[m balla]

What RPMs are being run at highway/cruise speeds at top gear in the auto and manual? My IS at best does 17 US in the city and 23 if I am lucky on the freeway... my GTI does between 30-40 city and like 26 freeway

I bet a lot of the drivers that switched to the F30 push it a lot harder especially the ones coming from N54/N55... were these tests done using american octane or Euro octane?

[svache]

Originally Posted by dbtheo

This reminds me of when they adjusted the E90 mpg around 2007 or so, real world was better than what the EPA did as well. But something is definitely not right...

Hold that thought and read this article as well... http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...s-dont-add-up/

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

[AlexK]

Most likely there's been some kind of error in EPA's testing procedures, or the tested car had some kind of defect or was put into non-default drivetrain "mode" (like "Sport+" or something)... B.t.w, all the people who are trying to compare your own MPG results - keep in mind that EPA uses a very specific test pattern which is highly unlikely to "match" your own driving habits. For example, even their "highway" testing procedure doesn't keep the car accelerated at a constant speed all of the time:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

[Monterra]

I guess Automobile will have to change it back to diesel beats gasoline But in all seriousness I would've taken a 335d at deep discount over the F30 4 banger assuming I was going with the 8 speed. True, I've not yet driven the new 3 and I'm not suggesting its not great in its own right but I wonder how many have gotten to experience the brawn that is the 335d on the highway dropping the hammer at 60 and seeing what happens. I did and was in love...and am convinced I will have one when the time comes- CPO ok if BMW doesn't get a new one over in time.

[jon328i]

i guess BMW has to revise all their ads of "36 MPG" on all magazines i have read.

[shoptb]

Originally Posted by jon328i

i guess BMW has to revise all their ads of "36 MPG" on all magazines i have read.

I would bet that since MY2013 is just around the corner...they'll hold off and say that the ads were produced prior to the EPA's "revelation" (read: error) and when they re-test in MY2013, miraculously it will be back to 36 mpg (which is what common-sense would dictate and real-world drivers will confirm).

[J1n]

Originally Posted by clarence

It will have zero effect in Oz cos u guys use consumption figures based on the EU standard. There are no changes to the EU figures at all.

AHHH fingers crossed

[Rolitto]

Nonsense topic and EPA crap.

Firstly a person who is blindly in love with something will still want it no matter what.
Secondly 3 mpg down on the official figure isn't the end of the world. Fact is that even if EPA re-run their test for a second time will show them that another figure will result due to mathematical margin errors. So what if they used a different dynamometer than BMW's?
Thirdly people are sarcastic about their opinion. They want to buy something built on good quality but cheap or should I say it in other words, they want to buy for example an expensive BMW M5 but are concerned about its fuel consumption. Oh my God...

Those people do NOT understand the fact that when you ask for one thing, it's on the expense of another thing. Or maybe they expect to have a fast, cheap, good quality, and low cost car in one single package.

[BLKBullet]

Originally Posted by rolren

Nonsense topic and EPA crap.

Firstly a person who is blindly in love with something will still want it no matter what.
Secondly 3 mpg down on the official figure isn't the end of the world. Fact is that even if EPA re-run their test for a second time will show them that another figure will result due to mathematical margin errors. So what if they used a different dynamometer than BMW's?
Thirdly people are sarcastic about their opinion. They want to buy something built on good quality but cheap or should I say it in other words, they want to buy for example an expensive BMW M5 but are concerned about its fuel consumption. Oh my God...

Those people do NOT understand the fact that when you ask for one thing, it's on the expense of another thing. Or maybe they expect to have a fast, cheap, good quality, and low cost car in one single package.

came in to post pretty much this.

some drama queens ITT.

[S_M]

Clearly it was the front licesnse plate bracket on the first 500 cars that added the 3mpg

[pogodog]

How does the same 8 speed auto and N20 engine in the 2012 F10 528i @ approx. 400 lbs. more mass get a 34 mpg hwy rating from the EPA? Something's fishy...

[raleedy]

Originally Posted by Feanor

Huh?

According to my iPhone, 23 US gallons = 19.1515 UK gallons. The 44 UK mpg I mentioned is what's quoted on the BMW UK website.

My maths is rubbish though so if I've made a mistake please explain...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you explicitly said this: "But 23 US mpg is NINTEEN UK mpg while BMW advertises 44 UK mpg."

As you note, US gallons are smaller than UK gallons. Assuming we have the same miles (and I believe we do) then miles per gallon have to be more from a UK gallon than from a US gallon. So by comparing gallon sizes rather than mpg values, you end up with a "backward" result. Indeed, a handy conversion website shows that 23 US mpg converts to 27.6 UK mpg. Still not 44, but not 19 either.

