F30 3 Series Fuel Economy NOT as Good as Advertises: EPA Revises MPG Down
tags:
fuel economy f30post f30 forum f30 bmw f30 328i f30 epa bmw news bmw fuel economy bmw forum bmw f30 bmw bimmerpost bimmer forum bimmer 328i 2013 bmw fuel economy 2013 3 series 2012 bmw 328i
The EPA has revised the fuel economy numbers for the 2012 BMW 3 series from the preliminary numbers. These numbers are still preliminary as the EPA has not yet test the SULEV N26 powered 328i. Once the SULEV 328i is tested the EPA will release the final fuel economy numbers. The updated numbers for the 328i sedan are
BMW 2012 328i Sedan Automatic
City 23 / Highway 33 / Combined 26
This is a change of -1 city, -3 highway and -3 combined compared to the preliminary numbers originally released in December 2011
BMW 2012 328i Sedan Manual
City 23 / Highway 34 / Combined 27
The manual transmission numbers are unchanged and now represent a better fuel economy then the 8 speed auto.
BMW 2012 335i Sedan
The 335i Sedan automatic and manual transmission MPG did not change. They are -
Automatic - City 23 / Highway 33 / Combined 26
Manual - City 20 / Highway 30 / Combined 23
It is important to note that while the numbers have been reduced the F30 328i still represents a 18% improvement in fuel economy then the previous generation E90 328i. The F30 328i is also still the most fuel efficient vehicle in its class. Increased fuel economy can also be achieved using the ECO PRO mode.
Read the real world fuel economy thread to see what Bimmerfest.com members are getting for fuel economy in their F30 3 series.
Recent BMW News
Latest Forum Discussions
- Koni Yellow shocks 2006 E90 330xi triggers DSC
- Vibrations/Rumbling of entire car when making sharp turns
- 2013 328i convertible wind deflator
- 2011 328 xdrive with accident
- OEM Upgraded Exhaust and Air Intake
- E90 rims for sale
- Front Brake Service won't reset!
- Bumper question
- 335i- looking
- pls advise paintiing shadowline and mirror cups
March 19, 2012, 4:46 pm
What about the 335?
March 19, 2012, 4:49 pm
Tim
March 19, 2012, 4:51 pm
ehh, im getting more than my 2011 so thats all that matters to me. getting about 25mpg with highway and agressive around town driving
shouldn't we get some money back or something tho for false advertisement
March 19, 2012, 5:00 pm
BMW 2012 328i Sedan Automatic
City 23 / Highway 33 / Combined 26
This is a change of -1 city, -3 highway and -3 combined compared to the preliminary numbers originally released in December 2011
BMW 2012 328i Sedan Manual
City 23 / Highway 34 / Combined 27
The manual transmission numbers are unchanged and now represent a better fuel economy then the 8 speed auto.
BMW 2012 335i Sedan
The 335i Sedan automatic and manual transmission MPG did not change. They are -
Automatic - City 23 / Highway 33 / Combined 26
Manual - City 20 / Highway 30 / Combined 23
It is important to note that while the numbers have been reduced the F30 328i still represents a 18% improvement in fuel economy then the previous generation E90 328i. The F30 328i is also still the most fuel efficient vehicle in its class. Increased fuel economy can also be achieved using the ECO PRO mode.
Read the real world fuel economy thread to see what Bimmerfest.com members are getting for fuel economy in their F30 3 series.
March 19, 2012, 5:14 pm
Wow. That really disappointments me. I said this before and this reinforces my thoughts. I think with the 8AT they could have tweaked the N52 (direct injection & I'm sure there are others) and ended up with the same numbers as with the four pot.
The 528i with the N52 was rated at 22/32, 25 combined, with the 8AT.
March 19, 2012, 5:19 pm
I've never really cared about the EPA numbers. I guess they do a good job of approximating the "average" American driver though.
