Sherlene
BMW.SG Admin
M3 vs Prius
More details here at our news section...
Daily BMW News / Updates at http://www.bmw-sg.com!
More details here at our news section...
Daily BMW News / Updates at http://www.bmw-sg.com!
Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
- Thread starter Sherlene
- Start date
cool_sia15
Well-Known Member
Re: Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
wow, cool!
haha this video wld probably make alot of ppl sell away their Prius.
Poor toyota
wow, cool!
haha this video wld probably make alot of ppl sell away their Prius.
Poor toyota
Re: Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
actually on the other hand, given that the prius was going all out, and the m3 was cruising..
the m3 didn't have exactly a significantly better FC than the prius.. now imagine the m3 going all out... and when you have a car like the m3... very difficult to resist....
but clarkson is right. it's not the car you drive. it's how you drive it. *contemplates removing sprint booster.
actually on the other hand, given that the prius was going all out, and the m3 was cruising..
the m3 didn't have exactly a significantly better FC than the prius.. now imagine the m3 going all out... and when you have a car like the m3... very difficult to resist....
but clarkson is right. it's not the car you drive. it's how you drive it. *contemplates removing sprint booster.
jinooi
Well-Known Member
Re: Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
think the m3 used relatively less fuel cos it has a 4 litre engine and takes much less power to run at the max speed of the prius.
however, when you floor the m3, the 4 litre engine uses up petrol at an alarming rate.
so the moral of the story is, if you want to be more economical and fuel efficient, don't rev beyond the 3500-4500rpm band?
think the m3 used relatively less fuel cos it has a 4 litre engine and takes much less power to run at the max speed of the prius.
however, when you floor the m3, the 4 litre engine uses up petrol at an alarming rate.
so the moral of the story is, if you want to be more economical and fuel efficient, don't rev beyond the 3500-4500rpm band?
Re: Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
then the poor m3 is underutilized.. but for regular everyday driving.. it's simply not economical to drive like they do in these tv shows.. neither is it legal.... hurhur...
*contemplates taking out a/c for further fuel economy
jinooi;355418 said:
then the poor m3 is underutilized.. but for regular everyday driving.. it's simply not economical to drive like they do in these tv shows.. neither is it legal.... hurhur...
*contemplates taking out a/c for further fuel economy
Re: Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
Clarkson and Top Gear have their own agenda, which is to keep the sports car market alive because that's their business. To advise people with lies is pitiful.
The test is as flawed and pointless as their car vs jet/sled comparisons, etc. and in the end you have Clarkson the idiot preaching that it is not the car but the driving style. This is much more false than true especially when you consider the kind of roads and traffic that cars are increasingly run on. The truth is the weight of your car, and its engine size and technology affect things much more so than how you drive on roads that you drive on 98% of the time.
The M3 only beat the Prius because they were driving the Prius in a way so far out of its design envelope. If you take a look at how the Prius attains its effciency and where it is most efficient, you will understand why lapping for best time destroys so much of its advantage (short max effort braking events not allowing recovery, still turning mostly to heat at rotors, and direct electric drive being only maginally more efficient than engine alone) . It is also a myth that small gasoline engines are efficient. They are efficient at low load city type driving because of low component mass and friction, low total surface area for heat loss, but at high loads (as in track applicaton), they have poorer surface area to volume ratios, and to make sufficient power require high engine speeds (high friction). Larger cylinder displacement (larger engines in general) fair much better at higher loads with less of a requirement to rev high (friction increasing with square of RPM), and better surface to volume ratios.
Also, how the test was run, may not be what is implied on screen. The verbal description of the test is accurate, but there is much else that can happen within the broad description that allows the result to be moved whichever way they want. One way to do this is have the M3 lap at the same laptime, but with a much more constant speed, which is entirely possible by higher lateral acceleration capability (better tires, bigger patch, better mass distribution, better damping, better kinematics), taking it much easier on the straight, taking it easy on under braking and not doing that much of it anyway because of higher lat. accel. capability. The M3 has more mass, but if you're not accelerating and decelerating the mass as hard, you save energy. Same way loading your car down with passengers and luggage and cruising at normal highway speeds or big open sweeping roads still gives you better mileage than constant stop go traffic in an empty car.
