Originally Posted by 1111GS

are you comparing similar cars? What I find interesting is gle350 has worse mpg than X5 40i.

Originally Posted by Hoovey689

I'd wager it's because base to base the 2.0 in the Mercedes has to work harder, and the X5 40i with the B58 I6 is about as good as an I6 out there for both performance and efficiency (even more so in the M340i). Officially by the numbers the BMW wins in the city and the Mercedes on the highway. More impressive is the BMW is 200lbs heavier and is within 2 mpg. In real world though you could definitely get mid to high 20's on the highway especially in Eco Mode.

GLE 350
2.0T I4
255hp
19/27
4608lbs

X5 40i
3.0T I6
335hp
21/25
4828lbs

Originally Posted by Hoovey689

GLE 350
2.0T I4
255hp
19/27
4608lbs

X5 40i
3.0T I6
335hp
21/25
4828lbs

Originally Posted by SW17LS

Comparing LS sedans to the ES and GS.

Originally Posted by Hoovey689

I'd wager it's because base to base the 2.0 in the Mercedes has to work harder, and the X5 40i with the B58 I6 is about as good as an I6 out there for both performance and efficiency (even more so in the M340i). Officially by the numbers the BMW wins in the city and the Mercedes on the highway. More impressive is the BMW is 200lbs heavier and is within 2 mpg. In real world though you could definitely get mid to high 20's on the highway especially in Eco Mode.

Originally Posted by Margate330

Wow, didn't realize how heavy these cars are.
Engines pushing over 100+ HP per litre pushing these heavy cars so not imagine seeing many hitting the 200-300k miles mark.

Originally Posted by Lwerewolf

Perhaps you can share BSFC figures to back that claim?



Just tested:
Grade: 22.7%
Altitude: 732m min, 749m max
Distance: 3.644km
GPS Speed: 149km/h constant (cruise control), ~92.5mph
RPM: 2187rpm (avg), 2510rpm (max)
Power: 54.13kw (avg), 63.46kw (max)

No SoC change (read: no power going out of the battery). Outside temp 29C, AC set to 24.

4000rpm is around 125kw sustained power output. This car does not generally see >2000rpm during steady state cruising on the highway, unless traffic allows for such speed and I'm in the hilly section.

Aerodynamics:
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/c...i_quattro.html
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/c...s_gs_450h.html
both claimed 0.27 cd/m2, slightly larger cross section on the A8.

Still not convinced that any such car does 29mpg (~8.11l/km) at 90mph (~145kph).

Originally Posted by LexsCTJill

what engines?

Originally Posted by SW17LS

4.0 V8, 4.3 V8, 4.6 V8, 3.0 V6 3.5 V6 and DI 3.5 V6

Originally Posted by LexsCTJill

No way those 8 cylinders are more fuel efficient compared to the same generation engine but slightly smaller

Originally Posted by Striker223

Cool cool, do you own one? Have you even ever driven one?

As stated by others here and myself they do get that IRL. I don't have to prove it to you past what I already provided since that's what the cars I drive get me.

Originally Posted by LexsCTJill

No way those 8 cylinders are more fuel efficient compared to the same generation engine but slightly smaller

Originally Posted by LexsCTJill

No way those 8 cylinders are more fuel efficient compared to the same generation engine but slightly smaller

Originally Posted by AJT123

It's not same generation but the LS430 gets roughly the same MPG as that V6 IS350 we had.

Originally Posted by Lwerewolf

At high speeds, all these engines should be in their efficiency sweet spot. Big engines can't get there at low speeds. Small engines "drastically" increase their fuel consumption at high speeds since... well, the load increases equally "drastically".

Doesn't matter what engine configuration it is so long as it consumes the same amount of fuel for a given amount of work.

Originally Posted by LexsCTJill

There is far more to that. Vehicle weight. Aerodynamics. Engine tuning.