08-23-2017, 07:13 AM | #1 |
Moderator
28922
Rep 13,048
Posts |
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):
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.
__________________
///M is art ↔ Artemis
|
08-23-2017, 08:48 AM | #3 | |
Plenipotentiary
2614
Rep 3,046
Posts |
Quote:
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, 09:20 AM | #5 |
Major
948
Rep 1,045
Posts |
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 | |
Plenipotentiary
2614
Rep 3,046
Posts |
Quote:
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 | ||
Moderator
28922
Rep 13,048
Posts |
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:
Quote:
__________________
///M is art ↔ Artemis
|
||
Appreciate
1
Anders R52.50 |
08-23-2017, 11:30 AM | #9 | |
Plenipotentiary
2614
Rep 3,046
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
Colonel
1310
Rep 2,349
Posts |
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 | |
Plenipotentiary
2614
Rep 3,046
Posts |
Quote:
Only red was F10 specific: |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-23-2017, 03:28 PM | #12 |
Colonel
1310
Rep 2,349
Posts |
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 | |
Plenipotentiary
2614
Rep 3,046
Posts |
Quote:
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 | |
Moderator
28922
Rep 13,048
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
Colonel
2351
Rep 2,359
Posts
Drives: G87 M2; E92M3 MT&DCT; M3 euro
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: nyc
|
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 |
Barge driver
8618
Rep 12,401
Posts |
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 | |
Plenipotentiary
2614
Rep 3,046
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
Second Lieutenant
232
Rep 251
Posts |
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 | |
Plenipotentiary
2614
Rep 3,046
Posts |
Quote:
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 | |
Private First Class
171
Rep 160
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-25-2017, 01:10 AM | #21 | |
Lieutenant
439
Rep 560
Posts |
Quote:
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 | ||
Plenipotentiary
2614
Rep 3,046
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
|
|