Clarkson and Top Gear have their own agenda, which is to keep the sports car market alive because that's their business. To advise people with lies is pitiful.
The test is as flawed and pointless as their car vs jet/sled comparisons, etc. and in the end you have Clarkson the idiot preaching that it is not the car but the driving style. This is much more false than true especially when you consider the kind of roads and traffic that cars are increasingly run on. The truth is the weight of your car, and its engine size and technology affect things much more so than how you drive on roads that you drive on 98% of the time.
The M3 only beat the Prius because they were driving the Prius in a way so far out of its design envelope. If you take a look at how the Prius attains its effciency and where it is most efficient, you will understand why lapping for best time destroys so much of its advantage (short max effort braking events not allowing recovery, still turning mostly to heat at rotors, and direct electric drive being only maginally more efficient than engine alone) . It is also a myth that small gasoline engines are efficient. They are efficient at low load city type driving because of low component mass and friction, low total surface area for heat loss, but at high loads (as in track applicaton), they have poorer surface area to volume ratios, and to make sufficient power require high engine speeds (high friction). Larger cylinder displacement (larger engines in general) fair much better at higher loads with less of a requirement to rev high (friction increasing with square of RPM), and better surface to volume ratios.
Also, how the test was run, may not be what is implied on screen. The verbal description of the test is accurate, but there is much else that can happen within the broad description that allows the result to be moved whichever way they want. One way to do this is have the M3 lap at the same laptime, but with a much more constant speed, which is entirely possible by higher lateral acceleration capability (better tires, bigger patch, better mass distribution, better damping, better kinematics), taking it much easier on the straight, taking it easy on under braking and not doing that much of it anyway because of higher lat. accel. capability. The M3 has more mass, but if you're not accelerating and decelerating the mass as hard, you save energy. Same way loading your car down with passengers and luggage and cruising at normal highway speeds or big open sweeping roads still gives you better mileage than constant stop go traffic in an empty car.
Re: Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
that's a mouthful...
a little sleepy after lunch. but essentially test is flawed, results should be taken with a pinch of salt, and as usual, too many factors that were not mentioned... yes?
took me awhile to read.
that's a mouthful...
a little sleepy after lunch. but essentially test is flawed, results should be taken with a pinch of salt, and as usual, too many factors that were not mentioned... yes?
took me awhile to read.
Re: Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
In a real life test, it is one thing to be unable to control certain factors and then list them, but it an entirely different thing when you intentionally set a "test" up to yield results you desire, in order to use it for your own selfish purposes - no mention of conditions, limitations, or any sort of disclaimer.
Take the Prius and the M3, run tests on the streets of a typical city, and then on a typical highway, during the day, in country where there is true law and order, and then compare the gas mileage between the two cars in each test and the results would be completely different. This would be a real test reflecting driving conditions of close to 100% of drivers that buy these cars. Trackdays and early morning antics make up an extremely small portion of the time spent in any car that is driven around enough for the owner to care about gas mileage.
What you drive matters very much. How you drive is almost always limited by your surroundings. The little freedom left over to screw up gas mileage, pales in comparison to driving a vehicle that is 300kg heavier, has a 2 sq foot larger frontal area, Cd like a brick, a huge engine almost always run at part load, and 5% higher driveline losses.
In a real life test, it is one thing to be unable to control certain factors and then list them, but it an entirely different thing when you intentionally set a "test" up to yield results you desire, in order to use it for your own selfish purposes - no mention of conditions, limitations, or any sort of disclaimer.