I've been able to hit the EU Extra-urban cycle numbers on BMWs, the figures that are notorious for being optimistic. And while I didn't have a chance to measure the average consumption on most of my test drive, I could probably get close to the 5,2 l/100km (45 US mpg) figure on rural roads. Certainly the 6,3 l/100km (37 US mpg) is something I could hit on the interstate. On the test car, I reset the BC with a few kilometres to go in suburban driving and the average was 31,3 US mpg and climbing as I pulled into the dealership.
The 36 US mpg highway estimated by the EPA then, wasn't really too optimistic at all in my opinion. But it's all about the driver's habits.....
March 19, 2012, 5:19 pm
This sucks. One of the reasons I ordered a 328 was the better fuel economy on the automatic. Now I wish I'd gone with a 335 maybe...
Anyone care to talk me down?
March 19, 2012, 5:28 pm
I don't see how the two can be the same.
March 19, 2012, 5:31 pm
Anyone care to talk me down?
March 19, 2012, 5:41 pm
Sorry but do we have a source on this? Was there an EPA announcement? EPA website still lists the car as 36 on the highway...
March 19, 2012, 5:44 pm
The mileage on the 528i was tentatively rated as 23 city and 34 highway. I presume that this will be adjusted downward too. If it isn't, then the figures make no sense.
March 19, 2012, 5:44 pm
This is a bit annoying but now makes the real-world mileage I am getting very close to the EPA numbers.
I agree with Justin we should get a rebate from BMW or the EPA... :-)
March 19, 2012, 5:49 pm
Interesting - 328i MT numbers are now slightly better than the AT numbers.
Helps me rationalize my 335 order a little more, though it does make me wonder if the 335i AT numbers could be revised downward as they are now almost the same as the 328i AT and it would put them more on par with the MT numbers.
The significantly better EPA numbers was the primary reason I selected the AT. May be time to revert my order to MT before it's too late.
March 19, 2012, 5:52 pm
i could care less, anyone that actually gets those numbers drives like a grandma
i love that little turbo4
March 19, 2012, 6:45 pm
Now this is interesting. It irks me a bit (not a whole lot) re: this new EPA revised fuel economy for the F30 since it was one of the reasons I bought this Bimmer (Yes, I admit it, I used these EPA numbers to convince my wife on this purchase instead of a C-Class Benz or an Audi A4)......But alas, when I press that SPORT mode button, I'm basically like "fuggeedaboutit" and those EPA numbers are thrown out the window and all I'm focused on is "The Ultimate Driving Experience"!
March 19, 2012, 7:00 pm
Meh. My 328i got 28.7 mpg on my last tank, combined city/highway, average speed 39.5 mph. 90% sport mode, 10% eco slow.
March 19, 2012, 7:03 pm
i love that little turbo4
(Although I must admit I sometimes drive like a Grandma...)
March 19, 2012, 7:18 pm
Nice to see the manual edging out the AT. I have always managed even better mileage than EPA estimates with my manual cars and trucks. While this is an enthusiast board, I enjoy these cars with a less aggressive style (but I still have to have a manual),
March 19, 2012, 7:40 pm
All the more reason to hang onto my E92.
March 19, 2012, 7:46 pm
(Although I must admit I sometimes drive like a Grandma...)
i actually like eco mode, i like confort too, **** i like em all, love this car. fantastic DD
March 19, 2012, 7:54 pm
March 19, 2012, 8:10 pm
I still think the 328i 8AT is great but now I'm even happier I decided to go with the 6MT. Faster and more fuel efficient... sign me up.
March 19, 2012, 8:27 pm
March 19, 2012, 9:24 pm
That is quite disappointing. I have to agree with the posts above regarding the N52 and the MPG they were getting in the 528i last year. Makes the N20 much much less attractive.
March 19, 2012, 10:19 pm
I routinely get 25 MPG with my 2003 325i 5MT which is rated by the EPA at 18/27.
March 19, 2012, 11:33 pm
March 19, 2012, 11:48 pm
anyone with a 335 getting 33mpg on the highway?
March 20, 2012, 2:07 am
this is ridiculous from BMW.
