[scalesmd]

That is it! No BMW for me! Does anyone know where I can find a Prius?

[ric124]

Originally Posted by scalesmd

That is it! No BMW for me! Does anyone know where I can find a Prius?

at least you will get keyless entry standard instead for paying an extra $1900

[bananachipz]

Originally Posted by ric124

at least you will get keyless entry standard instead for paying an extra $1900

Yep, and it comes with a free neutering too. 'cause you might as well if you drive a Prius...

[ric124]

Originally Posted by bananachipz

Yep, and it comes with a free neutering too. 'cause you might as well if you drive a Prius...

LMFAO......It has a cool feature too when u press really hard on the gas pedal u start to feel like you are going in reverse.

[ATX78703]

this doesn't make sense on so many levels:

1)n20 and n55 getting the same mileage in the same car? Even if the n20 is "more stressed" than the n55, it's still injecting fuel into 4 cylinders on every stroke cycle.

2)how is the 8at mpg's worse than the 6mt's? it has like 3 or 4 overdrive gears and the weight diff is negligible!!

3) how is a 528i getting rated at 34 highway with same engine, tranny and more weight?

4) all the real-world feedback we're getting now is in line with 35-36 mpg on low stress highway trips...

they'll revise the numbers next year, it was just a bad EPA test.

[famfmann]

Do you guys think there's any chance BMW did their MPG testing with Eco Pro turned on, and the EPA did not?

[Mdynamic]

Originally Posted by ATX78703

this doesn't make sense on so many levels:

1)n20 and n55 getting the same mileage in the same car? Even if the n20 is "more stressed" than the n55, it's still injecting fuel into 4 cylinders on every stroke cycle.

2)how is the 8at mpg's worse than the 6mt's? it has like 3 or 4 overdrive gears and the weight diff is negligible!!

3) how is a 528i getting rated at 34 highway with same engine, tranny and more weight?

4) all the real-world feedback we're getting now is in line with 35-36 mpg on low stress highway trips...

they'll revise the numbers next year, it was just a bad EPA test.

I agree. This whole test seems full of nonsense when drivers are reaching BMW's proposed figures. And, when physics contradict the EPA's test results. Good thing MY2013 is only a few months away so they can re-test that way.

[clarence]

Originally Posted by ZED4Mjjl

Step two for BMW will be to reflash the N20 to drop output and improve mileage. These engines were underated as far as HP and TQ anyway. Whether that's good or not is highly subjective.

It won't help too much when u compare EU figures for 320i & 328i.

[clarence]

Originally Posted by 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...

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.

[svache]

Originally Posted by ianbiz

Do it!

Nah, I start to believe EPA is at fault, for more than one reason. Plus I thought it over and decided I don't want to wait another few months

Originally Posted by wesrubix

Do you guys think there's any chance BMW did their MPG testing with Eco Pro turned on, and the EPA did not?

I doubt it. The sticker said something about 'up to 43 mpg possible' before all this and that's more likely with the Eco Pro setting and also more in line with what people here reported when they solely used that setting

[mapezzul]

The EPA ran the car on 87....

[raleedy]

Three words: Ethanol.

[raleedy]

Originally Posted by Feanor

Well, yes, we do want it all when we're promised it all.

The thing is, no enthusiast is stupid enough to expect to get the advertised fuel economy figures in real world driving. But 23 US mpg is NINTEEN UK mpg while BMW advertises 44 UK mpg.

Such a huge differential, even with a heavy right foot, is nothing short of scandalous IMO.

Doing the math backwards can invite error.

[ric124]

This is the reason why they had to lower the number!!! All comes back to sales

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....32175&id=31583

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by raleedy

Doing the math backwards can invite error.

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...

[clarence]

By rating the 328i being more uneconomical, what impact does this have on BMW's CAFE rating?

[dbtheo]

I just finished putting around 1300 miles on a demo 328i sport line. And I had a chance to test the mileage in multiple situations:


- for about 500-600 miles driving mainly in sport mode, city and highway (more city), observed 24.3 MPG's
- for a couple hundred miles, in ECO PRO, city only (with an 8 mile highway run only) returned 30.5 MPG
- Over a stretch of 420+ miles, mainly highway, I had an observed average of 38.3mpg, including some points as high as 43mpg while cruising


Yes I work for BMW, but I for one can state for certain, the EPA is way off here.

Dave

[svache]

Originally Posted by dbtheo

I just finished putting around 1300 miles on a demo 328i sport line. And I had a chance to test the mileage in multiple situations:


- for about 500-600 miles driving mainly in sport mode, city and highway (more city), observed 24.3 MPG's
- for a couple hundred miles, in ECO PRO, city only (with an 8 mile highway run only) returned 30.5 MPG
- Over a stretch of 420+ miles, mainly highway, I had an observed average of 38.3mpg, including some points as high as 43mpg while cruising


Yes I work for BMW, but I for one can state for certain, the EPA is way off here.

Dave

Doesn't matter if you work for BMW or not, fact is that you test drove the car for quite some distance and those overall numbers are very encouraging in my opinion. EPA is, like I mentioned earlier, probably indeed at error here.. it wouldn't surprise me the least.

[bcl0328]

Originally Posted by dbtheo

I just finished putting around 1300 miles on a demo 328i sport line. And I had a chance to test the mileage in multiple situations:


- for about 500-600 miles driving mainly in sport mode, city and highway (more city), observed 24.3 MPG's
- for a couple hundred miles, in ECO PRO, city only (with an 8 mile highway run only) returned 30.5 MPG
- Over a stretch of 420+ miles, mainly highway, I had an observed average of 38.3mpg, including some points as high as 43mpg while cruising


Yes I work for BMW, but I for one can state for certain, the EPA is way off here.

Dave

I can attest to this as well. I have driven over 900 miles, all highway in 98% EcoPro mode. My info on the dash says 39.3 MPG on average. I have not reset it yet.

Edit: I do not work for BMW.

[dbtheo]

Originally Posted by bcl0328

I can attest to this as well. I have driven over 900 miles, all highway in 98% EcoPro mode. My info on the dash says 39.3 MPG on average. I have not reset it yet.

Edit: I do not work for BMW.

I will also mention on the highway miles were NOT on ECO pro....I only used ECO that one time in the middle. Also my typical cruise speeds ranged from 65-72 mph

[tuned2ride]

Originally Posted by Thud

It's pointless to use the EPA estimates to predict your actual mileage. The EPA test is a specific set of driving conditions.

Including a peak speed of 80mph, something mpg-conscious people won't do.

EPA (2008+) is extremely reliable, probably right 95% of the time.

[dbtheo]

Originally Posted by svache

Doesn't matter if you work for BMW or not, fact is that you test drove the car for quite some distance and those overall numbers are very encouraging in my opinion. EPA is, like I mentioned earlier, probably indeed at error here.. it wouldn't surprise me the least.

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...