Ok I tried a search, and saw the thread on dire mpg, but what does a "normal" E30 M3 give ?

Sorry but with petrol approaching 100p a litre it's a consideration..

My z3m gives me about 24/25mpg with a mix of commuting / town / A roads / Mway...with a best ever of just under 30mpg...how about the E30 ?

Thx, Dan.  

Hi Dan , My OBC is saying an avarage of 26/27 thats a mix of country backroads and A roads . On a run with some gentle driving its better but I've never better'd 30 as I have heard is possible , also when pushed hard this can drop to 11/15 mpg .

Regards Steve. 

jon90 wrote: Who cares? On £40 mine does Smiles per miles is what its all about. Jon

I care else I wouldn't have asked ;-)

Not a deal breaker but thought it would be more to be honest...similar to the E36 models despite being 100kg lighter and almost a litre smaller capacity...guess technology moves on !

Yeah was waiting for the diesel line  

I don't see why u can't have reasonable economy and high performance...as per the E36...OK the E30 ain't that far off....I was just asking !

Thx to those that pressed the buttons on their OBC !

Darren M wrote: Sorry, I couldn`t resist. For what they are, the E30 M3`s are economical. I think the Serra Cossie and Lancia Integrale turbo of the same era drink much more fuel......If we had another gear to play with too, that might help. I wonder if ditching the AFM has a benefit, fuel consumption wise? ANyone?

I reakon diesel cars are becoming a better choice! Just look at the new 535TDi. My cossie with stage 1 270bhp used to do about 330 miles per tank (about 55/60 ltrs) with hardish driving (not reving the nuts off it, just using the turbo/torque) but with a couple of 160+mph blasts. It is better that my SE. And it would run circles around the SE on acceleration. But like I've said, my SE has a fault, and come to think of it, suffers alot more "lag" than the cossie ever did.    One thing though, the BM will more reliable get you to where you want to go and back again, whereas the Lancia and the Cossie is more likely to return on the back of a recovery truck!

It wouldn't suprise me in the least if the MPG would be better without the AFM. They are normally set on the rich side.

SHEPSM3 wrote: My cossie with stage 1 270bhp used to do about 330 miles per tank (about 55/60 ltrs) with hardish driving (not reving the nuts off it, just using the turbo/torque) but with a couple of 160+mph blasts. It is better that my SE. And it would run circles around the SE on acceleration.

Take both cars to a circuit and I know which comes out on top. That is why I sold my stage 1 Cossie. My 200 bhp M3 does 30 mpg on average. But I don't really care. It's so much fun compared to most modern cars.

John

John, depends if the circuit has twisty bits!  "the SE" was referring to mine, as it is down on power with about 187BHP, not the 238 it should have. If it was running right, I'd take the SE every time!

I reset the trip computer when I filled up on route to the South West meet today in Dowlais Top, Wales. Kept to speed limits on the way, a couple of hard blasts opto 100MPH on the way from Asda to Pub and a gentle drive home and it averaged 26.7MPG. I think thats about the best its ever been.

After my first post saying I've not bettered 30 , I did a run from london back to Norfolk today and managed about 32/33 and on the local roads I was pushing it a bit !  . I was happy with that , I'd filled up with Optimax and had changed the plugs on Sat .

Steve .

My Sport Evo gets between 26mpg driven normally (longish runs crusing 90plus), but if it is foggy or icy (ie no overtaking) and you have to "go witht the flow" it will happily do over 30 mpg.

Just returned from the Dordogne, where we took the kids for a couple of weeks in my wife's Honda Jazz - overall average was 40mpg (Autoroutes crusing at 90 - 100, four up with the aircon on), but on one main road journey, crusing with the traffic at 60, we did 64mpg! Shame it's as dull as ditchwater!

Back from holidays now - shame.