March 20, 2012, 7:22 am
I, for one, am quite upset. The ONLY reason I chose the 328 over the 335 was the better MPG. I could have had a 6 cylinder with more HP that gets the same MPG, unreal. I wonder if we can complain and trade up.
March 20, 2012, 7:55 am
I'm confused....the auto versions of the 328 and 335 are now equal. So, shouldn't the 328 and 335 manual numbers go down the same or similar as they are using the same transmissions? Why the bigger drop in the 335 versus the 328. 4 mpg difference in highway doesn't seem right.
Also, on 335 manual, considering weight is similar with the E90 (if not more), what changed that allowed the mpg to go up in the F30 version?
March 20, 2012, 8:39 am
The 528i with the N52 was rated at 22/32, 25 combined, with the 8AT.
And could you even get the N52 528 with the 8AT? Can I ask where are you getting these numbers? Mine are from the BMW USA website.
March 20, 2012, 9:09 am
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....16355&id=16356
March 20, 2012, 10:21 am
This to me takes away the biggest incentive for the 328, give me a break my NA 1999 E46 gets me 25 mpg mixed driving, grant you it doesn't do 0-60 in under 6 sec but I could care less. Like someone else said BMW could've tweeked the NA straight six with the 8 AT and come up with 26 mpg easy. Very disappointing!
March 20, 2012, 10:24 am
And could you even get the N52 528 with the 8AT? Can I ask where are you getting these numbers? Mine are from the BMW USA website.
Of course, I don't need to point out the 2012 E92/93 have the six speed AT.
March 20, 2012, 10:47 am
Of course, I don't need to point out the 2012 E92/93 have the six speed AT.
I have a hard time understanding how the transmission itself raises fuel economy this much. The 2012 328i e92 is rated at 28 mpg on the highway yet the 400 pound heavier 528i with the same engine but the 8AT gets 32 mpg?
I don't know the EPA test procedures but I am guessing that highway mileage is steady state in top gear. The 528i 8AT has a transmission ratio of .67 in 8th gear and a final drive ration of 3.23:1. The 328i coupe with the 6AT has the same gear ratio (.67) but the final drive ratio is higher at 3.73:1 so it turns at higher rpm for a given speed. I can't believe that this results in a 4 mpg difference in a car that is more than 10% heavier. Something seems fishy to me.
March 20, 2012, 10:53 am
I have a hard time understanding how the transmission itself raises fuel economy this much. The 2012 328i e92 is rated at 28 mpg on the highway yet the 400 pound heavier 528i with the same engine but the 8AT gets 32 mpg?
I don't know the EPA test procedures but I am guessing that highway mileage is steady state in top gear. The 528i 8AT has a transmission ratio of .67 in 8th gear and a final drive ration of 3.23:1. The 328i coupe with the 6AT has the same gear ratio (.67) but the final drive ratio is higher at 3.73:1 so it turns at higher rpm for a given speed. I can't believe that this results in a 4 mpg difference in a car that is more than 10% heavier. Something seems fishy to me.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
March 20, 2012, 10:54 am
March 20, 2012, 1:04 pm
And could you even get the N52 528 with the 8AT? Can I ask where are you getting these numbers? Mine are from the BMW USA website.
That has been my experience in my last three BMWs
So this almost a 10% overstatement on BMWs part.
Wonder if the same logic applies to the recent settlement Honda had to deal with...and is now paying $300 per owner.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/30/a...onda-shows-up/
March 20, 2012, 1:07 pm
That has been my experience in my last three BMWs
So this almost a 10% overstatement on BMWs part.
Wonder if the same logic applies to the recent settlement Honda had to deal with...and is now paying $300 per owner.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/30/a...onda-shows-up/
March 20, 2012, 1:17 pm
March 20, 2012, 1:45 pm
March 20, 2012, 2:19 pm
However, the OBC in my 2004 325 manual transmission, 2006 BMW X3 (auto) and 2009 BMW 328xi (auto) have all read about 2mpgs higher than actual, manually hand calculated averages
(i.e. actual fuel pumped in according to certified pump, less amount remaining in tank, over actual number of miles driven).
