to be substituted in for the First Edition interior reel after a very minor incident

So that pic is actual level by coincidence including estimated range calculated from the previous hours of quite fast operation.
Appreciate 1
somer947.50
      08-23-2017, 09:55 AM   #7
Artemis
Moderator
Artemis's Avatar
28922
Rep
13,048
Posts

Drives: BMW M2 Competition
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Belgium

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemetier View Post
The size of the tank is the same across the entire G30 line.
The fuel tank capacity was also the same across the entire F10 line (2009) (523i / 528i / 535i / 550i / 520d / 525d / 530d): approx. 70 liter (see here).

One exception: BMW M fitted inside the F10 M5 (2012) a bigger fuel tank: approx. 80 liter (source: here) (even 83 liter according to some).

So it seems that BMW M did not walk this route for the F90 M5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemetier View Post
The better fuel efficiency is greater than the minor reduction in total volume reduction. The test cycle is new a new global standard and the F10 consumes more under the same test.
Even more importantly, the instrument cluster is unlocked for film cars so the fuel level indicated is not a valid figure.
Point taken that fuel consumption test results differ if different standards have been applied:
  • F10 M5 - 2012 standards: 14.0l/100km urban - 7.6l/100km extra urban - 9.9l/100km combined;
  • F90 M5 - 2017 standards: 14.2l/100km urban - 8.2l/100km extra urban - 10.5l/100km combined.
But are you suggesting that the fuel consumption of the F90 M5 is that much improved that you can clock more miles with it compared to the F10 M5, despite having approx. 12 to 15 liter less fuel on board (approx. 68 liter instead of approx. 80 to 83 liter), when driven in exactly the same circumstances ? In other words: has the F90 M5 a better fuel range than the F10 M5 ? If affirmative, then definitely kudos to BMW M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemetier View Post
Even more importantly, the instrument cluster is unlocked for film cars so the fuel level indicated is not a valid figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemetier View Post
A car without Film Preparation had to be substituted in for the First Edition interior reel after a very minor incident
So that pic is actual level by coincidence including estimated range calculated from the previous hours of quite fast operation.
Locked or unlocked, spirited driving or max eco-style driving: the point made was that the fuel range figure would be indisputably higher if the F90 M5 would have gotten a fuel tank with a similar size to the one of the F10 M5, instead of one with the fuel capacity found inside the G30, the F10 5er (non F10 M5) or the E60 M5.
__________________
///M is art Artemis
Appreciate 1
      08-23-2017, 11:17 AM   #8
Phatcat
Lieutenant Colonel
750
Rep
1,857
Posts

Drives: BMW M5, X5M
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Asia

iTrader: (0)

Regardless, even if same weight as F10 M5, it's still job well done considering it now has AWD.
Appreciate 0
      08-23-2017, 11:30 AM   #9
lemetier
Plenipotentiary
lemetier's Avatar
2614
Rep
3,046
Posts

Drives: Yes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Location

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
The fuel tank capacity was also the same across the entire F10 line (2009) (523i / 528i / 535i / 550i / 520d / 525d / 530d): approx. 70 liter.

One exception: BMW M fitted inside the F10 M5 (2012) a bigger fuel tank: approx. 80 liter

So it seems that BMW M did not walk this route for the F90 M5.

Point taken that fuel consumption test results differ if different standards have been applied:
  • F10 M5 - 2012 standards: 14.0l/100km urban - 7.6l/100km extra urban - 9.9l/100km combined;
  • F90 M5 - 2017 standards: 14.2l/100km urban - 8.2l/100km extra urban - 10.5l/100km combined.

But are you suggesting that the fuel consumption of the F90 M5 is that much improved that you can clock more miles with it compared to the F10 M5, despite having approx. 12 to 15 liter less fuel on board (approx. 68 liter instead of approx. 80 to 83 liter), when driven in exactly the same circumstances ? In other words: has the F90 M5 a better fuel range than the F10 M5 ? If affirmative, then definitely kudos to BMW M.

