[ric124]

Maybe the EPA is biased and didn't like how the 328i MPG numbers made the domestic cars look bad. A car that looks better, performs better and better MPG's is just not fair to the domestic cars!

[Blubaron79]

I can't believe people are actually rethinking their purchase over 3mpg.... Please!!! You people will probably drive the car so damn hard it will only get 20mpg combined... Us Americans are too spoiled..

[justinnum1]

Originally Posted by Blubaron79

I can't believe people are actually rethinking their purchase over 3mpg.... Please!!! You people will probably drive the car so damn hard it will only get 20mpg combined... Us Americans are too spoiled..

Seriously, just drive the damn thing and enjoy it

[liljestig]

Why not start a petition demanding BMW USA to take in the 320d? (!) (with EU6 emission of course)..

I got 57 mpg just recently when travelling fully packed with family and two (small) kids in my E91 320d Touring. BMW states 54 mpg extra urban. In any situation, I have not been able to push it below 40+ mpg even in downtown traffic jams.

Looking at performance, 0-100 km/h (0-58 mph), the diesel is of course slower (8.1 sec) due to have to shift to 3rd gear before reaching 100 (diesel engine's narrower rev range max 4800 rpm), but overtaking performance (80-120 km/h) is indeed faster than the 328i and not far behind the 335i. (Thanks to the juicy 380 Nm torque on the 320d. 335i has 400 Nm if I'm not mistaken)

P.S. The answer to the question if the 320d burns rubber going from standstill and flooring it with DSC turned off the answer is: YES it does. A lot. - something that does not happen on the 328i. D.S.

Consumer power rules!

Dan

[Propagator]

EU and EPA do not use the same testing procedure, so comparing their numbers directly makes zero sense.

In fact, the absolute number is not that important, as "your mileage may vary".

What IS useful about the EPA number is that it allows you to compare different cars in the US market. And let's not act like BMW is the only company that is subjected to the EPA testing. Whether you like the EPA testing procedure or not, it is at least the same for everyone.

In that sense, 36 to 33 is a pretty big screw up. I do not remember anything like this from any other manufacturer in recent memory. I suspect someone's just lost his/her job at BMW.

[zamboni]

Originally Posted by bl@ster

That's right. I have most options on mine so the price difference between 328 and 335 is in the 4-5k range.

True I will consider 335i when I'm ready, to me it's not worth $49K for a four cyclinders.

[Blubaron79]

Originally Posted by zamboni

True I will consider 335i when I'm ready, to me it's not worth $49K for a four cyclinders.

It's only 49k if you put everything in it....

[M3_WC]

The difference between the two is $4,900.

When you build off the base cars. When adding premium package and xenons(added to 328i). No matter what other options you add after that, the difference will always be $4,900. All other options/packages cost the same on both cars.

Going without prem package, obviously the difference is much greater.

[bl@ster]

And if I'm deciding between a fully optioned luxury line, the difference is $3800.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by wdlv

I don't know why they're redoing their initial findings but it is quite curious that they've been revised. Obviously, they spent some time establishing their figures and now to revisit (whatever).

I purchased a 335i and I don't have any regrets, as long as it comes out more fuel efficient as my outgoing e90 328i, then I'll be happy (which I'm quite sure it will be).

I haven't read all the posts, so this may have already been said. The EPA requires each manufacturer to do its own testing. The protocol is VERY specific, so, as BMW says, revisions are usually only +/- 1 MPG. I'm surprised to hear that EPA protocol does not require them to run a second test when their results vary so much from the manufacturer's results.

Being that the EPA's test yielded such a different result than BMW's makes me question the EPA's results as much, if not more, than BMW's. My guess would be that BMW ran the test multiple times before submitting the results to EPA. It would not surprise me if BMW's results are reinstated after testing is done in the near future for the upcoming 2013 models, or revised closer to BMW's results. I feel quite sure EPA will re-test the F30 for the 2013 model year.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

The difference between the two is $4,900.

When you build off the base cars. When adding premium package and xenons(added to 328i). No matter what other options you add after that, the difference will always be $4,900. All other options/packages cost the same on both cars.

Going without prem package, obviously the difference is much greater.