March 20, 2012, 2:23 pm
March 20, 2012, 2:58 pm
March 20, 2012, 5:18 pm
What validity are these figures if the newly designed high efficiency 328i has exactly the same fuel economy as the carryover 335i motor?
Moving from the E90 to the the F30, the economy of the 335i went up to match the new 328i. So, if they kept the NA 328i from before, it would have the same fuel efficiency too? So what economy have we really gained with the four banger?
March 20, 2012, 5:24 pm
BMW are still running the TV ad highlighting 36mpg with the F30...
March 20, 2012, 5:36 pm
Is there any chance the 335i's fuel economy rating will also be revised? I just checked on BMW's website, and they have deleted the fuel economy ratings for the 335i and now they simply say "TBD". The 328i lists the new numbers for AT, but the 328i MT also shows TBD. This leads me to believe that the numbers will be revised for the 335i as well.
March 20, 2012, 5:40 pm
Let's resume; the 335i auto has the same EPA mpg numbers as the 328i auto, all of them.
Now with a 330i I6 direct injected NA, I am sure that you could get 270HP with great fuel economy. Wait, it has been done and it spells N-5-3.
That N20 is a joke.
March 20, 2012, 5:46 pm
March 20, 2012, 6:58 pm
I'm curious as to how this reduction in MPG in the N20 engine in the various models will affect BMW's compliance with the "required fleet average" target under the CAFE rules. I thought that they had to get to an average of 37.3 MPG by 2016. Will this throw a monkey wrench into BMW's plans to achieve the target? Since the N20 is or will be in the 328, 528, Z4 and X3, I'm sure that this engine constitutes a major factor in BMW's plans to meet the MPG standard. Could this reduction in MPG lead to other actions by BMW in the future to meet the targets such as trying to sell more 128's or giving incentives to customers to buy more fuel efficient engines (more 528's and less 550's)?
March 20, 2012, 7:02 pm
March 20, 2012, 7:33 pm
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...cafe-standards
There are lots of complexities, from credits you can carry forward to the fact that the numbers are based on CO2 emissions and some of the gain will come from more environmentally friendly AC systems. Also factored in is the cars' footprint, which may have had something to do with the wheelbase stretch and increase in track of the F30.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ations-feature
March 20, 2012, 9:42 pm
March 21, 2012, 11:27 am
Now the N20 in the 528i gets better mpg than the N20 in the 328i.
March 21, 2012, 11:59 am
Hence these EPA mpg rating are of minimal value.
March 21, 2012, 12:11 pm
It is obvious the EPA ratings are important for many. I want to know how are the numbers obtained? Do manufactures submit them to the EPA, the EPA accept them as is, then if you get audited by the EPA the numbers can be adjusted?
March 21, 2012, 12:24 pm
328i mpg is 23/33
528i mpg is 22/32
March 21, 2012, 12:25 pm
So we are really back to the guidance I always give people. Buy the automatic transmission for luxury. Buy the manual transmission for better performance and better mileage. This rule really hasn't changed for the past 60 years.
Every few years, Consumer Reports tests a group of cars that are "identical twins". Each "twin" has one car that is MT, and the other that is AT. Otherwise, they are as similar as possible. They try to get a sampling of various types of cars (sports cars, economy cars, etc.). The car with the MT virtually always has better acceleration and better mileage than the identical car with the AT. Other testing organizations report similar results.
In terms of the EPA ratings, it is important to remember these tests are conducted under laboratory conditions, not real world driving. Many people with AT cars complain their cars do not achieve the EPA ratings. Most people with MT cars get fairly close to the EPA numbers. I am a bit surprised the new EPA 328i rating shows the MT version getting better mileage than the AT version. Maybe a dose of reality?
Sorry, an automatic is still an automatic, regardless of how many speeds it contains. I am using the term automatic to mean a transmission that has a torque converter. This does not include the automated manual transmissions.
