[Propagator]

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

I don't know what threads you are reading but plenty of people are bashing BMW for this news. My point if you care to actually comprehend is that all this noise is moot when real world fuel economy is all that is really important. EPA numbers are crap. I get 31 mpg at 75 mph in my 2011 e90 and it's rated at 28.

And by the way what are you expecting being on a dedicated BMW forum? You own a BMW, that's why you are here. We buy BMW's because we are fans.

Given the quality of the posts you normally make, I'm a bit surprised that you came down on that side of the argument on this issue.

But I think my point is simple. If you would have criticized the EPA the same way in a situation like this regardless of which manufacturer was involved, I would disagree with you but you would at least be consistent. If you are defending BMW only because you are a fan, I personally don't see how that is a rational argument.

As for the EPA numbers being crap, I think you are missing the point. It's not supposed to be an accurate predictor of your own mileage, which would actually be impossible. It is supposed to serve as a tool for comparison, and for that purpose it is very useful. Would you rather not have any standard on mileage testing, and allow automakers to report numbers based on whatever test scheme they want to use that day? Now THAT would be crap numbers.

The bottom line is that BMW overstated their numbers for whatever reason, and this is SUPPOSED to be embarrassing. Otherwise, every manufacturer will report fake numbers hoping that some of them won't get caught, without any repercussions. So if you are defending BMW on this issue, you are only encouraging car makers to ignore the EPA standard and overstate their numbers for better marketing. We as consumers should criticize a manufacturer for not following the rule that everyone else follows.

Finally, I would note that this level of fanboism is NOT normal for every car forum. In fact, I would say that this place is one of the most fanboish owner communities I've ever been to. I'm sure that makes BMW marketing people all warm and fuzzy, but it's not something I would personally be proud of.

[raleedy]

It seems to me impossible to determine for now whether BMW overstated its fuel economy numbers, or the EPA has understated them. Because of the ratings for other BMW models, especially those with the N20 engine, I'm leaning toward EPA as the culprit. We'll find out, I think, when we see the ratings for the 2013 model.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by smohr33

Not so sure about that, my real world observations have been exactly the opposite. ECO has only been providing me extra milage on the highway. In the city it averages out to no milage gain, sometimes losing and sometimes a slight gain.

ECO mode is about driving a certain way to get better gas mileage in city driving. Don't overcompensate for the reduced throttle response by giving it even more throttle, which people tend to do. It's counter to the point of ECO mode. The mode is a way of driving that's supposed to help the driver how to drive in a less rapid fashion thus saving fuel.

On the highway at steady speed, there isn't anything ECO could be doing, other than reducing AC and electric load. That's only going to save a little bit. Highway driving doesn't really require judicious use of throttle from many starts and stops. As long as the driver is not hammering the throttle passing all the time, MPG isn't that affected.
Part of the ECO program is to get the trans to high gear as quickly as possible. On the highway you are in high gear all the time, unless you're passing, so there is no fuel saving from short shifting the trans.

Personally I don't see myself ever using ECO mode as I like to drive a certain way, and I way the best throttle response and shift speed all the time. If you're a driver who likes that as well, then you're probably over driving the ECO mode, or simply not driving it the way it was intended, and if so you won't see much MPG improvement. Plus, if you giving it more throttle to compensate for the slow mode, you could be using more fuel which is counter to what ECO is for.

[Michael Schott]

Originally Posted by Propagator

Given the quality of the posts you normally make, I'm a bit surprised that you came down on that side of the argument on this issue.

But I think my point is simple. If you would have criticized the EPA the same way in a situation like this regardless of which manufacturer was involved, I would disagree with you but you would at least be consistent. If you are defending BMW only because you are a fan, I personally don't see how that is a rational argument.

As for the EPA numbers being crap, I think you are missing the point. It's not supposed to be an accurate predictor of your own mileage, which would actually be impossible. It is supposed to serve as a tool for comparison, and for that purpose it is very useful. Would you rather not have any standard on mileage testing, and allow automakers to report numbers based on whatever test scheme they want to use that day? Now THAT would be crap numbers.

The bottom line is that BMW overstated their numbers for whatever reason, and this is SUPPOSED to be embarrassing. Otherwise, every manufacturer will report fake numbers hoping that some of them won't get caught, without any repercussions. So if you are defending BMW on this issue, you are only encouraging car makers to ignore the EPA standard and overstate their numbers for better marketing. We as consumers should criticize a manufacturer for not following the rule that everyone else follows.

