X5d vs. M3

Originally Posted by EdCT

Forget about the 500 mile plus range, M3's suck gas like nobody's business - you may not get even 300 miles on a tank.

Two different cars naturally, I'd say of you have an eye for track events then the M3 will give you something back, otherwise, it's overkill as a daily driver and even more so as a two-day-a-week cruiser - you'd be better off with 335i or even a 328 with a sport package and a manual transmission.

My 2 cents....

I had trouble getting 200 mile range

hi ed

Have both an '11 X5d and an '11 E90 M3. Totally different but both are "best of breed" in my opinion. Don't plan to get rid of either one any time soon.

When I purchased my M3, I also contemplated adding a X5d at the same time.

I had low expectations when I first test drove the X5d - WOW - was I mistaken - torque can be fun! Moreover, I especially liked the weighted very tactile steering of the X5d.

In the end, I chose to retain my present SUV, but the X5d and my M3 would have been a very complimentary entertaining pair IMO.

Originally Posted by Jeff_DML

I had trouble getting 200 mile range

hi ed

Hey Jeff

Originally Posted by Jeff_DML

I had trouble getting 200 mile range

This is the ONE and only downfall I have issue with. I knew going in that fuel economy would be bad... but was optimistic to get 20 mpg, mostly because I drive a lot of highway. But having to refill the tank every 250 miles or so is a little much. This is the first car I've truly embraced, and it inspires a huge amount of confidence.. but I haven't adapted to the poor gas mileage as well as I thought I might have..

At a steady 75-80mph with the top up and the A/C off (i.e., driving in the fall & winter), my gauge is showing around 21.5 to 22 mpg. With the top down and the A/C on, it's under 20. This revives a thread I started here a long time ago, which is wonderment at how the Boss Mustang with 444hp is rated at 26mpg on the highway (as is the GT convertible) with a non-turbo motor. It's a shame that BMW is going to have to move to turbos to raise the mpg. Of course, what Porsche does with gas mileage (relative to performance) is even more astounding, but that's a much higher price point.

When I purchased my M3, I anticipated horrific MPG just came as standard equipment.
I have been very pleasantly surprised by the routine 20 - 22 MPG my M3 achieves on my DC Metro 20 mile commute.
Indeed, my M3's numbers are similar to the numbers posted by my former 335i E93 6MT - a very nice unexpected gift.

Coming from an E60 M5 (10 mpg in the city) the MPG I'm getting in my DCT E92 M3 is way better at 16.5 in the city.

Most of my runs are short runs. I'm just looking for a reason to take her out on the open road for a long drive or a trip involving driving to and from

No one buys an M for the fuel economy that's for sure!

Originally Posted by Capobranco

When I purchased my M3, I anticipated horrific MPG just came as standard equipment.
I have been very pleasantly surprised by the routine 20 - 22 MPG my M3 achieves on my DC Metro 20 mile commute.
Indeed, my M3's numbers are similar to the numbers posted by my former 335i E93 6MT - a very nice unexpected gift.

I've found the only way to get 20-22 mpg is to keep it extremely mellow.. which makes for a boring drive and the car just begging to actually be driven. Anytime I get on the highway or have some spirited segment I can visibly see the needle moving. I could get 26-27 mpg with my old 335i, but driving that was was extremely boring (even though I did it often as I drove long jaunts of highway).

Originally Posted by logicalthought

At a steady 75-80mph with the top up and the A/C off (i.e., driving in the fall & winter), my gauge is showing around 21.5 to 22 mpg. With the top down and the A/C on, it's under 20. This revives a thread I started here a long time ago, which is wonderment at how the Boss Mustang with 444hp is rated at 26mpg on the highway (as is the GT convertible) with a non-turbo motor. It's a shame that BMW is going to have to move to turbos to raise the mpg. Of course, what Porsche does with gas mileage (relative to performance) is even more astounding, but that's a much higher price point.

