[DSTR]

Originally Posted by RockCrusher

The M2 fuel economy numbers are published. Fuel tank capacity is also published.

If range is important criteria for a prospective buyer he can work the numbers and come up an reasonable estimate regarding fuel tank range and decide before he buys the car if that is going to be acceptable.

That you are after the purchase complaining about range suggests you didn't look all that hard at fuel mileage/range.

All you can do going forward is when range is important adapt a driving style that is conducive to better gas mileage and thus increased range.

They spent too much time arguing on weight and the TH goat - rope on the manual turbo lag experiment lol

I saw the fuel economy numbers and capacity. I felt informed so I know EXACTLY what this machine will do. I agree complaints are hilarious when nothing was hidden prior to purchase. My Mclaren and Lambo owning friends never discuss this aspect of ownership. They fuel when needed and enjoy.

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by RockCrusher

The M2 fuel economy numbers are published. Fuel tank capacity is also published.

If range is important criteria for a prospective buyer he can work the numbers and come up an reasonable estimate regarding fuel tank range and decide before he buys the car if that is going to be acceptable.

That you are after the purchase complaining about range suggests you didn't look all that hard at fuel mileage/range.

All you can do going forward is when range is important adapt a driving style that is conducive to better gas mileage and thus increased range.

I do not own one. Yet. You must work for BMW. Always listening to your customers lol.

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by M2siast

This message sounds a bit condescending and is probably the first I’m seeing from an M2 owner… did I misinterpret it? Are we not allowed to have gripes? There are things we knew (like the lack of colours, ride height, bad range, non-working wireless charger, etc.) that keep being gripes we have with the car. We still love it, and of course we adapt to them. Still wish the range was higher.

And I think my fuel consumption question is answered by a bit more power and weight than the 135i I compare to (135i was 3400lbs and had 400hp, the M2 is 4000lbs and has 500hp). Realistically consumption is just a tad higher, not much more, I have to drive it more to fully compare, and also look at the consumption properly. I’ve only been paying attention to the range, which is the actual gripe come to think of it, since tanks are the same size, I don’t remember needing gas after 300km in the 135i lol it was at least 400km. But anyway, nothing scientific about My comparisons.

It is curious however, that my similarly weighing and powered 911 Targa 4S can achieve 29 MPG on the highway. I realize more goes into it than weight and power, but these are both six cylinder twin turbo motors.....transmission gearing can't be that wildly different. Even the Porsche has an 8 speed PDK or 7 speed manual.

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by DSTR

They spent too much time arguing on weight and the TH goat - rope on the manual turbo lag experiment lol

I saw the fuel economy numbers and capacity. I felt informed so I know EXACTLY what this machine will do. I agree complaints are hilarious when nothing was hidden prior to purchase. My Mclaren and Lambo owning friends never discuss this aspect of ownership. They fuel when needed and enjoy.

I am stilling planning to buy the car, but nothing is perfect. The only two things, well maybe three, would be larger fuel tank, ventilated seats and more paint options. That's a pretty short list. You have to admit 200-250 miles is almost EV like.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by c1pher

It is curious however, that my similarly weighing and powered 911 Targa 4S can achieve 29 MPG on the highway. I realize more goes into it than weight and power, but these are both six cylinder twin turbo motors.....transmission gearing can't be that wildly different. Even the Porsche has an 8 speed PDK or 7 speed manual.

The M2 is probably capable of achieving the same fuel consumption as a 911 Targa 4S if driven at a steady highway speed. In Canada the official quoted highway fuel economy ratings are 9.8 l/100km (24 US MPG) for the 2021 Targa 4S, 10.0 l/100km (23.5 US MPG) for the 2023 M2. The Targa 4S has a lower frontal area than the M2, so will have slightly less overall drag if the drag coefficients are similar, the major factor affecting highway fuel economy.

[JustinHEMI]

Originally Posted by c1pher

I am stilling planning to buy the car, but nothing is perfect. The only two things, well maybe three, would be larger fuel tank, ventilated seats and more paint options. That's a pretty short list. You have to admit 200-250 miles is almost EV like.

200-250? LoL I'm well under 200.

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by JustinHEMI

200-250? LoL I'm well under 200.

Congrats, you just bought a very fast Nissan Leaf.

[JustinHEMI]

Originally Posted by c1pher

Congrats, you just bought a very fast Nissan Leaf.

I look at is as a feature that forces me to take frequent breaks.

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by DSTR

They spent too much time arguing on weight and the TH goat - rope on the manual turbo lag experiment lol

I saw the fuel economy numbers and capacity. I felt informed so I know EXACTLY what this machine will do. I agree complaints are hilarious when nothing was hidden prior to purchase. My Mclaren and Lambo owning friends never discuss this aspect of ownership. They fuel when needed and enjoy.

My rich friends. Seriously

[soflacarguy]

The numbers seem right imo. The G87 is rated to get more mpg than the G80/82. The tank is 2 gallons smaller in capacity, so range is a bit less. Not too shabby.

That being said, the S58 is thirsty beast. Make sure to feed her high quality fuel. I definitely get improved range in my cars when pumping at Costco vs Wawa for example.

