The BMW website has updated the X3 2.8 car configurator and also the estimated mileage estimates. Either the EPA has totally screwed BMW or there is some mistake because the new estimated highway mileage for this vehicle in now 25 mpg. This is terrible since the Audi Q5 with the 2.0 Ltr engine gets 27 mpg. I thought the new turbo 4 was supposed to get better mileage than that. May need to look at other options when replacing my wife's 2007 X3.
So, the 2013 X3 28i gets 25 and the 2012 35i (or did they update that to 2013?) gets 26 mpg?
Ugh. I wonder what the real numbers are. Guess we won't know until we get the 2013 X3 28i's in our driveways. I'm hoping they were ultraconservative on those estimates.
Yep, supposed to be built week of 30 April. I'm thinking the same thing too. I haven't asked my CA for his comments on this yet.
I'm also curious to find out how 2012 328i owners are doing for MPG. Won't be the same, of course, but it at least gives us an idea of what they're getting compared to what the government is rating it.
Well, have no fear, the mileage HAS improved with the MY2013. Can't remember where I read this, but found it on one of the forums, just can't seem to find it any longer, but here is the link for MY2013
I agree...add in the 'EPA test', done in house by most/each car mfg'er, under ideal conditions, with data extrapolated, and then the real world: where few cars ever see that mystical "hwy mpg rating", in actual use.
I have had a lot of cars over nearly 50 years, (with the EPA jive added in on many of those decades), and I've only had one car that regularly meets/exceeds the EPA Estimate Highway MPG jive number.
Xs of any species are heavy, wide tired, AWD cars; shopping for '30 mpg', or concerned about 5 buck gas: look elsewhere and, quit wringing your hands, imo.
We buy them for many reasons; mpg isn't high on most lists, other than some rationale based on what one might get, on occasion.
GL, mD
For what it's worth, I recently drove over 8600 kms (about 5300 miles) in my 2011 35i MSport on a trip from BC down to LaQunita, CA and return using I5 mainly. This 8600 kms included 2 full months of urban driving in the Palm Springs area of CA. I checked my fuel economy for the entire trip and achieved nearly 28MPG Imperial, or about 23MPG US for the entire time, two hiway trips of about 5200kms total, and rest (about 3400kms) urban driving. I did not baby it in either locale, cruising on I5 at slightly over the limit both ways, and close to or slightly over limits in the urban areas.
Not a bad result, IMO, and if fuel economy is a deal breaker for a buyer, maybe they should be looking at some kind of a hydrid. :dunno:
With a combined fuel economy rating 15% better? That's nothing to sneeze at. And this is accomplished with more power earlier in the RPM range and better front/rear weight distribution. Win-win. :thumbup:
They have been updating the website every day. I was on BYO last night and it had finally been switched over to the 2013s since a few weeks ago, but there were no Accessories and Options. This morning there were.
So I wouldn't take the website info too literally at the moment. They are just finally updating it to reflect the MY 2013 changes.
You look at the recent tests in Car & Driver and the mileage they were getting was no where near the EPA estimates.
I would also think that the 4 cyl engine would work harder to move this heavy vehicle.
The EPA estimates must be very disheartening to BMW after having spent lots of time and money to develop this engine with the hope of multi-platform utilization. What is so confusing is why the numbers differ so drastically from the 528 (with Xdrive) since the vehicle weights are so close.
It must have BMW second guessing their choice of base model engines. Historically BMW only makes changes for improvement sake (power,mileage, durability, simplicity, etc). Having driven the turbo 4 in the 528, this engine is wonderful. However when the mileage estimates are virtually unchanged from the previous 6 this significantly deminishes the rationale for introducing this engine other than maybe eliminating the hesitation issue upon startup.
I find it hard to believe BMW would make the mistake of publishing incorrect EPA estimates due to the possible negative impact or perception this could have coupled with their recent EPA downgrade on the 328i estimates. Corporate marketing execs are too involved and would see to that before releasing the new web content.
It will be interesting to watch further developments by BMW and it competitors. If Audi any anyone else introduces a 4 cylinder turbo diesel with great mileage numbers and a reasonable price premium it could be a game changer.
Right now there is not enough differientation between the X3 2.8 and 3.5 and any left over 2011 X3 2.8 make even more sense.
The EPA estimates must be very disheartening to BMW after having spent lots of time and money to develop this engine with the hope of multi-platform utilization. What is so confusing is why the numbers differ so drastically from the 528 (with Xdrive) since the vehicle weights are so close.
It must have BMW second guessing their choice of base model engines. Historically BMW only makes changes for improvement sake (power,mileage, durability, simplicity, etc). Having driven the turbo 4 in the 528, this engine is wonderful. However when the mileage estimates are virtually unchanged from the previous 6 this significantly deminishes the rationale for introducing this engine other than maybe eliminating the hesitation issue upon startup.
I find it hard to believe BMW would make the mistake of publishing incorrect EPA estimates due to the possible negative impact or perception this could have coupled with their recent EPA downgrade on the 328i estimates. Corporate marketing execs are too involved and would see to that before releasing the new web content.
It will be interesting to watch further developments by BMW and it competitors. If Audi any anyone else introduces a 4 cylinder turbo diesel with great mileage numbers and a reasonable price premium it could be a game changer.
Right now there is not enough differientation between the X3 2.8 and 3.5 and any left over 2011 X3 2.8 make even more sense.
the 6 also has the advantage of being around a while so any kinds are [presumably] worked out.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
BimmerFest BMW Forum
11.4M posts
753.1K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to BMW owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about Bimmerfest events, production numbers, programming, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more! Bringing the BMW community together.