This makes me curious.. I've seen many other cars with better economy as well... and it is definitely not the reason I bought the car.. but even with very limited runs of spirited driving, hardly ever getting above 6K rpms, I'm lucky to get 250-270 on a tank.

Originally Posted by ksoze

Based on that additional info, I say M3 all the way. I have also owned many BMW's, several which were M cars, and this M3 is the best yet. If you have an option for times when the M3 is not as good a choice (snow, trunk, passengers, etc.) then even more reason to get one as a couple of times a week driver.

M E90 M3 was awesome in the snow with a set of 18" blizzacks. I think the limited slip really helped it plow along. Turning off the DTC is the snow is a blast.

I just traded in my X5 35d for a 2011 M3 sedan. Love the torque on both but love the torque even more on the M3. There is something about the sound (burble?) of the V8 when you start it up and then stepping on the gas as i leave the house.

This is the first tank of gas in the car and there has been plenty of idling as I struggle with the Google Maps feature. I am at 225 km and have used about half a tank of gas. There have been no issues with traction as i have a set of winter tires, however, it has been very mild with temperatures no colder than -5 degrees Celsius. I am amazed at the size/space of the trunk as I can haul my kids skis and snowboard.

M3 works for me too and I have winter wheels & tires too.

Originally Posted by enigma

The E46 M3 and E85/86 M guys thought their cars were the end of an era (i.e. I6) and that the V8 won't offer the same experience. I remember myself taking some time to embrace the e9x M3. Also, I can't imagine BMW ditch MT in M cars (e.g. 1M was available with MT only and the F10 M5 will be available with MT as well).

I am still skeptical, but the 1M hasn't turned out to be terrible at all, and all the early reports indicate that the F10 M5 is also very good. Time will tell, and I'll reserve my opinion until I get a long test drive and get to see it in flesh.

For me, the "good" issue was never in doubt. It's that UNIQUE experience of the high revving NA V8 that's gone. Now, one of the most special characteristics of an M - the engine - is simply a commodity. I'm confident the VAST majority of folks could not even detect the difference, or that there's any driving experience difference between the CTS-V engine, and the new M5 V8. If we pulled the M5 V8 and stuffed in the Caddy's LSA, nothing appreciable would change.

Make a list of cars with >= 4.0L engines with > 8000RPM redline. It's a list of fairly cool, interesting and definitely fast cars.

I wouldn't doubt at all that in all practical ways, the super/turbo charged BMW powered M cars will exceed the performance of their preceding NA cars. But they'll do it without a "special" engine - or in the case of the 1M - without an "M" engine at all.

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

For me, the "good" issue was never in doubt. It's that UNIQUE experience of the high revving NA V8 that's gone. Now, one of the most special characteristics of an M - the engine - is simply a commodity. I'm confident the VAST majority of folks could not even detect the difference, or that there's any driving experience difference between the CTS-V engine, and the new M5 V8. If we pulled the M5 V8 and stuffed in the Caddy's LSA, nothing appreciable would change.

Make a list of cars with >= 4.0L engines with > 8000RPM redline. It's a list of fairly cool, interesting and definitely fast cars.

I wouldn't doubt at all that in all practical ways, the super/turbo charged BMW powered M cars will exceed the performance of their preceding NA cars. But they'll do it without a "special" engine - or in the case of the 1M - without an "M" engine at all.

+1

This is a special moment in time and I feel very fortunate to have the opportunity of driving an E92 M3. I am certain M will create a great new F30 M that will post impressive numbers, but the driving experience will most likely be different. Better or worse - will be up to individual preferences and priorities. I am reminded of recent Porsche history. Porsche objectively enhanced performance of the 911 with the introduction of the 996, but I and many believe the visceral pure driving excitement of the 930 and 993 was lacking in the new series. I savor the E92M3 driving experience - aesthetically and dynamically - I feel at one with the machine. Objective numbers will only be part of my equation when I evaluate the F30 M3 in the wild.