pix335i commented:
January 26, 2012, 4:17 pm

So basically right around where they were saying in all the release information. I have always gotten better mileage in my E92 335i than the stats said so I'm curious to see how the Long Term Review 328i stacks up.

jackson328xi commented:
January 26, 2012, 6:56 pm

I think this is very impressive. Kind of makes the 335 look more appealing to me seeing the MPG number so close to the 328. If the car actually gets these numbers then (2 mpg x 16 gallon tank) = 32 more miles per tank in a 328. So a 335 needs around (32/26 miles) 1.23 more gallons of gas to go the same distance. So this is all a very long winded way of saying it would really only be about $5 more a week in gas to operate the 335. Sounds like a good price to have an I6 and the extra power.

That being said I understand things will vary based on how you drive the car etc etc.

blueguydotcom commented:
January 26, 2012, 7:42 pm

Good grief, I can only imagine all the belly-aching when people are getting 22-23 MPG from their F30s in a year.

tturedraider commented:
January 26, 2012, 8:31 pm

What?

It is not uncommon with EPA's new measuring procedures for drivers to get very close to the estimates or even exceed them.

mr_clueless commented:
January 26, 2012, 8:32 pm

It's interesting that the automatic gets better efficiency than the manual, and the difference between the two is even more pronounced for the 335i.

What are the reasons to get a manual on the F30?
- Weight? Not sure how to read these numbers -- 3406 (3461) lbs -- but I assume the auto is heavier?
- Performance?
- Fuel economy? (Not any more)
- Weight balance? (Not any more...auto is 50/50, manual is off a bit).
- Cost? (Not anymore)
- Just for fun?

tturedraider commented:
January 26, 2012, 8:35 pm

Just for fun. A more involved driving experience, more personal control over the transmission and engine.

Majikthese42 commented:
January 26, 2012, 9:24 pm

If you've looked at the BMW parts catalog, a replacement 6 speed manual transmission has listed for more than a replacement automatic transmission. The price premium charged for an AT is more of a historical artifact. They probably get a much better deal from GM than from ZF or Getrag. It would be in BMW's financial interest to minimize the number of manuals sold.

It will be interesting to see what kind of fuel economy numbers the magazines get.

BMW has the performance specs on the F30 on it's website now and rates the the 328i manual 0-60 time as 5.7 seconds versus the 5.9 for the automatic, 0.2 seconds quicker to 60. It gives the 335i an identical 5.4 seconds, manual or AT.

So yes, mostly "fun"! Plus I wouldn't ever know what to do with my left foot.

boostedX5SAV commented:
January 26, 2012, 9:51 pm

Nice! Too bad my money is tied up to the X5 right now. Also, I'd like to see what Audi does to their 2013/2014 A4s.

blueguydotcom commented:
January 26, 2012, 10:27 pm

I realize that but still you see people complaining that they do not hit EPA targets.

Agreed about the manual. It's not the cost. It's the involvement.

SoonerJohn commented:
January 27, 2012, 12:31 am

Finally!! I've already ordered regardless, but was curious. These are in line with what I was expecting. I may not quite hit the estimate, but even if I get close, 26 combined for my 300-horse-fun-as-hell-to-drive-damn-good-looking-loaded-with-cool-techology-335i will suit me perfectly!

Scorchpa commented:
January 27, 2012, 9:42 am

I would buy an MT for the same reason I would buy a 335 (over 328) which is the same reason I would buy a BMW (over MB). With a MT, you become part of the machine, you're an integral part of the driving experience, and you're driving the car to get a thrill out of driving. I think anyone wanting the TRUE driving experience needs to have a MT.

Unfortunately the wife doesn't know how to use the third pedal, and I don't really want her to test it out on a new F30 335.

mr_clueless commented:
January 28, 2012, 12:54 pm

That's my thinking as well but I have started to wonder what happens 20 years from now when cars are mostly electric. Maybe I'll worry about that when we get there.

blueguydotcom commented:
January 28, 2012, 4:43 pm

... these numbers probably came from driving in Eco Pro Mode. Not sure how many people want to put up with that.

Saintor commented:
January 28, 2012, 4:50 pm

Those figures are NOT a compelling case for a 4-cyl.

Automatic, the 335i has only 1mpg worse city and 25% more power than the 328i. BMW should have not bothered with the N20 and have offered a detuned N55 or NA 6 c-yl. with the latest direct injection gizmos.

raleedy commented:
January 28, 2012, 5:44 pm

I was thinking just the opposite - hardly any compelling reason to pay up for the I6 since the performance numbers are so similar (and more than adequate) with the I4.

BTW I was one of the biggest whiners when the N20 was announced to replace the N52, which is in the car I drive now. But a couple of sessions in a 2012 528i have turned me around completely. The N20 is a fine engine and well suited to its purpose. It will be my choice when the time comes, if it ever does. I'm really interested, though, to see real world mileage numbers. I think the whole point of turbocharging is to provide a relatively weak engine that is very thrifty until you step on it.

Saintor commented:
January 28, 2012, 6:01 pm

I drove the N20 as well and found it unfit in a luxury vehicle. Unless there is a Performance Exhaust for it that changes its 14K$ Civic-like engine note, I'll pass.

m8o commented:
January 28, 2012, 8:43 pm

I'm surprised to find this to the true, but ... my daily is a '09 JCW which is rated at 29mpg combined by the EPA, and continually after resetting the OBC it keeps settling around 28.8mpg; more when my wife drives it as she tends to always short-shift. So I'm optimistic these ratings would be accurate for me too.

With that said, I'm very surprised, disappointed even, the combined rating on the 335i manual is as low as it is. Given how accurate the JCW's EPA rating has been for me, I have to believe I'd be getting 23mpg. And that's a bit lower than I want, going forward. Will make me have to try a modern slush-box to see if I can live with it.

Otherwise, the mention about the ricey engine note of the N20 was a surprise. I hadn't considered that being a possibility. It is also a surprise as the current Mini JCW line proves BMW can make a fantastic sounding turbo'd 4-cyl. Will be interesting to see if the sport package coming in the summer will offer a freer flowing and throatier exhaust. Well, you know aftermarket will have it covered even if BMW doesn't.

Blax commented:
January 29, 2012, 12:45 pm

Fun for sure, nothing better and completely transforms the characteristics of the car.

But also reliability. I've had six 3-series in the past 10 years or so. Three were manual, three were automatic. Two of the automatic transmissions had to be replaced completely (both under 2 years old). The sticks were all fine.