[raleedy]

Originally Posted by pogodog

How does the same 8 speed auto and N20 engine in the 2012 F10 528i @ approx. 400 lbs. more mass get a 34 mpg hwy rating from the EPA? Something's fishy...

I think it's understood more widely now that EPA doesn't do all the testing. And it turns out that when the manufacturer tests, sometimes the results are better than when EPA does the testing. Are you shocked?

What is amusing is the number of people who seem to think the rating change makes some difference for their experience of the car.

[scalesmd]

Look, in the U.S. the EPA is a bloated bureaucracy. It goes to follow that their employees are also bloated.

I imagine having an 800lb (363 kg) bloated driver testing the 328 would be enough to reduce the mpg to the levels now being reported.

I also saw where the EPA was critical of BMW not having any cake or cheeseburger holders in the new 3 series....

Look, if you are buying a BMW for the MPG, IMHO, you are buying the car for the wrong reason.

[Propagator]

The level of fanbois in this thread blindly defending BMW over an embarrassing mistake it made is really disturbing.

Every other manufacturer gets judged by the same standard. Everyone is required to report a figure that is reproducible by the actual EPA testing. Most do that just fine, which is why something like this doesn't happen very often. BMW fucked it up. No excuse.

Stop acting like somebody called your mother a whore. It's just a fucking car company.

[igom3]

Originally Posted by pogodog

How does the same 8 speed auto and N20 engine in the 2012 F10 528i @ approx. 400 lbs. more mass get a 34 mpg hwy rating from the EPA? Something's fishy...

Exactly do your own math!

[Lucky13]

The ads are still running claiming 36 mpg because I saw one on TV last night. Either the 528 numbers will get revised or the 328 will get revised again because this is just plain stupid to have better numbers with the 528. I know the gov't is useless but can they be this bad.

[Michael Schott]

Originally Posted by Propagator

The level of fanbois in this thread blindly defending BMW over an embarrassing mistake it made is really disturbing.

Every other manufacturer gets judged by the same standard. Everyone is required to report a figure that is reproducible by the actual EPA testing. Most do that just fine, which is why something like this doesn't happen very often. BMW fucked it up. No excuse.

Stop acting like somebody called your mother a whore. It's just a fucking car company.

It's a stupid mistake but there is definitely something fishy going on with EPA's results. Does it really make sense for the 328 and 335 to get the same mileage or the 528 with the same engine but 400 more pounds to be in the same range? And even with the reduction, a 2012 e92 with the N52 and 6AT is rated at 28 mpg highway while the F30 328 even with the revised numbers gets 33 mpg according to EPA.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

It's a stupid mistake but there is definitely something fishy going on with EPA's results. Does it really make sense for the 328 and 335 to get the same mileage or the 528 with the same engine but 400 more pounds to be in the same range? And even with the reduction, a 2012 e92 with the N52 and 6AT is rated at 28 mpg highway while the F30 328 even with the revised numbers gets 33 mpg according to EPA.

If the N52 e92 gets 28mpg then 33 for the new n20 f30 sounds about right.
Was this the first n20 tested by the EPA?
The mpg for f10 n20 528i doesn't sound right then..
The N55 f30 335i should not get the same as the N20 f30 328i, should be about 10% difference..

If this is the first of the new n20 f30/f10 EPA tests, then you can expect the rest to 'fall' inline.
There may be a large gap between the EPA and euro numbers, but there can't exist large inconsistencies between the models within the same system.

[bananachipz]

Originally Posted by rolren

Nonsense topic and EPA crap.

Firstly a person who is blindly in love with something will still want it no matter what.
Secondly 3 mpg down on the official figure isn't the end of the world. Fact is that even if EPA re-run their test for a second time will show them that another figure will result due to mathematical margin errors. So what if they used a different dynamometer than BMW's?
Thirdly people are sarcastic about their opinion. They want to buy something built on good quality but cheap or should I say it in other words, they want to buy for example an expensive BMW M5 but are concerned about its fuel consumption. Oh my God...

Those people do NOT understand the fact that when you ask for one thing, it's on the expense of another thing. Or maybe they expect to have a fast, cheap, good quality, and low cost car in one single package.

[1SerieStud]

Strange...while having my car serviced I was given an f30 328 loaner and I was actually very impressed with its performance and gas mileage - I was constantly averaging mid to high 30's in comfort mode and around 40 in Eco mode.

Prior to this loaner I was given a 2011 328i both in coupe (vert) and then sedan models, so over the last couple of days I was able to test all 3 configurations. The outgoing NA inline 6 gets terrible mileage, even when compared to the N54 on my 1M, and lacks plenty of oomph down low. It is my opinion that BMW has definitely taken a step in the right direction for those who care about decent performance numbers while saving at the pump. I have always been a fan of BMW i6 engines, however the new turbocharged 4-banger deserves plenty of merit.

[Diver]

We are from the government and we are here to help you.