Locked or unlocked, spirited driving or max eco-style driving: the point made was that the fuel range figure would be indisputably higher if the F90 M5 would have gotten a fuel tank with a similar size to the one of the F10 M5, instead of one with the fuel capacity found inside the G30, the F10 5er (non F10 M5) or the E60 M5.
The F10M vehicles (all M5/6) used the Steel Fuel Tank from the F03 High Security Vehicles but without the Inerting System. This was possible due to the available space and specifically done to address the refueling frequency complaint made constantly by E60 M5 owners (myself included).

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm rebutting this lil gem:

"F90 M5: reduced fuel capacity/range for the sake of presenting a lower weight figure?"

If fuel economy is improved by 15%, then under the same condition, 15% less fuel is required to cover the same distance. 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 - 1 = 1. Very basic stuff.

The physical space available no longer exists for the F90 so it makes that theory very much a tinfoil hat piece.
Appreciate 0
      08-23-2017, 01:44 PM   #10
brad850csi
Colonel
1310
Rep
2,349
Posts

Drives: 16 F13 M6 Comp
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

iTrader: (0)

Is that reduction in available room for the fuel tank related to the same reasons the CFRP driveshaft on the M3/M4 is going away?

The wheelbase did increase though and the rear seats can't have moved too far so I would have thought there would still roughly the same amount of room.
Appreciate 0
      08-23-2017, 03:00 PM   #11
lemetier
Plenipotentiary
lemetier's Avatar
2614
Rep
3,046
Posts

Drives: Yes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Location

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by brad850csi View Post
Is that reduction in available room for the fuel tank related to the same reasons the CFRP driveshaft on the M3/M4 is going away?

The wheelbase did increase though and the rear seats can't have moved too far so I would have thought there would still roughly the same amount of room.
Those are unrelated space requirements. The F10 used a massive amount of shared components with the 7er/Ghost. The new cluster architecture changed the entire rear floor pan and the structure comprising it.

Only red was F10 specific:
Attached Images
 
Appreciate 0
      08-23-2017, 03:28 PM   #12
brad850csi
Colonel
1310
Rep
2,349
Posts

Drives: 16 F13 M6 Comp
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

iTrader: (0)

Ahh right. Was there really that much room to adjust the wheelbase 102mm between F10 and F01, and furthermore another 117mm for F12/F13 without adjusting the floorpan? I never realised that!

Do we have any figures on weight distribution yet for the F90, and is there any difference in the front crash structure between USA and ROW models?
Appreciate 0
      08-23-2017, 04:01 PM   #13
lemetier
Plenipotentiary
lemetier's Avatar
2614
Rep
3,046
Posts

Drives: Yes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Location

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by brad850csi View Post
Ahh right. Was there really that much room to adjust the wheelbase 102mm between F10 and F01, and furthermore another 117mm for F12/F13 without adjusting the floorpan? I never realised that!

Do we have any figures on weight distribution yet for the F90, and is there any difference in the front crash structure between USA and ROW models?
The rear luggage compartment floor pan is where the capacity increase was made possible.

Full WD is yet to be published. The additional crash structure is adopted by ECE as well.
Appreciate 0
      08-23-2017, 08:15 PM   #14
Artemis
Moderator
Artemis's Avatar
28922
Rep
13,048
Posts

Drives: BMW M2 Competition
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Belgium

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemetier View Post
The F10M vehicles (all M5/6) used the Steel Fuel Tank from the F03 High Security Vehicles but without the Inerting System. This was possible due to the available space and specifically done to address the refueling frequency complaint made constantly by E60 M5 owners (myself included).
Sounds familiar. My brother used to own an E60 M5 for many years. He kept an Excel file logging each refuel operation (from taking delivery till resale day). Could tell exactly how many liters the car had ever consumed and the mileage driven throughout the years. The figures reflected spirited drives, cruising, etc. Grand average over all years in aggregate was above 16l/100km, if I remember correctly. I heard him complaining about three things: rather low fuel range, some recurrent engine gremlin at the end and low resale value ('lost' more than 80% on resale day, despite pristine condition and full-option). So I can understand that BMW M fitted a bigger fuel tank inside the successor, the F10 M5.

