New shape M6 or 640d as a daily driver?

New shape M6 or 640d as a daily driver?

Author
Discussion

Andy M

3,755 posts

259 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
HoHoHo said:
I'd suggest there's no chance of 35mpg unless you simply sat there with the engine idling and not moving.
Surely that's the quickest way to achieve 0mpg? wink

HoHoHo

14,987 posts

250 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
Andy M said:
HoHoHo said:
I'd suggest there's no chance of 35mpg unless you simply sat there with the engine idling and not moving.
Surely that's the quickest way to achieve 0mpg? wink
Ha, yes you're correct smile

Patrick Bateman

12,173 posts

174 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
Why is it a decent chunk off its official figures? Turbocharging?

Any normally aspirated BMW I've had has easily achieved (and exceeded if you try) its combined mpg figure.

pjv997

649 posts

182 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
Patrick Bateman said:
Why is it a decent chunk off its official figures? Turbocharging?

Any normally aspirated BMW I've had has easily achieved (and exceeded if you try) its combined mpg figure.
I read in a car mag many years ago that a good benchmark is 80% of combined figure to equate to real world consumption and I have found that to be not far off the mark.

However, my experience with my M5 is that I am at a long term average over 40,000 miles of just over 20 mpg, which makes it closer to 70% of combined figure.

35mpg is not realistic IMO, but on a long stead cruise on the motorway keeping pace with the fastest traffic does still deliver north of 25mpg (in my experience).

Wills2

22,782 posts

175 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
I was 0.5 mpg off the combined number? So basically spot on.




Shaoxter

4,069 posts

124 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
Patrick Bateman said:
Why is it a decent chunk off its official figures? Turbocharging?

Any normally aspirated BMW I've had has easily achieved (and exceeded if you try) its combined mpg figure.
If you think the F10 M5 official mpg figures are ambitious, wait til you try the i8 wink

HoHoHo

14,987 posts

250 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
pjv997 said:
Patrick Bateman said:
Why is it a decent chunk off its official figures? Turbocharging?

Any normally aspirated BMW I've had has easily achieved (and exceeded if you try) its combined mpg figure.
I read in a car mag many years ago that a good benchmark is 80% of combined figure to equate to real world consumption and I have found that to be not far off the mark.

However, my experience with my M5 is that I am at a long term average over 40,000 miles of just over 20 mpg, which makes it closer to 70% of combined figure.

35mpg is not realistic IMO, but on a long stead cruise on the motorway keeping pace with the fastest traffic does still deliver north of 25mpg (in my experience).
I think you're spot on there pjv yes

CRA1G

6,521 posts

195 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
Shaoxter said:
If you think the F10 M5 official mpg figures are ambitious, wait til you try the i8 wink
The i8 figures are controversial... But it all depends in which mode it's driven in,I'm sure the 130 mpg is achievable but driving mine as a "sports" car which is very quick I get around 60 mpg... Now that's not bad... I'm very impressed with the performance/mpg.

JMBMWM5

2,283 posts

198 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
notax said:
Yes, good point. The alleged fuel economy of the M6 is still far better than I get from the C63, and better than the AMV8, XKR etc... so for me at least it could still be a relief! What sort of mpg do you get in the real world in an M6?
I have seen 27 MPG on my M6 GC CP, but it usually ends up 24/25 MPG overall.
PS) I never do 70MPH always higher and boot down when roads allow.

Patrick Bateman

12,173 posts

174 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
pjv997 said:
I read in a car mag many years ago that a good benchmark is 80% of combined figure to equate to real world consumption and I have found that to be not far off the mark.

However, my experience with my M5 is that I am at a long term average over 40,000 miles of just over 20 mpg, which makes it closer to 70% of combined figure.

35mpg is not realistic IMO, but on a long stead cruise on the motorway keeping pace with the fastest traffic does still deliver north of 25mpg (in my experience).
My point is more that on a long steady cruise in my e39 I can comfortably average north of 25mpg without dawdling. The official figures for my car are noticeably worse than the F10 so shouldn't the F10 be able to average a noticeable chunk more?

Schermerhorn

4,342 posts

189 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
How accurate is the MPG read out?

35mpg quoted might not be 35mpg in real life.

cslwannabe

1,400 posts

169 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
I guess the test is a lot different now Patrick Bateman. My 2001 E46 could achieve its official combined mpg as can my 2007 Boxster however my Mk7 Golf R is currently managing 75-80% of its official figure which is much like all the turbo diseasals SWMBO has owned (except for the VAG 2.0 TDis which seem to achieve or better their figures).

M6 all the way I reckon, although I am a huge fan of the 640d. My only real complaint with having gone back to a petrol car for a daily driver is the poor range compared to diseasals

Wills2

22,782 posts

175 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
I got 16mpg this afternoon, that's better.

HoHoHo

14,987 posts

250 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
Wills2 said:
I got 16mpg this afternoon, that's better.
That's certainly on the way and a positive improvement, I've been getting about 14mpg recently biggrin

Patrick Bateman

12,173 posts

174 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
cslwannabe said:
I guess the test is a lot different now Patrick Bateman. My 2001 E46 could achieve its official combined mpg as can my 2007 Boxster however my Mk7 Golf R is currently managing 75-80% of its official figure which is much like all the turbo diseasals SWMBO has owned (except for the VAG 2.0 TDis which seem to achieve or better their figures).

M6 all the way I reckon, although I am a huge fan of the 640d. My only real complaint with having gone back to a petrol car for a daily driver is the poor range compared to diseasals
I can't help but think turbocharging has something to do with it. Certainly any time there is a large difference between official figures and actual figures the car is invariably turbocharged.

Hoggers

47 posts

112 months

Saturday 4th April 2015
quotequote all
I bought a 2014 640d M Sport Coupe in December after test driving it and being very impressed with the pace, styling and overall efficiency from the diesel. I put a tuning box on it which took it up to 360bhp which made it quicker still.

It's a good car ... but it always felt a bit dull for me as it wasn't engaging or exciting enough - despite its M Sport badge. I had a 320d M Sport that was far more exciting to drive despite the lack of pace by comparison.

Anyway, I felt I was missing out and swapped the 640d for a 2012 M6 a couple of weeks ago. I've now got something that is far more interesting and special.

Yes it will cost more to fuel and maintain.. and I've swapped into an older car to make the finances work ... but I love the M6 and I only liked the 640d.

Depends what you are looking for but I'd say if you are expecting a sporty drive from the 640d you may be disappointed.

Hoggers

47 posts

112 months

Saturday 4th April 2015
quotequote all
By the way. My 640d was averaging 35mpg and I'm getting 20mpg on the M6. I'm using it as a daily driver.

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

198 months

Saturday 4th April 2015
quotequote all
Hoggers said:
I bought a 2014 640d M Sport Coupe in December after test driving it and being very impressed with the pace, styling and overall efficiency from the diesel. I put a tuning box on it which took it up to 360bhp which made it quicker still.

It's a good car ... but it always felt a bit dull for me as it wasn't engaging or exciting enough - despite its M Sport badge. I had a 320d M Sport that was far more exciting to drive despite the lack of pace by comparison.

Anyway, I felt I was missing out and swapped the 640d for a 2012 M6 a couple of weeks ago. I've now got something that is far more interesting and special.

Yes it will cost more to fuel and maintain.. and I've swapped into an older car to make the finances work ... but I love the M6 and I only liked the 640d.

Depends what you are looking for but I'd say if you are expecting a sporty drive from the 640d you may be disappointed.
Is that the Hartage £1,700 tunit box or x?

Hoggers

47 posts

112 months

Saturday 4th April 2015
quotequote all
I had the DTUK diesel tunng box one on the 640d. Very good it was too. No issues with the 640d and its straight line pace with or without the box. I'm selling the box if anyone wants it btw

cerb4.5lee

30,491 posts

180 months

Saturday 4th April 2015
quotequote all
Hoggers said:
I had the DTUK diesel tunng box one on the 640d. Very good it was too. No issues with the 640d and its straight line pace with or without the box. I'm selling the box if anyone wants it btw
You have me tempted With the box!

Loved the honest earlier evaluation of the 640d aswell and i wish we didnt do so many miles in ours because the engine does spoil the overall package a little bit too much.

Have fun in the M6 thumbup