March 21, 2012, 12:33 pm
Every few years, Consumer Reports tests a group of cars that are "identical twins". Each "twin" has one car that is MT, and the other that is AT. Otherwise, they are as similar as possible. They try to get a sampling of various types of cars (sports cars, economy cars, etc.). The car with the MT virtually always has better acceleration and better mileage than the identical car with the AT. Other testing organizations report similar results.
In terms of the EPA ratings, it is important to remember these tests are conducted under laboratory conditions, not real world driving. Many people with AT cars complain their cars do not achieve the EPA ratings. Most people with MT cars get fairly close to the EPA numbers. I am a bit surprised the new EPA 328i rating shows the MT version getting better mileage than the AT version. Maybe a dose of reality?
Sorry, an automatic is still an automatic, regardless of how many speeds it contains. I am using the term automatic to mean a transmission that has a torque converter. This does not include the automated manual transmissions.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...8i&srchtyp=ymm
The same for the 335i:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...5i&srchtyp=ymm
My automatic equipped vehicles achieve or better the EPA numbers. Now you've heard from the other side. The reason someone should buy a manual is because they prefer a manual.
March 21, 2012, 12:34 pm
Did the EPA actually test the 335i? Any chance that the 335i AT results will be adjusted down so that MT gets better mileage?
I've got a 335 ordered for ED - The only reason I went with AT was due to the gas mileage. But I can still change to MT.
March 21, 2012, 12:45 pm
I've got a 335 ordered for ED - The only reason I went with AT was due to the gas mileage. But I can still change to MT.
20/30 with MT
23/33 with AT
The EPA website still shows these figures.
Now the BMW website lists TBD for both transmissions. So I would think that they are rethinking things.
Also, here an article that includes BMW's press release on the issue:
http://www.autospies.com/news/EPA-Lo...-To-Why-69741/
"All manufacturers are responsible for testing and submitting fuel economy figures each year to the EPA (based on physical tests following the EPA test cycle on a dynamometer). Occasionally, the EPA will validate the figures that we provide. When this happens, there are sometimes small changes in the published EPA fuel economy figures (usually 1 mpg up or down).
The EPA recently tested the 2012 328i Automatic and obtained a highway mileage result that was 3m pg lower (33mpg versus 36mpg) than the BMW test result. We are very surprised by this result and are currently working to determine how this is possible. The new rating seems abnormally low in relation to the other models in the BMW range and by the real-world fuel economy that we are seeing from this model.
Unfortunately, there is no provision in the EPA rules for a re-test this year. Therefore regardless of the results of our investigation, the new rating will stand for this model year."
March 21, 2012, 3:05 pm
328i mpg is 23/33
528i mpg is 22/32
2. EPA numbers matter. People rely on them for comparisons.
3. YMMV means something. I wonder what it is.
March 21, 2012, 3:17 pm
I would disagree that EPA ratings matter. Even if you look at them in relative terms, they are of little value. How is it possible that the 2011 528i achieved a 4 mpg year over year increase in city rating when the car gained, what, 400 pounds?
2. EPA numbers matter. People rely on them for comparisons.
3. YMMV means something. I wonder what it is.
March 21, 2012, 3:49 pm
March 21, 2012, 4:00 pm
How do you explain a similar YOY bump in 335i city ratings?
March 21, 2012, 4:03 pm
2. EPA numbers matter. People rely on them for comparisons.
3. YMMV means something. I wonder what it is.
March 21, 2012, 4:07 pm
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...fications.aspx
March 21, 2012, 4:09 pm
March 21, 2012, 4:18 pm
Good luck on that.
March 21, 2012, 6:08 pm
March 22, 2012, 5:22 am
March 22, 2012, 12:13 pm
March 22, 2012, 3:22 pm
i.e. the rich soccer mom wife who wants a BMW because: 1) its the right color; 2) it has leather; and 3) it has the BMW roundel on it.
LOTS, in fact MOST average car buys rely on the EPA estimates on the window stickers when comparing cars.
Honda just lost a big class action lawsuit and had to pay each owner $300 for falsely advertising mileage.
