BMW M5 vs Mercedes-Benz AMG GT 63 S e Performance: real-world fuel use
In real life the BMW M5 uses 3.9 L/100 km less fuel than the Mercedes-Benz AMG GT 63 S e Performance — about £813 a year at 15,000 km and £1.40/L.
474 cars in the data
BMW M57.8×the official figure
Official
1.6
Real world
12.8
0715 L/100 km
966 cars in the data
Mercedes-Benz AMG GT 63 S e Performance2.1×the official figure
Official
7.8
Real world
16.7
0715 L/100 km
| BMW M5 | Mercedes-Benz AMG GT 63 S e Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| Real fuel use (L/100 km) | 12.8 | 16.7 |
| Official fuel use (L/100 km) | 1.6 | 7.8 |
| Gap vs official | 7.8× | 2.1× |
| Distance with engine off | — | — |
| Real CO2 from fuel (g/km) | 296 | 385 |
| Official electric range (km) | 68 | 13 |
| Average kerb weight (kg) | 2,516 | 2,378 |
| Cars in the data | 474 | 966 |
Bold = better. Source: EEA OBFCM real-world data, reporting year 2024, CC BY 4.0.
Which one is cheaper to run?
On fuel alone, the BMW M5 comes out ahead for the average owner. Your own result depends mostly on how often you charge.
More comparisons
BMW M5 vs Mercedes-Benz AMG GLC 63S e PerformanceBMW M5 vs Mercedes-Benz AMG S 63 e PerformanceBMW M5 vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-HybridBMW M5 vs Porsche Panamera Turbo S E-HybridMercedes-Benz AMG GT 63 S e Performance vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-HybridMercedes-Benz AMG GT 63 S e Performance vs Porsche Panamera Turbo S E-Hybrid