Take the Prius and the M3, run tests on the streets of a typical city, and then on a typical highway, during the day, in country where there is true law and order, and then compare the gas mileage between the two cars in each test and the results would be completely different. This would be a real test reflecting driving conditions of close to 100% of drivers that buy these cars. Trackdays and early morning antics make up an extremely small portion of the time spent in any car that is driven around enough for the owner to care about gas mileage.
What you drive matters very much. How you drive is almost always limited by your surroundings. The little freedom left over to screw up gas mileage, pales in comparison to driving a vehicle that is 300kg heavier, has a 2 sq foot larger frontal area, Cd like a brick, a huge engine almost always run at part load, and 5% higher driveline losses.
Azarael
Well-Known Member
Re: Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
that was 10 rounds around a track with winding roads and a M3on your back....
there was NO start stop traffic at all on the track.
Instead they should have made the M3 compete with the prius around town with traffic lights and 50% city and 50% expressway
take the M3 on singapore roads, on our CTE and PIE peak hour traffic, and then u put the prius on pure electrical energy mode ( consuming no petrol) when traffic is choc a block......
i think u will find the M3 returns 5km/l while the prius at least 15km/L
when the price of crude is going to hit $200 a barrel very soon, which do u think is more economical ?
jinooi;353510 said:
that was 10 rounds around a track with winding roads and a M3on your back....
there was NO start stop traffic at all on the track.
Instead they should have made the M3 compete with the prius around town with traffic lights and 50% city and 50% expressway
take the M3 on singapore roads, on our CTE and PIE peak hour traffic, and then u put the prius on pure electrical energy mode ( consuming no petrol) when traffic is choc a block......
i think u will find the M3 returns 5km/l while the prius at least 15km/L
when the price of crude is going to hit $200 a barrel very soon, which do u think is more economical ?
Re: Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
It has been reported that it is significantly more energy intensive to manufacture a Prius than a Hummer, at this point in time.
Then there are counter reports, with each side has financial motivation to lie, so unless you really spend a lot of time studying the issue (and even then), the truth may not be known. Anytime there's big money at stake there are many layers of lies.
Still other reports suggest that to continue running some pretty old cars with small engines and no fancy electronics, no airbags, no real weight, no real crash protection(?) is the most efficient in terms of getting the most out of energy put into manufacturing, and also good gas mileage. But that cannot last forever and eventually the switch must be made to a truly energy efficient and clean (in manufacture and drive).
So it still matters heavily what you drive, and not just how you drive. Even if you want to be safe and avoid the whole Prius controversy, from what little I've read, it seems high efficiency diesels are pretty environmentally friendly, so are the typical gasoline powered econo cars. Biofuels made from crop don't appear to be good in many ways (again controversial), and in the long term it seems the trend is towards pure electric power, charged with electricity off a grid powered by a variety of sources including solar, wind, but still mainly nuclear. GM apparently has abandoned some very high gas mileage engines in favour of focusing on electric.
Taking it further , some things that eclipse the current diesel vs gasoline vs electric and manufacturing energy costs of these, is just public transport and car pooling, though the latter is more difficult to work out. If you drive a 20 mpg vehicle with 3 people in it, the same distance as a 60 mpg vehicle transporting just 1 person, you're still roughly as clean, all else equal. Imagine the efficiencies in public transport. If the government would work it out to where it wasn't such an unpleasant greasy and smelly sardine experience by running more trains and buses and maintaining cleaner interiors, more people might make the switch to public transport.
It has been reported that it is significantly more energy intensive to manufacture a Prius than a Hummer, at this point in time.
Then there are counter reports, with each side has financial motivation to lie, so unless you really spend a lot of time studying the issue (and even then), the truth may not be known. Anytime there's big money at stake there are many layers of lies.
Still other reports suggest that to continue running some pretty old cars with small engines and no fancy electronics, no airbags, no real weight, no real crash protection(?) is the most efficient in terms of getting the most out of energy put into manufacturing, and also good gas mileage. But that cannot last forever and eventually the switch must be made to a truly energy efficient and clean (in manufacture and drive).