Hence my interest to try to understand a bit more about the F90 M5 fuel range and the possible reasons for the fuel capacity reduction back to E60 M5 level.
__________________
///M is art Artemis
Appreciate 0
      08-24-2017, 11:51 AM   #15
kyrix1st
Colonel
kyrix1st's Avatar
2351
Rep
2,359
Posts

Drives: G87 M2; E92M3 MT&DCT; M3 euro
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: nyc

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2004 BMW Z4  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by brad850csi View Post
Is that reduction in available room for the fuel tank related to the same reasons the CFRP driveshaft on the M3/M4 is
Who the hell made this dumbass decision to drop CFRP driveshaft? If it is emission issue, why is it staying on CS models?
__________________
Pass me if you can.
Appreciate 0
      08-24-2017, 01:35 PM   #16
Wills2
Barge driver
Wills2's Avatar
Ukraine
8618
Rep
12,401
Posts

Drives: 730d
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Not good, one thing I liked about my old F10 M5 was the decent 80ltr capacity, these things need a good range it's what they are about, long distance blasters (I did 30,000 miles in 12 months in mine) couldn't live with a 68ltr tank same as the RS6 and that drives my mate wild he really wanted a bigger tank.
__________________
730d/Z4C
Appreciate 0
      08-24-2017, 02:07 PM   #17
lemetier
Plenipotentiary
lemetier's Avatar
2614
Rep
3,046
Posts

Drives: Yes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Location

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyrix1st View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by brad850csi View Post
Is that reduction in available room for the fuel tank related to the same reasons the CFRP driveshaft on the M3/M4 is
Who the hell made this dumbass decision to drop CFRP driveshaft? If it is emission issue, why is it staying on CS models?
What material do you suggest? CFRP is not an option.

M4 CS is not receiving the GPF Emissions System due to limited production volume under the WLTP Transition Agreement- End Of Series Exemption Waiver.

Last edited by lemetier; 08-24-2017 at 10:22 PM..
Appreciate 0
      08-24-2017, 08:28 PM   #18
usmabmass
Second Lieutenant
232
Rep
251
Posts

Drives: 08 550i, 23 i4 M50, 24 iX M60
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

oh my gosh, i'm going to have to stop at the gas station marginally more often and people will have to stare at my supersedan more often, i should just kill myself now

I have never once heard someone complain about "i want 3 more gallons in my gas tank" about any car ever... is this what we've been reduced to in order to continue complaining about the F90?
Appreciate 0
      08-24-2017, 10:57 PM   #19
lemetier
Plenipotentiary
lemetier's Avatar
2614
Rep
3,046
Posts

Drives: Yes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Location

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Sounds familiar. My brother used to own an E60 M5 for many years. He kept an Excel file logging each refuel operation (from taking delivery till resale day). Could tell exactly how many liters the car had ever consumed and the mileage driven throughout the years. The figures reflected spirited drives, cruising, etc. Grand average over all years in aggregate was above 16l/100km, if I remember correctly. I heard him complaining about three things: rather low fuel range, some recurrent engine gremlin at the end and low resale value ('lost' more than 80% on resale day, despite pristine condition and full-option). So I can understand that BMW M fitted a bigger fuel tank inside the successor, the F10 M5.

Hence my interest to try to understand a bit more about the F90 M5 fuel range and the possible reasons for the fuel capacity reduction back to E60 M5 level.
Calling that gibberish above interest is far-fetched at best. You titled the thread title saliciously and presented wild conspiracy theories as evidence to support the conclusions you had already made.

Reality is:

Porsche offers a larger tank on RWD vehicles that use the front structure of AWD models because there is no drivetrain occupying the space. (GT3 uses C4/Turbo forward frame for example).

The E60 was atrocious (the day I turned mine in after 24mos 13k miles, it had averaged 26.3l/100km) so there definitely was a justification and the ability to INCREASE the tankage volume above that of the standard series model the F10 was based on.

For the F90, the volume remains UNCHANGED from the G30.

Under the new consumption tests the F10 would be:

Urban: 16.8l/100km
Extra Urban: 9.2l/100km
Combined: 11.9l/100km

Now I have some questions for you.

Under the same conditions, what are the Real World theoretical maximum ranges for the F10 and F90 in each category?