Finally, I would note that this level of fanboism is NOT normal for every car forum. In fact, I would say that this place is one of the most fanboish owner communities I've ever been to. I'm sure that makes BMW marketing people all warm and fuzzy, but it's not something I would personally be proud of.

To me the whole EPA numbers issue is of no consequence. Real world numbers are all I care about and for me this change means zip. I'm impressed as hell that a car making 240 hp is rated at 33 mpg highway. That's my bottom line. Whether BMW screwed up is of no issue. Car companies fudge numbers and stretch the truth for marketing purposes all the time. Shame on anyone who buys into the hype in the first place.

As far as being fan boys, I've been here for 40 months and have read 1000's of posts criticizing BMW for all kinds of issues. Two notables for the e90 are RFT's and HPFP's not to mention dozens heavily critiquing the new F30 for everything from an engine sounding like a diesel to Lexus like steering.

Last, many of my posts are about balance and perspective and the posts in this thread are meant to be in that same vein.

[Propagator]

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

To me the whole EPA numbers issue is of no consequence. Real world numbers are all I care about and for me this change means zip. I'm impressed as hell that a car making 240 hp is rated at 33 mpg highway. That's my bottom line. Whether BMW screwed up is of no issue. Car companies fudge numbers and stretch the truth for marketing purposes all the time. Shame on anyone who buys into the hype in the first place.

As far as being fan boys, I've been here for 40 months and have read 1000's of posts criticizing BMW for all kinds of issues. Two notables for the e90 are RFT's and HPFP's not to mention dozens heavily critiquing the new F30 for everything from an engine sounding like a diesel to Lexus like steering.

Last, many of my posts are about balance and perspective and the posts in this thread are meant to be in that same vein.

I don't disagree that 33MPG is still a very impressive number. I never criticized that number. My only problem is with people blindly coming to the defense of BMW and bashing EPA without anything to back up that argument. I am certain that most of those people would take the exact opposite position if the car maker involved was Hyundai. Maybe it's my pet peeve, but I get annoyed by things like that.

As for the fanboi-ness of this forum, I don't see your point about people complaining as being necessarily against the point I made. In general, a lot of people seem to consider BMW to be something beyond a publicly traded company that produces cars. On the one hand, you have people that complain about inconsequential things basically because a BMW is supposed to be a god's own gift to mankind and anything less is a failure, and on the other hand you have people that blindly worship the brand for the same reason. (That is not to say that concerns about runflats and such are unfounded, those are/were real issues)

But I'm sure I made my point more than sufficiently, so I'll shut up on this matter.

[jeanchristophele]

Maybe the 535i is greater by 15% than the X3 because it's not an AWD which tends to consume more? ... OMG!!!

Originally Posted by Mako

First, the EPA will not change the numbers, not this year, its a US Gov agency, they are never wrong,

Second, price difference when optioned the same is only around $4K between the 28i and 35i

Third, I actually think the EPA might be right on this one, and I think the 335i numbers are also too high. I have a X3 35i and we are averaging 21.5 MPG with mixed driving, on a recent trip we drove 500 miles almost all highway with no traffic and were getting 25.5-26 MPG. I know the X3 weighs more, but can a few hundred pounds actually make MPG go down 20-25%, that seems a bit odd. I also find it odd that the 535i which weighs 130 pounds less than the X3 35i claims 30 mpg highway, which is 15% greater than the X3.

That is like saying that if you have a 130 pound passenger your highway MPG will go from 30 mpg down to 26 mpg, I highly doubt that! BMW get your numbers straight!

EDIT: I did see the post above mine (after posting mine) and one major factor is aerodynamics, I do realize that, but if these are tested on a machine then how can aerodynamics effect MPG for testing?

[jeanchristophele]

Originally Posted by bl@ster

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

You forgot to include the moonroof in this 328 price setup, that's another $1050.

[svache]

Originally Posted by jeanchristophele

You forgot to include the moonroof in this 328 price setup, that's another $1050.

The moonroof is included in the premium package

[jbryant654]

We picked up a 328i (base model with automatic) in Munich in May. In 2,000 miles of driving in Germany and Holland the average computed fuel mileage was slightly over 36mpg.

We have close to another 6,000 miles in the US and are averaging slightly over 35mpg. Have exceeded 40mpg on a couple of long trips.

My guess is that the mileage rating will increase when the car is retested.

Only complaint I have is BMW's habit of providing inaccurate information on the onboard computer. Gas mileage reads 5-6% high and speedometer is about 3% high. Odometer is closer at roughly 1/2% high.

Car is excellent for my wife, but, not quite as sporty as my 2007 335i with six speed.