Mileage is very interesting issue. Are any of you familar with Hyundai? They seem to be able to fudge their numbers across the board. Almost all their cars have great EPA numbers (Sonata, etc) but significantly worse real world fuel economy...
LOTS of complaints about this in the forums, etc...
March 22, 2012, 3:26 pm
Better to revise now than have people pissed off they don't get advertised ratings.
March 23, 2012, 1:07 am
Still good ratings. Disappointing however if you're already an owner I'm sure. And this definitely leaves the door wide open for a new diesel 3-series sedan offering...
March 23, 2012, 9:24 am
Yup, whell, what matters is real-world / combined driving anyway. Hope everyone who has cited their early findings in the "real world" thread continues to check-in, and members who have not will start, so that a consensus of "real world" can be solidly established.
March 23, 2012, 9:28 am
March 23, 2012, 10:53 am
March 23, 2012, 11:34 am
I think it is likely that those ads were bought and they didn't want to spend money redo them, just let them run the course, we will have to see.
When people see the TV ad, then walk in and see the lower EPA on the sticker, it's difficult to say if it will be a good thing for the salesperson to explain. Salespersons are not the most trusted people by the customers already.
March 23, 2012, 11:45 am
"It should be noted that in addition to the manual 328i, none of the other four-cylinder models, which include the BMW Z4 sDrive28i, 528i, and X3 xDrive28i, were independently tested."
Also, BMW says that:
"He said that no other vehicle with the new twin-turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine will have its numbers readjusted-not even the six-speed manual version of the 2012 BMW 328i sedan, which will retain its 23 mpg city/34 mpg highway rating."
If fact, they already seem to have make adjustments to the specs section of their website for some of the vehicles.
http://blogs.automotive.com/2012-bmw...mpg-85135.html
Who knows, maybe the EPA just forgot to take the parking brake off before they hooked it up to the dyno.
March 23, 2012, 11:46 am
When people see the TV ad, then walk in and see the lower EPA on the sticker, it's difficult to say if it will be a good thing for the salesperson to explain. Salespersons are not the most trusted people by the customers already.
March 23, 2012, 12:02 pm
when I wrote "they've" [they have] I did not mean to imply "had" in the form of what was performed over the past months or year. I read all the excellent explanations here and on Bimmerfile and there was no misunderstanding on my part of how EPA testing and approval of ratings are done.
I'm saying I'd bet right now, as a result of the dramatic EPA findings, they've [BMW or BMWUSA] now secured the services of a company to prove their rating and counter the EPA's findings. Supposition, but that's my thinking.
March 23, 2012, 6:47 pm
."
March 23, 2012, 8:44 pm
So we are all good.
March 23, 2012, 10:43 pm
March 23, 2012, 11:49 pm
March 27, 2012, 7:57 pm
I may be going from the N54 AT in my 2009 335xi sedan to the N20 AT in an F31 wagon someday.
Hope the joy is not lost.
March 27, 2012, 10:39 pm
So everyone who bought an N20 got duped because it gets the same gas mileage as the N52 from the 2006 325i? And it cost $6000 more? And it sounds like an ECOTEC Ford Focus?
March 28, 2012, 12:50 am
Actually, I'm having the opposite experience.
My average MPG after just over 1000 miles worth of driving is at 33.8, which I'd say is spectacular for this kind of car, and only about 2mpg less than what I was averaging at 50,000 miles in my last car.
Maybe it's because my last car was a stick-shift standard MINI Cooper 2008, which I loved. I also love getting good gas mileage because I hate getting gas. The whole process is slow and the handles are gross on the gas pumps. Lol.
Before that, I had a Prius, so I kinda like Eco Pro mode. It's like a video game - the object of the game is to get the best gas mileage possible.
Sure - maybe Eco Pro mode makes me drive like a grandma, but on the other hand, Eco Pro mode is about as fast as my MINI was, and definitely faster than the Prius. Just knowing that I can completely change the driving experience by flipping the car over to Sport mode is enough for me. All the gallons I save with Eco Pro justifies the times I choose to get a little crazy with Sport. And it's not like I can't eventually go fast in Eco Pro, it just takes a littler bit more time to get up to speed.
Also, I feel like Eco Pro might extend the life of the car, since it stresses the engine less.
Overall, I think my new 328i is an outstanding car.
March 28, 2012, 1:00 am
Yes. It sounds like a Ford Focus, just like a FWD, Audi A4 2.0t with the only transmission offered, a Continuously Variable Transmission. Oh, wait. The Focus offers a five speed manual or a six speed automatic transmission.
March 28, 2012, 2:21 am
March 28, 2012, 6:45 am
Feeling better about my choice to get a E90 335d rather than wait for the F30.
Having said that, for those complaining about the N20 there is still a lot of upside to that engine with tuning that can improve both mileage and power output. The N52 is a great engine but let's face it, going forward there was not a lot more power and efficiency to be squeezed out of it.
March 28, 2012, 2:49 pm
Having said that, for those complaining about the N20 there is still a lot of upside to that engine with tuning that can improve both mileage and power output. The N52 is a great engine but let's face it, going forward there was not a lot more power and efficiency to be squeezed out of it.
The N20 does squeeze out more power than the N52, in part because the N52 was a detuned engine. The high powered N/A I6 (N53?) produces 270 hp.
Let's face it, this is less about fuel efficiency, more of getting on a bandwagon. If they were true to improving mpg, they would have brought the US the 320d.
March 28, 2012, 2:58 pm
Yes. It sounds like a Ford Focus, just like a FWD, Audi A4 2.0t with the only transmission offered, a Continuously Variable Transmission. Oh, wait. The Focus offers a five speed manual or a six speed automatic transmission.
March 29, 2012, 12:39 am
I come here to study the anthropology of folks paying the same for 1999cc automatics.
March 29, 2012, 2:32 am
March 29, 2012, 9:57 am
I'm still seeing the old 24/36 on the EPA site:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...8i&srchtyp=ymm
March 29, 2012, 10:22 am
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...8i&srchtyp=ymm
It's very hard to believe that the 328i gets the same fuel econ as the 335i.
March 29, 2012, 11:50 pm
If the EPA were to physically test the 335i, I'm sure the 328i will no longer be getting the same economy numbers. - lol
March 30, 2012, 12:38 am
What make you sure they haven't already done so?
March 30, 2012, 11:23 am
The lower MPG makes the 335d owners feel a bit better.
March 31, 2012, 8:18 am
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...8i&srchtyp=ymm
March 31, 2012, 9:15 am
So now the 528i has a better fuel economy than a 328i... lol. EPA should insure more consistency.
March 31, 2012, 10:29 am
March 31, 2012, 10:40 am
November 2, 2012, 2:18 pm
Yeah, I'm reviving it, and referencing Hyundai and Kia, but it's relevant.
"EPA finds Hyundai, Kia overstated gas mileage
Hyundai and Kia overstated the gas mileage on 900,000 vehicles sold in the past three years, a discovery that could bring sanctions from the U.S. government and millions of dollars in reimbursements to car owners."
http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...asmileage.html
November 2, 2012, 4:50 pm
"EPA finds Hyundai, Kia overstated gas mileage
Hyundai and Kia overstated the gas mileage on 900,000 vehicles sold in the past three years, a discovery that could bring sanctions from the U.S. government and millions of dollars in reimbursements to car owners."
http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...asmileage.html
November 2, 2012, 5:34 pm
November 2, 2012, 6:48 pm
November 2, 2012, 7:13 pm
November 3, 2012, 9:57 am
For a car with this weight, hp, and torque...i'll take 26 mpg anytime...which is also my first month mpg number.
EPA Issues New Test Methods for Fuel Economy Window Stickers
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/doc.../420f06069.pdf
Key phrase/statement..."EPA fuel economy estimates will use vehicle-specific data from tests designed to replicate three real-world conditions"
November 3, 2012, 12:54 pm
The F10 550xi has had some interesting fluctuations in the EPA numbers over the past three years without any changes to the drivetrain.