[sacowich]

My average is 16.5 mpg since factory. Likely significantly lower since break-in. I don’t baby it. Range is bad but my commute is short, which makes fueling manageable.
This could be a factor for someone who dailys a longer commute.

[eddj]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Why do you think the fuel consumption is so high in the M2?

It used to be the case I’d fill up the 135i and get 600km estimated range.
Never got 400 in the M2… that’s a considerable difference that I can’t pinpoint why.

pretty normal for an additional turbo and higher psi.

the xdrive m240i with ~50 whp less, averages about 6.9l /100km (34mpg) on highway, 11.5 l/100km (20.5 mpg) city and 9 l/100km (26 mpg) mixed.
this is for a total of 22 000 kms (13670 miles) driven until now.
and a fill-up at costcos -> usually a 550-600+ km (341- 373+ miles) range.

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by c1pher

Congrats, you just bought a very fast Nissan Leaf.

Which charges back up to 100% in 3 minutes.

[KC87ZB]

I agree with most on here. The fuel mileage is what it is, completely eyes wide open on that. Range is the same, but still reasonable at 4 hours of highway driving between stops. Look at the upside, a small tank takes less time to fill.

I think the fuel mileage is spot on for the weight and horsepower of the car.

That doesn't mean I won't gripe about it

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by KC87ZB

I agree with most on here. The fuel mileage is what it is, completely eyes wide open on that. Range is the same, but still reasonable at 4 hours of highway driving between stops. Look at the upside, a small tank takes less time to fill.

I think the fuel mileage is spot on for the weight and horsepower of the car.

That doesn't mean I won't gripe about it

Good summation

[Searay55555]

The mileage on the M2 looks even better than my 335is. I average 20 mpg even with mostly freeway miles. I think the extra gear helps in the M2. I’ll be seeing a little relief (and an extra 135 hp), which I’m happy about. An extra smaller fill per month? Gladly! Does that put it into perspective?

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by KC87ZB

I agree with most on here. The fuel mileage is what it is, completely eyes wide open on that. Range is the same, but still reasonable at 4 hours of highway driving between stops. Look at the upside, a small tank takes less time to fill.

I think the fuel mileage is spot on for the weight and horsepower of the car.

That doesn't mean I won't gripe about it

I disagree about fuel tank size / mileage with weight and HP.

M3/4: 3800-4200 lbs, 473-503 hp, 15.6 gallon tank.
M2: 3780-3820 lbs, 473 hp, 13.7 gallon tank.
Z4M40: 3500 lbs, 382 hp, 13.7 gallon tank.

That being said, a comparison previous M gens reveals this is not that far out of norms but comes in lower than that glorious S65 V8 -

Range at average consumption
E30: 18.5 gal 18 mpg 333 mi
E46: 16.6 gal 17 mpg 282 mi
E92: 16.6 gal 16 mpg 265 mi
F82: 15.6 gal 20 mpg 312 mi
F87: 13.7 gal 21 mpg 288 mi
G87: 13.7 gal 19 mpg 260 mi

(F87 comp & CS close to g87.)

The crazy number is 16 mpg city at 13.7 gallons for 55 mi / quarter tank. I would see this in my e93.

[kyrix1st]

Originally Posted by Bimmerfun82

I disagree about fuel tank size / mileage with weight and HP.

M3/4: 3800-4200 lbs, 473-503 hp, 15.6 gallon tank.
M2: 3780-3820 lbs, 473 hp, 13.7 gallon tank.
Z4M40: 3500 lbs, 382 hp, 13.7 gallon tank.

That being said, a comparison previous M gens reveals this is not that far out of norms but comes in lower than that glorious S65 V8 -

Range at average consumption
E30: 18.5 gal 18 mpg 333 mi
E46: 16.6 gal 17 mpg 282 mi
E92: 16.6 gal 16 mpg 265 mi
F82: 15.6 gal 20 mpg 312 mi
F87: 13.7 gal 21 mpg 288 mi
G87: 13.7 gal 19 mpg 260 mi

(F87 comp & CS close to g87.)

The crazy number is 16 mpg city at 13.7 gallons for 55 mi / quarter tank. I would see this in my e93.

Contrary to most people's beliefs, high compression, high displacement engines get great gas mileage relative to low compression ones. E92 M3 has 12:1, G87 has 9.3:1. Not surprised tbh.

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

Contrary to most people's beliefs, high compression, high displacement engines get great gas mileage relative to low compression ones. E92 M3 has 12:1, G87 has 9.3:1. Not surprised tbh.

Yes, but since when do low compression 6 cylinder engines have two massive turbos and a tiny gas tank?

[MmmmmM2]

Why ask why? Try Bud Dry!

Yeah, I'm dating myself with this post.

[KC87ZB]

I’m just not sure what the expectation is here. The gas tank is expected to be less than an M4 based on tank placement.

Comparing the F87 and G87 where tanks are the same size but the G87 has more power and a higher weight. I would expect to go a shorter distance.

[awg87]

i get about 240-250 miles a tank which is about 17-18 mpg

i'm gonna go for a max range grandpa tank next and see what i get