Quote:
| Originally Posted by LateNightCable
I won't speak in metric ratings, just U.S. ratings, and the E55 is not more efficient than an M3. If you want to talk emissions, the E55 emits more "greenhouse gases" carbon dioxide being one of them, than an M3. But neither could be labeled "efficient".
Talking about CO2 output is kind of pointless, since none of the cars we've mentioned are even remotely fuel efficient. These are high performance cars, and they suck gas pretty hard.
Alpina does not have one up on BMW, in fact BMW supports their efforts. The B5 is a 4.4 V8, not a 5.0 V10 - this explains a lot. And an M5 would not be an M5 with an Alpina supercharged engine. It's apples and oranges really. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the B5's efficiency was a little over rated. |
Wouldn't be suprised? But you haven't checked any Mags eighter confirming it, have you? I won't speak in U.S ratings in that case since we're all lazy. From where do you pick your information that M3 is more efficient? Will you also say that C55 is less efficient than an M3?
CO2 emission is not pointless, since it is directly taken from consumption. And for what purpose the fuel is being used. M engines generates more wasteheat than AMG engines. That's why MB AMG 55 engines are superior to BMW M engines in performance efficiency. Displacement is just another size of components. Not a big deal at all. How much fuel you give your engine is more importand and what you get out of it.