What scandalous interrogatories can be created now that it's swapped in the opposite direction?
Appreciate 0
      08-24-2017, 11:34 PM   #20
eclipxe
Private First Class
171
Rep
160
Posts

Drives: 2018 M5
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Irvine CA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemetier View Post
Calling that gibberish above interest is far-fetched at best. You titled the thread title saliciously and presented wild conspiracy theories as evidence to support the conclusions you had already made.

Reality is:

Porsche offers a larger tank on RWD vehicles that use the front structure of AWD models because there is no drivetrain occupying the space. (GT3 uses C4/Turbo forward frame for example).

The E60 was atrocious (the day I turned mine in after 24mos 13k miles, it had averaged 26.3l/100km) so there definitely was a justification and the ability to INCREASE the tankage volume above that of the standard series model the F10 was based on.

For the F90, the volume remains UNCHANGED from the G30.

Under the new consumption tests the F10 would be:

Urban: 16.8l/100km
Extra Urban: 9.2l/100km
Combined: 11.9l/100km

Now I have some questions for you.

Under the same conditions, what are the Real World theoretical maximum ranges for the F10 and F90 in each category?

What scandalous interrogatories can be created now that it's swapped in the opposite direction?
Appreciate 0
      08-25-2017, 01:10 AM   #21
Jez_zza
Lieutenant
Jez_zza's Avatar
Spain
439
Rep
560
Posts

Drives: M5 F90
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Barcelona

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemetier View Post

Under the new consumption tests the F10 would be:

Urban: 16.8l/100km
Extra Urban: 9.2l/100km
Combined: 11.9l/100km
Glad to hear that consumption improved over the F10 but how did you get the above figures ? I was also not aware about these new consumption test, since when these tests are in place ? I looked briefly on-line and could not see any infos.
Would you know if these new tests were applied for the F8X ? I can't get near the consumption advertised by BMW for my F80 and I'd like to know if the consumption advertised for the F90 will be more accurate. I'm not really pointing the finger at BMW as all manufacturers advertise fairly low consumption level but it would be good to have realistic figure this time around.

A little bit off topic, but would you know why BMW are not adopting the cylinder deactivation technologies to reduce consumption level ? Thanks !
Appreciate 0
      08-25-2017, 03:51 AM   #22
lemetier
Plenipotentiary
lemetier's Avatar
2614
Rep
3,046
Posts

Drives: Yes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Location

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jez_zza View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemetier View Post

Under the new consumption tests the F10 would be:

Urban: 16.8l/100km
Extra Urban: 9.2l/100km
Combined: 11.9l/100km
Glad to hear that consumption improved over the F10 but how did you get the above figures ? I was also not aware about these new consumption test, since when these tests are in place ? I looked briefly on-line and could not see any infos.
Would you know if these new tests were applied for the F8X ? I can't get near the consumption advertised by BMW for my F80 and I'd like to know if the consumption advertised for the F90 will be more accurate. I'm not really pointing the finger at BMW as all manufacturers advertise fairly low consumption level but it would be good to have realistic figure this time around.

A little bit off topic, but would you know why BMW are not adopting the cylinder deactivation technologies to reduce consumption level ? Thanks !
WLTP (Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicle Test Procedure) adds 20% straight away to vehicles Type Certified under NEDC (New European Driving Cycle).

The F8x is actually a significant topic of discussion at the moment as the CFRP driveshaft is being gradually replaced by a steel unit starting with November Production. EU6c/d (issued July 2017) goes into effect next week. It has some significant changes and for the next 12 Months is under a Transition Agreement. One item stipulated is that effective Sept 2018, all new vehicles (any car delivered as new) within the EU or by an EU Manufacturer must be WLTP Certified. So if an F8x (excluding M4 CS - End of Cycle Limited Volume Exemption) is manufactured after Friday and is not sold before Sept 2018, a Gasoline Particulate Filter must be installed before it can be delivered.

BMW does not use cylinder deactivation because Valvetronic accomplishes the same basic principle via a simpler solution during 80% of driving; Cylinder Deactivation is less than 30%, during that smaller percentage, cylinder deactivation is even less effective on Exhaust Gas Turbocharged engines, and for the F90 in particular, the Cross-Bank Exhaust Manifolds on the S63 make it impossible.

Last edited by lemetier; 08-25-2017 at 04:27 AM..
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 AM.




m5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST