£20k - M3 or Cayman S?
Discussion
cerb4.5lee said:
paulmoonraker said:
All of these cars with this power knock about between 20-30MPG. It's part of the deal. You cant have that kind of power and use it without paying the price. Smaller engine turbo cars help a bit as with the right gearing and boost settings you can cruise at better MPG.
I always used to think surely a 4 pot turbo should be fairly fuel efficient and I agree on a run going steady that possibly is the case but my old 200sx used to drink fuel because the temptation to use the power was strong and its the same in the TTS but as you say if you want performance of any real kind you have to pay the price for it at the pumps. 
Turbos generally are more efficient, providing you understand them and how to drive them (and not implying that you don't). Cars with larger turbos also help as they don't come into play until further up the rev range. Consider my Scooby - its just a lazy 4 pot until you get to about 2700RPM. This means round town it easily does 22 and on a run about 28-30...
Welshbeef said:
The MPG for the E92 M3 is not that bad at all - most seem to be stating 23-26mpg (that's the same as a Focus ST with its dire mpg per bhp)
To me its a huge improvement in economy for better outright performance.
My pre-LCI 535d (remapped of course) averaged about 28mpg, which included a lot of long motorway journeys. So I would say that's pretty damn good considering the performance.To me its a huge improvement in economy for better outright performance.
My 911 turbo is averaging about 13mpg and my SL about 9mpg to put some really thirsty cars into perspective.
Welshbeef said:
DCT vastly improves MPG (i15%+ based on official combined a plus gear change is quicker and come the time when you will want to sell it will also be more desirable.
Really tell me more? My Manual did 19mpg and I am pondering a Comp DCT, an increase in MPG would certainly help the man maths no end.I have owned Cayman S, E92 M3 and E46 CSL.
Two pence worth...
Cayman S: Handles superbly, on track. Interior is well dated and PCM is comically bad. Road ride is compromised and was un-liveable for me as a daily.
E92 M3: Buying another. Best of both worlds. Ate miles in comfort and then turned into a weapon on track. Buy DCT, EDC, Harmon Kardon. The S65 is stuff of future legend.
Two pence worth...
Cayman S: Handles superbly, on track. Interior is well dated and PCM is comically bad. Road ride is compromised and was un-liveable for me as a daily.
E92 M3: Buying another. Best of both worlds. Ate miles in comfort and then turned into a weapon on track. Buy DCT, EDC, Harmon Kardon. The S65 is stuff of future legend.
dufflecoat said:
I have owned Cayman S, E92 M3 and E46 CSL.
Two pence worth...
Cayman S: Handles superbly, on track. Interior is well dated and PCM is comically bad. Road ride is compromised and was un-liveable for me as a daily.
E92 M3: Buying another. Best of both worlds. Ate miles in comfort and then turned into a weapon on track. Buy DCT, EDC, Harmon Kardon. The S65 is stuff of future legend.
What is EDC?Two pence worth...
Cayman S: Handles superbly, on track. Interior is well dated and PCM is comically bad. Road ride is compromised and was un-liveable for me as a daily.
E92 M3: Buying another. Best of both worlds. Ate miles in comfort and then turned into a weapon on track. Buy DCT, EDC, Harmon Kardon. The S65 is stuff of future legend.
dufflecoat said:
Welshbeef said:
DCT vastly improves MPG (i15%+ based on official combined a plus gear change is quicker and come the time when you will want to sell it will also be more desirable.
Really tell me more? My Manual did 19mpg and I am pondering a Comp DCT, an increase in MPG would certainly help the man maths no end.
paulmoonraker said:
cerb4.5lee said:
paulmoonraker said:
All of these cars with this power knock about between 20-30MPG. It's part of the deal. You cant have that kind of power and use it without paying the price. Smaller engine turbo cars help a bit as with the right gearing and boost settings you can cruise at better MPG.
I always used to think surely a 4 pot turbo should be fairly fuel efficient and I agree on a run going steady that possibly is the case but my old 200sx used to drink fuel because the temptation to use the power was strong and its the same in the TTS but as you say if you want performance of any real kind you have to pay the price for it at the pumps. Turbos generally are more efficient, providing you understand them and how to drive them (and not implying that you don't). Cars with larger turbos also help as they don't come into play until further up the rev range. Consider my Scooby - its just a lazy 4 pot until you get to about 2700RPM. This means round town it easily does 22 and on a run about 28-30...
I do love your open mindedness to fuel economy
as I would presume a few would be a little disappointed with 28-30 on a run but as we have said that for performance enjoyment it does come with a slight cost and I do enjoy both N/A and Turbo engines because they both have qualities but deliver the thrills in slightly different ways. cerb4.5lee said:
paulmoonraker said:
cerb4.5lee said:
paulmoonraker said:
All of these cars with this power knock about between 20-30MPG. It's part of the deal. You cant have that kind of power and use it without paying the price. Smaller engine turbo cars help a bit as with the right gearing and boost settings you can cruise at better MPG.
I always used to think surely a 4 pot turbo should be fairly fuel efficient and I agree on a run going steady that possibly is the case but my old 200sx used to drink fuel because the temptation to use the power was strong and its the same in the TTS but as you say if you want performance of any real kind you have to pay the price for it at the pumps. Turbos generally are more efficient, providing you understand them and how to drive them (and not implying that you don't). Cars with larger turbos also help as they don't come into play until further up the rev range. Consider my Scooby - its just a lazy 4 pot until you get to about 2700RPM. This means round town it easily does 22 and on a run about 28-30...
I do love your open mindedness to fuel economy
as I would presume a few would be a little disappointed with 28-30 on a run but as we have said that for performance enjoyment it does come with a slight cost and I do enjoy both N/A and Turbo engines because they both have qualities but deliver the thrills in slightly different ways. Edited by paulmoonraker on Wednesday 20th August 22:33
paulmoonraker said:
cerb4.5lee said:
paulmoonraker said:
cerb4.5lee said:
paulmoonraker said:
All of these cars with this power knock about between 20-30MPG. It's part of the deal. You cant have that kind of power and use it without paying the price. Smaller engine turbo cars help a bit as with the right gearing and boost settings you can cruise at better MPG.
I always used to think surely a 4 pot turbo should be fairly fuel efficient and I agree on a run going steady that possibly is the case but my old 200sx used to drink fuel because the temptation to use the power was strong and its the same in the TTS but as you say if you want performance of any real kind you have to pay the price for it at the pumps. Turbos generally are more efficient, providing you understand them and how to drive them (and not implying that you don't). Cars with larger turbos also help as they don't come into play until further up the rev range. Consider my Scooby - its just a lazy 4 pot until you get to about 2700RPM. This means round town it easily does 22 and on a run about 28-30...
I do love your open mindedness to fuel economy
as I would presume a few would be a little disappointed with 28-30 on a run but as we have said that for performance enjoyment it does come with a slight cost and I do enjoy both N/A and Turbo engines because they both have qualities but deliver the thrills in slightly different ways. Edited by paulmoonraker on Wednesday 20th August 22:33
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff