I knew the M5 Touring thirst was going to be bad....

[BobbyK]

.... but just made the mistake of looking at bank statements and since owning the car for less than 2 weeks, managed to spend £324.60 on Shell V-Power, completing only circa 650 miles with about half a tank to go (200 miles of which was on the M4).

Now having said that, the car hasn't been driven sensibly or economically and I've taken every opportunity to push it. Watching the fuel guage actually moving in front of my eyes is comical and depressing in equal measure.

But, and its a massive but, I love the car. Mpg aside, its the perfect family vehicle, it covers all the bases you would ever need.

So if you're thinking of buying one, be aware, or do as I do and hide the bank statements from the wife and prepare to lie about the cost of the spark plug/oil service coming up later in the year.

[derestrictor]

BobbyK said:

Watching the fuel guage actually moving in front of my eyes is comical and depressing in equal measure.

You can literally drive several hundred yards and see a full tank not be, even with Ms. Daisy grade anvil applications.

It can be economic if kept at circa NSL in 7th on a m-way, approx 26 mpg.

But then again, we are not communists.

[Neil.D]

So roughly 12.25 MPG.

Sorry if that further depresses you.

You have passed the 'real man' test.

[Great Pretender]

derestrictor said:

BobbyK said:

Watching the fuel guage actually moving in front of my eyes is comical and depressing in equal measure.

You can literally drive several hundred yards and see a full tank not be, even with Ms. Daisy grade anvil applications.

It can be economic if kept at circa NSL in 7th on a m-way, approx 26 mpg.

But then again, we are not communists.

I've managed almost 20mpg out of mine this week.

Yours,

Grigori Evseyevich Zinoviev.

[beemarman]

Welcome to my world. The first time I drove my M6 I couldn't believe how quickly it drained a full tank of petrol, it made my X5 4.8is look economical. I do love the car, but the way it drinks is comical.

I want to sell but would lose £10k in a year of use and 5000k miles. Do I regret buying it? No way, would I do it again? Yeap, looking at getting the M5 as family wants to enjoy the V10 with me.

Edited by beemarman on Thursday 10th February 15:24

[Broccers]

Wonder if a B5 wouldve been a better bet?

[ecain63]

And your friend the accountant told you that he consistently got 28mpg in his? Haha! Welcome to the club mate.

[derestrictor]

B5 was vastly more parsimonious around town and could achieve 30 or more at 80 clicks.

Also, the HK stez is/was better suited to the anachoics of an e60 than a '63 - for example, Breadfan by Budgie (sorry, Scouse ) sounded ace as opposed to compressed and I speak as someone whose bonce rests upon a Mission Isoplat in preference to duckfeather.

But 200 in the V10 remains the overarching rationale for what by any other standard is total illogic, namely, continued custody.

[CraigVmax]

you have to love it though.. the other day I saw my mileage range on the cayenne go down by 10miles before i'd even left the petrol station forecourt!!!

[Gibo993]

It is a great family car but in a way the fuel comsumption helps the performance as who wants big fat kids in the back, so the rising fuel prices means its petrol or food, hence nice skinny little kids that don't slow it down too much, in my book a win win situation

(This is a joke like on Top Gear!! I love my kids and do feed them)

[Tifosi]

CraigVmax said:

you have to love it though.. the other day I saw my mileage range on the cayenne go down by 10miles before i'd even left the petrol station forecourt!!!

OK, thanks for that

[derestrictor]

There's a piccie of one the B5s for sale at the mo' showing a trip reading of 34 mpg.

Meaningless, I know but dunnalf make ye feel better about c500 brake.

[tjlazer]

B5 performance/economy sounds immense in comparison to the M5...and judging by the reviews you don't really lose out on anything either. I may have to seriously look at these for my next purchase if and when 2 seats is no longer an option.

[derestrictor]

Totally different to drive but equally fab.

[GaryST220]

I love all this talk about horrific fuel economy, Mr & Mrs Average would be mortified but you guys are kickin' back as if its money well spent, kudos

While we're on the subject, has anyone ran a car with a Corvette engine or the likes, to compare fuel consumption to? I use to have a 6.0 LS2 which I though was pretty frugal in some respects so I can't imagine an M5 being any worse, but on the other hand I know of a chap who ran an E60 M5 alongside a 997 GT2, but he got rid of the M5 because he couldn't put up with the MPG.

Edited by GaryST220 on Thursday 10th February 21:52

[ecain63]

GaryST220 said:

I love all this talk about horrific fuel economy, Mr & Mrs Average would be mortified but you guys are kickin' back as if its money well spent, kudos

While we're on the subject, has anyone ran a car with a Corvette engine or the likes, to compare fuel consumption to? I use to have a 6.0 LS2 which I though was pretty frugal in some respects so I can't imagine an M5 being any worse, but on the other hand I know of a chap who ran an E60 M5 alongside a 997 GT2, but he got rid of the M5 because he couldn't put up with the MPG.

Edited by GaryST220 on Thursday 10th February 21:52

The Vette engine will return a better mpg than the //M as its a high torque engine requiring less juice to get going. Same goes for most V8's. The porsche lumps should also be better too as the engine is smaller and the car is lighter.

The Twin Turbo V8 in my RS6 used to average 21.4mpg compared to the 12 to 14 I'm getting from the M. Motorway journeys in the RS returned 31mpg wheras the M will only give 21 to 24 max. My RS was mapped to 508bhp / 550lbft too so power was comparable.

Edited by ecain63 on Thursday 10th February 22:20

[Great Pretender]

Hence why M-Division are going blown...

[GaryST220]

ecain63 said:

The Vette engine will return a better mpg than the //M as its a high torque engine requiring less juice to get going. Same goes for most V8's. The porsche lumps should also be better too as the engine is smaller and the car is lighter.

The Twin Turbo V8 in my RS6 used to average 21.4mpg compared to the 12 to 14 I'm getting from the M. Motorway journeys in the RS returned 31mpg wheras the M will only give 21 to 24 max. My RS was mapped to 508bhp / 550lbft too so power was comparable.

Edited by ecain63 on Thursday 10th February 22:20

I understand the theory, but I don't subscribe to it. Interestingly though the book figure for the M5 is better than the VXR8 which I was comparing it to, albeit by 1mpg.

[Great Pretender]

GaryST220 said:

ecain63 said:

The Vette engine will return a better mpg than the //M as its a high torque engine requiring less juice to get going. Same goes for most V8's. The porsche lumps should also be better too as the engine is smaller and the car is lighter.

The Twin Turbo V8 in my RS6 used to average 21.4mpg compared to the 12 to 14 I'm getting from the M. Motorway journeys in the RS returned 31mpg wheras the M will only give 21 to 24 max. My RS was mapped to 508bhp / 550lbft too so power was comparable.

Edited by ecain63 on Thursday 10th February 22:20

I understand the theory, but I don't subscribe to it. Interestingly though the book figure for the M5 is better than the VXR8 which I was comparing it to, albeit by 1mpg.

N/A or s'charged though?

[GaryST220]

Great Pretender said:

N/A or s'charged though?

N/A, I don't believe there are any official figures for the supercharged models.