The difference is $4,500. You have to add the alarm to the 328, also, @ $400.

[J1n]

Very interesting thread .. here in Australia i'm interested to see how it will effect the luxury car tax.. many guys here dont even look at the 335's as they are currently 30k difference between the 328...

Currently everyone is looking at the 328 because of how cheap it is as it is not subject to the luxury car tax because of the fuel efficiency.

~70k for a 328 base ~100k for 335 base.

May increase the base of the 328's by another 7k if it happens!

"A luxury car is a car with a GST-inclusive value above the LCT threshold, which in 2011-12 is:
$75,375 for fuel-efficient cars
$57,466 for other cars."

[M3_WC]

So when is the M-sport package available? I would like a no-option manual 328i with M-sport package, for a commuter car.

[liljestig]

Does EPA take into consideration real-life factors like the brake energy regeneration, or start and stop?

To my knowledge none of the US competitors has these features, and the strong lobbyism from Ford, Honda, Toyota and GM probably demanded EPA to re-run the BMW 328i tests (with those features disabled) so that their own products doesn't look as bad.

However, in real-life, most likely are those figures closer to the BMW stated ratings, when driving 'normally' under every-day circumstances.

Dan

[svache]

Originally Posted by liljestig

To my knowledge none of the US competitors has these features, and the strong lobbyism from Ford, Honda, Toyota and GM probably demanded EPA to re-run the BMW 328i tests (with those features disabled) so that their own products doesn't look as bad.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is indeed the case. I read some articles online which suggest a similar thing. It wouldn't be surprised if the EPA made an 'error' in their test..

[Jon D]

Originally Posted by svache

As outlined in the BMW communication above, the new 328i apparently had it's fuel economy numbers revised and now shows the same numbers as the 335i in AT, and only slightly better than the 335i in MT.

The numbers are now:

BMW 2012 328i Sedan
City 23 / Highway 33 / Combined 26 - Automatic
City 23 / Highway 34 / Combined 27 - Manual

BMW 2012 335i Sedan
City 23 / Highway 33 / Combined 26 - Automatic
City 20 / Highway 30 / Combined 23 - Manual

Interesting; the BMW UK website lists the following in Gals UK (figures in brackets are approximately converted to Gals US)

328i Auto
City 34 (28), Highway 54 (44), Combined 44 (36)

335i Auto
City 25 (21), Highway 46 (38), Combined 35 (29)

I'm in a similar dilemma as to which model to choose and with UK fuel prices at an equivalent of $9 (Gal US), it's a significant consideration. I think I'll wait for some real-world reviews before deciding.
I recently tested the new 640i (similar engine to the 335i) and averaged only 23 (19 US) over 600 miles; however, I was driving with a heavy right foot!

[gator15]

Originally Posted by Jon D

Interesting; the BMW UK website lists the following in Gals UK (figures in brackets are approximately converted to Gals US)

328i Auto
City 34 (28), Highway 54 (44), Combined 44 (36)

335i Auto
City 25 (21), Highway 46 (38), Combined 35 (29)

I'm in a similar dilemma as to which model to choose and with UK fuel prices at an equivalent of $9 (Gal US), it's a significant consideration. I think I'll wait for some real-world reviews before deciding.
I recently tested the new 640i (similar engine to the 335i) and averaged only 23 (19 US) over 600 miles; however, I was driving with a heavy right foot!

The fuel economy ratings in other countries are helpful only in comparing the two models against each other. They cannot be converted because the EPA runs a different test that tests different things than other countries do. For example , the EPA test may include higher speeds, longer stops etc. than other countries. So the UK numbers tell us that the 328i IS more fuel efficient than the 335i. By looking at the UK numbers, one can infer that if the EPA ran the same test on the 335i, its fuel economy numbers would be lowered as well. Until the EPA does such a test, it is impossible to know for sure what the 335i's EPA fuel economy standards are.

