2013 X3 mileage estimates

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.

Joe,

Have you ordered a new 2012 X3 2.8?

Our motivation for looking at the new X3 with the turbo 4 was much better mileage but now we might as well do the turbo 6 or something else instead

Wait... wasnt the old 28i with the inline 6 also 25 mpg highway?

I dont think they updated it yet....

Originally Posted by cgrZ4

Joe,

Have you ordered a new 2012 X3 2.8?

Our motivation for looking at the new X3 with the turbo 4 was much better mileage but now we might as well do the turbo 6 or something else instead

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

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....n=sbs&id=32345

Nice, 21/28/24 urban/highway/combined compared with last year's model at 19/25/21

I get 27 mpg on the highway in my 550...

Originally Posted by cgrZ4

May need to look at other options when replacing my wife's 2007 X3.

You're looking at $50k suv's and a couple mpg's is the deal breaker?

My 35i gets 27 on the highway and 20 with local stop and go driving. Not too shabby!

Originally Posted by NeedWisdom

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

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....n=sbs&id=32345

That's a great site! Thanks! Nice to compare things side-by-side including my current 2003 325xi. It's definitely an improvement.

It's also easy to see how conservative they are. They claim my 2003 325xi was 17/24 when I typically get 22/30.

OK, I'm more at ease now with these numbers.

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.

Originally Posted by bren

You're looking at $50k suv's and a couple mpg's is the deal breaker?

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

I guess the expectations were set too high with all the talk of lighter engine and turbo with lower # of cylinders

The sales guy at a local dealer said the engine would last longer due to lower RPM / higher torque. I hope he is right.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rexian

I guess the expectations were set too high with all the talk of lighter engine and turbo with lower # of cylinders

The sales guy at a local dealer said the engine would last longer due to lower RPM / higher torque. I hope he is right.

Originally Posted by rexian

I guess the expectations were set too high with all the talk of lighter engine and turbo with lower # of cylinders

The sales guy at a local dealer said the engine would last longer due to lower RPM / higher torque. I hope he is right.

Hahaha, The sales guy will say anything. What I think is really funny is the $700 plus fee for training or whatever they call it. I asked for that back on my last purchase since I taught the salesperson.

I have yet to meet a salesperson that is half as informed as most of the people on this forum.

They make stuff up as they go.


As far as mpg. I agree $50k + vehicles and whining about 2-3 mpg difference. Really?

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.

Originally Posted by cgrZ4

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.

I was originally going to wait for the turbo 4 (for the better mileage) but I am glad that I purchased thje 2012 2.8 6 cyl instead.

the 6 also has the advantage of being around a while so any kinds are [presumably] worked out.

Originally Posted by Me530

I get 27 mpg on the highway in my 550...

I get the same kind of mileage on the highway in my ancient 2004 X3. Thought newer was supposed to be more efficient.

For what it's worth, the X3 28i is rated at 6,7-8,9 (7,5 combined) l/100km on the EU test cycle. That's about 26 US urban and 31 combined.

The mileage improvement is in the order of 15%. Ask your wife if she'd prefer your 'anatomy' be 15% larger.

Originally Posted by cgrZ4

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.

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.

Originally Posted by lbjgh

The mileage improvement is in the order of 15%. Ask your wife if she'd prefer your 'anatomy' be 15% larger.

It's how you use it. Anyway, I averaged 26.4 MPG on a 210 mile trip yesterday going anywhere from 60 - 80 miles per hour. No bad and certainly on par or better than the 2007 CRV that I had. Once again, I'm glad that I didn't wait for the 2013. I was expecting the 25/34 they have been mentioning on the turbo 4. Car & Driver with their testing (and I know they are abusing the car) averaged 21 MPG with the 328 in their May issue.