So it still matters heavily what you drive, and not just how you drive. Even if you want to be safe and avoid the whole Prius controversy, from what little I've read, it seems high efficiency diesels are pretty environmentally friendly, so are the typical gasoline powered econo cars. Biofuels made from crop don't appear to be good in many ways (again controversial), and in the long term it seems the trend is towards pure electric power, charged with electricity off a grid powered by a variety of sources including solar, wind, but still mainly nuclear. GM apparently has abandoned some very high gas mileage engines in favour of focusing on electric.
Taking it further , some things that eclipse the current diesel vs gasoline vs electric and manufacturing energy costs of these, is just public transport and car pooling, though the latter is more difficult to work out. If you drive a 20 mpg vehicle with 3 people in it, the same distance as a 60 mpg vehicle transporting just 1 person, you're still roughly as clean, all else equal. Imagine the efficiencies in public transport. If the government would work it out to where it wasn't such an unpleasant greasy and smelly sardine experience by running more trains and buses and maintaining cleaner interiors, more people might make the switch to public transport.
centurion
Well-Known Member
Re: Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
eggz, there are various analyses showing the prius has a larger environmental footprint in its entire lifetime than a conventional car, as a whole, including its batteries.
shaun, as long as there is still an anti-nuclear lobby, EVs are not the future. Seems that current jathropa (infertile land) based biodiesel stock and near future GM algae (seawater growth) solutions can provide sustainable biodesel fuel stock. That means a redline of 4K rpm though unfortunately.
But definitely our high rev petrol engine days are numbered, to the extent I cannot understand Mercedes Benz's pursuit of the diesotto engine. At this time there is an utter waste of high octane E10 petrol+ethanol mixture in an unoptimized petrol engine with sub 11 compression ratio when these fuels can probably sustain 15:1 compression without detonation, thus giving more power per fuel capacity. Lotus has demonstrated (followed by others including Koenigsegg) that substantial power increases can be achieved by optimizing the fuel for high octane biofuels but everybody's clamming up on the optimizations.
eggz, there are various analyses showing the prius has a larger environmental footprint in its entire lifetime than a conventional car, as a whole, including its batteries.
shaun, as long as there is still an anti-nuclear lobby, EVs are not the future. Seems that current jathropa (infertile land) based biodiesel stock and near future GM algae (seawater growth) solutions can provide sustainable biodesel fuel stock. That means a redline of 4K rpm though unfortunately.
But definitely our high rev petrol engine days are numbered, to the extent I cannot understand Mercedes Benz's pursuit of the diesotto engine. At this time there is an utter waste of high octane E10 petrol+ethanol mixture in an unoptimized petrol engine with sub 11 compression ratio when these fuels can probably sustain 15:1 compression without detonation, thus giving more power per fuel capacity. Lotus has demonstrated (followed by others including Koenigsegg) that substantial power increases can be achieved by optimizing the fuel for high octane biofuels but everybody's clamming up on the optimizations.
edlms
Well-Known Member
Re: Top Gear shows why a BMW M3 is more economical then a Prius
for me, 90% normal (read sedate driving - change up at around 3kRPM) + 10% harder driving (6k RPM) I get 16.4l/100km which translates to around 6km/l...
to me, this test doesn't mean much cos you have a hard-running prius versus a cruising M3. it's just another one of the Top Gear airplane/train versus bugatti/ferrari gimmicky pieces...
cheers
for me, 90% normal (read sedate driving - change up at around 3kRPM) + 10% harder driving (6k RPM) I get 16.4l/100km which translates to around 6km/l...
to me, this test doesn't mean much cos you have a hard-running prius versus a cruising M3. it's just another one of the Top Gear airplane/train versus bugatti/ferrari gimmicky pieces...
cheers