[Shuttlegoose]

Originally Posted by 2wheels4me

In my first 1000 miles with my F30 335 I have averaged 31 mpg with a mix of dense freeway and city driving for my 52-mile-a-day round-trip commute, plus 3 days a week driving a cold-start, couple-of-miles trip to the gym and back (lunchtime), including climbing up and down to the fourth story of a parking garage. Freeway alone is about 34 or so. Admittedly driving mostly frugally, this seems in line with the 335's 23/33 rating or even a bit better. I find it very hard to believe that the new 328 wouldn't do a couple of mpg better than that.

I like those numbers. Let's all be honest though, it's all about the driver and their dynamics. If your driving in sport and sport plus all day and driving very spirited, your mpg will suffer for sure. I'm going to baby it on the highway in Eco pro, then save sport plus for the fun times! No sense in racing stoplight to stoplight.

[BMWrules7]

Originally Posted by svache

As outlined in the BMW communication above, the new 328i apparently had it's fuel economy numbers revised and now shows the same numbers as the 335i in AT, and only slightly better than the 335i in MT.

The numbers are now:

BMW 2012 328i Sedan
City 23 / Highway 33 / Combined 26 - Automatic
City 23 / Highway 34 / Combined 27 - Manual

BMW 2012 335i Sedan
City 23 / Highway 33 / Combined 26 - Automatic
City 20 / Highway 30 / Combined 23 - Manual


With this, I'm just wondering who start to have second thoughts about their choice for the 328i due to the revised fuel economy of the car?

Personally I have no idea what to do yet. My car does not arrive until the end of March, but more likely the first week of April. Should I keep the car because it's cheaper or shall I order a new one and spend a few thousand more (although, in my case, I would leave the cold weather package this time lol). Do I want to wait the extra months or should I just forgo on the whole model and see about a 528i or 535i with slightly less options instead (kind of hard as I love to geek with some of that stuff lol). I did email my CA to see what he can tell me about the revised numbers.

I have no idea what to do yet, but I can say I am not feeling right about this. I do feel a bit like this was false advertising and we should at least have the possibility to upgrade to the 335i if we wish to.

Okay, so let me get this straight. The 5% savings I enjoyed by beating my new 328 engine up with start/stop just evaporated with this newly found 8% increase in fuel costs.

So, does this mean if BMW removes the added weight and silliness of the electronics for start and stop and honestly report its consumption numbers that I would be ahead of the game?



Anyway, 8% tolerance is a lot, wouldn't you say for a company that prides itself on German engineering?

I mean what if our doors had an 8% tolerance? They wouldn't even close properly.

[shoptb]

Originally Posted by bl@ster

And if I'm deciding between a fully optioned luxury line, the difference is $3800.

I'm still confused here....you're willing to spend $3800 more on a 335i because you *might* be saving ~$180 less than you originally anticipated on gasoline with the 328i? No offense, but I think folks need to step back, take a deep breath, and realize this isn't as big of a deal as it seems in the grand scheme of things.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by Jon D

Interesting; the BMW UK website lists the following in Gals UK (figures in brackets are approximately converted to Gals US)

328i Auto
City 34 (28), Highway 54 (44), Combined 44 (36)

335i Auto
City 25 (21), Highway 46 (38), Combined 35 (29)

Indeed - this means that with real-world US mpg figures being reported in the upper 20s, that converts to UK mpg figures in the early 20s.

That's HALF what's quoted on the BMW UK website!!

I had considered getting the 328i instead of the 320d, since the published fuel figures aren't as far apart as you'd expect - but now I'm glad I went for the diesel. With the diesel we've already seen people getting 60mpg UK on the motorway and I think that's likely to translate to 50mpg combined. Definitely makes the diesel worthwhile even for those of us for whom company car tax isn't an issue.

[Michael Schott]

Originally Posted by liljestig

Does EPA take into consideration real-life factors like the brake energy regeneration, or start and stop?

To my knowledge none of the US competitors has these features, and the strong lobbyism from Ford, Honda, Toyota and GM probably demanded EPA to re-run the BMW 328i tests (with those features disabled) so that their own products doesn't look as bad.

However, in real-life, most likely are those figures closer to the BMW stated ratings, when driving 'normally' under every-day circumstances.

Dan

The answer to your question is yes. The cars are tested under conditions that approximate real world driving scenarios. See this link:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

(Thanks to Sunny5280 on Bimmerfest for the link).