[krnnerdboy]

Originally Posted by 8600RPM

I can't concur, I get the same mpg as I did in my e92. I flog it all the time but that's what an m car should do. Why couldn't bmw keep the m3 naturally aspirated. Yes cost as well. I Love my f80 but I agree turbos are a false mpg elevation

I'm getting 29mpg average per tank...I'm not a hypermiler and I average 75 on freeways

[FogCityM3]

Well the M-division once said the same thing as Ferrari 6-7 years ago, except the guys that said that and ran the division are now gone and it doesn't matter, if you're a Euro manufacturer, there's almost no way around it. Gotta give credit to Ferrari for the honesty (plus they're being spun off) but they know full well that the electric motors will help solve the lag and other issues that turbo applications have.

Also Ford and GM know exactly what they're doing in taking full advantage of not being hampered by Euro restrictions as much. Hence animals like the GT350.

[dkhm3]

I'm getting 19+ mpg. I am driving it pretty hard - my old 6.2 c63 was slower and getting 14-14.5 mpg.

[CanAutM3]

My fuel consumption observations thus far:

DD: F8X drinks just as much as my E92 did
Highway: Does not even compare, the F8X is very frugal
Track: The F8X gobbles more fuel than my E92 did

[8600RPM]

Exactly CanAuto! But who buys an m to cruise? Maybe I'm the rare one but I always felt if you cared about mileage than why buy an m3 but different arguement.

Ferrari clearly more weekend car only.

For me I drive the piss out of my cars daily

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by 8600RPM

Exactly CanAuto! But who buys an m to cruise? Maybe I'm the rare one but I always felt if you cared about mileage than why buy an m3 but different arguement.

Ferrari clearly more weekend car only.

For me I drive the piss out of my cars daily

My observations only, I offered no comment

If fuel economy was a priority in our family, we wouldn't have had two V8 in our driveway for so long (E92 M3 and B7 S4) .

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

My fuel consumption observations thus far:

DD: F8X drinks just as much as my E92 did
Highway: Does not even compare, the F8X is very frugal
Track: The F8X gobbles more fuel than my E92 did

Originally Posted by 8600RPM

Exactly CanAuto! But who buys an m to cruise? Maybe I'm the rare one but I always felt if you cared about mileage than why buy an m3 but different arguement.

Ferrari clearly more weekend car only.

For me I drive the piss out of my cars daily

Both fair points, but, while nobody drives an M3 to cruise, there are times (freeways or highways or even on other streets) when one is going along at a steady pace (can't be on the throttle all the time) and a smaller displacement turbo will save fuel vs more displacement/cylinders.

Despite our enthusiast desires to pummel the cars all the time, lots of times we can't and, ultimately, over time, that will work out to an overall fuel savings. While the 'mileage may vary' for some, I am extremely confident that if one did an overall 'average of all fuel economy for all M3/M4 drivers' for the E90 era vs the F80 era, the economy would be better. And, if you are a government regulator with a goal of reducing fuel usage per car, that is movement in the right direction.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

My fuel consumption observations thus far:

DD: F8X drinks just as much as my E92 did
Highway: Does not even compare, the F8X is very frugal
Track: The F8X gobbles more fuel than my E92 did

Totally agree with this - on my ED I was amazed at how much better MPG I was getting over the e9x ... then my f8x shows up in the US and I was thinking the VPC made some change, but nope any long highway run still shows great MPG. And, yeah, hard driving will surprise you ... the needle doesn't move much and then BAM you just lost a half tank.

In fairness to the M4, I think the hellcat loses a tank in 15 minutes at the track.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

Interesting read!

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...=_hpTrnsprtr_5

OT but, wow, the California doesn't look quite as dorky these days - still seems like not-a-Ferrari though ... I see quite a few of them in NorCal and the 1st gen models are ... not good. Ruins the brand a bit for me.

[M3guy3]

IMO the best setup to battle emissions and fuel is a electric/NA setup.

918 spyder.

[aksi]

Originally Posted by aajami

There's nothing like a high-revving, free-breathing naturally aspirated engine. Nothing at all.

It's sad that their days are coming to an end. To that point, I'm really curious about the upcoming Mustang GT350. That engine seems pretty damn incredible.

exactly. NA high revving engines are the most fun cars to drive. It does not matter how fast it is on a straight road. Through the corners, heel and toe, you see the needle shooting so high in the 8000 range, and hear the car screaming everytime your heel pushes on the pedal is something you will quickly notice how fun these cars are.
Also high revving engines are technology at its best itself.

[Ezio]

i think there is a lot of mix feelings out there, and even reading what people say on here. Some people love the boost, and some people love the N/A.

My biggest problem with a trubo Ferrari is NOT that its going to perform worse. but its going to take away from that signature scream these engines make. Will it still sound like a Ferrari? sure, but its never going to be as good.

Sure turbos work on japan tuners , and some euro cars like GTI or 335i. But IMO having a N/A V12 Ferrari engine making over 600HP with no turbos, no superchargers just pure engine, while sounding like a F1 racecar (the N/A ones) is what you pay for. I think its kind of a shame that the top end cars have to add turbos.

[Blindside_137]

Originally Posted by JTO24

I'm a fan of both NA and turbo motors. Turbos are great for effortless straight line acceleration (as stated in the OP) and NA is great for road courses and winding backroads where precise throttle control and predictable torque output is preferred.

It's not always about being the fastest but the drama and delivery of the power; Ferrari is all about theater/drama.

THIS

[ypsillzx]

Anybody know why there are no electric turbos out yet?

Also why isnt Ferrari, embracing electric? Honda managed to put it nicely in a 150k package with the NSX, I'm sure they would be able as well.

[ShocknAwe]

One of the only good articles I've seen out of R&T lately. But totally to the point.

This is probably the last turbo engine car I will own if I can help it. Fun, but I miss NA.

[MalibuBimmer]

I thought the article missed the point. Most of the time when we drive we don't need all the horsepower that can and is produced by our cars. Turbocharging lets us use a lot less with smaller displacement engines.

If you're going to drive a Ferrari at 7000 rpm all the time, then you don't need turbocharging. But in the real world that's not the way people drive.

[LDSM]

I hope as we move into the future of hybrid cars, electric motors will be partnered with NA engines, not turbos. Seeing as how electric motors solve all the problems we have with emissions, and turbos (no lag, instant torque, no pollution), we could reap all the benefits of a turbo engine, minus the turbo, and get back our beloved NA engine sound and responsiveness.