2011 - 16 City, 24 Hwy, 18 Combined
2012 - 15 City, 20 Hwy, 17 Combined
2013 - 16 City, 24 Hwy, 19 Combined
November 3, 2012, 1:19 pm
November 3, 2012, 3:06 pm
2011 - 16 City, 24 Hwy, 18 Combined
2012 - 15 City, 20 Hwy, 17 Combined
2013 - 16 City, 24 Hwy, 19 Combined
November 3, 2012, 7:24 pm
i love that little turbo4
21.4MPG. Not shabby considering how much time I spend ripping around in Sport mode.
November 20, 2012, 2:33 pm
Here is a screenshot from my trip computer- North Austin to Dallas last Sunday after the F1 race. I reset the computer once I got on the highway and took the picture right after getting off. Even if it is 10% off, I am damn impressed.
I got around 30mpg during my ED driving from Munich to Nice.
November 20, 2012, 2:39 pm
I got around 30mpg during my ED driving from Munich to Nice.
What driving mode were you in?
November 20, 2012, 2:57 pm
What driving mode were you in?
Even if the trip computer is off by 10% on that short stretch, I am impressed. On my previous full tank calculations, it was off by about 1mpg, but that could be due to how much gas was put in versus that last fill up.
November 20, 2012, 4:18 pm
This is completely consistent with what I'm able to get, driving back and forth between New Jersey and New Hampshire. Here's a shot from my first break at a rest stop on I90 in Massachusetts after 126 miles.
Ran into a little traffic on the Merritt Parkway and ended up averaging just over 39 mpg for the entire 320 mile trip. I'll try to remember to reset the trip computer and capture my entire trip next time. This was in Comfort mode. I don't ever use ECO PRO.
November 20, 2012, 5:20 pm
So BMW cans the I-6 for the 4 banger mainly for improved gas mileage and then you have to revise the MPG lower than 26 mpg. What am I missing with this picture, my e46 323 with the I-6 was getting around 26 mpg mixed driving, the engine was rock solid, smooth as silk and ran like a dream. My turbo charged 8 cyl with 400 hp is getting me 20.3 mpg so to hear that the EPA is revising the current 26 mpg for the F30 is really disappointing in my book.
November 20, 2012, 5:43 pm
Tim
November 20, 2012, 8:28 pm
Seriously, you're talking about buying a $40,000-$60,000 car. Why does everyone worry so much about gas mileage?? If you care that much, get a base model Corolla or Civic.
Anyone care to talk me down?
November 20, 2012, 11:23 pm
Have you checked the accuracy of the mpg display against tank fill ups?
Ran into a little traffic on the Merritt Parkway and ended up averaging just over 39 mpg for the entire 320 mile trip. I'll try to remember to reset the trip computer and capture my entire trip next time. This was in Comfort mode. I don't ever use ECO PRO.
November 20, 2012, 11:36 pm
I have verified the reported MPG vs actual based on miles verses gallons used several times.
For me, the computer reports about 2MPG higher than actual; not too bad.
On the open road if I drive conservatively (i.e. not "sporty"), I can easily get 38 to 42 MPG if I want to.
I love having a car that's fun when you want it to be (at the expense of MPG), or economical when I feel like doing that. The N20 is an amazingly versatile engine.
November 20, 2012, 11:55 pm
Good that the computer is reasonably accurate.
I'd be interested to know what kind of results people are getting with intense stop-and-go driving on short trips involving frequent cold starts. That's the kind of driving I do and my 530i barely cracks 15 mpg under these conditions.
November 21, 2012, 1:53 am
my daily routes are 5-10 miles one way 30-40mph moderate stop-and-go, the F30 N26 pulls 25mpg. On freeway 60-70mph it can hit 36mpg.
November 21, 2012, 4:03 am
From PC in Greer, the first 100 miles = 36.5mpg averaging 69mph.
From Atlanta to Jupiter yesterday - Averaged 72.1mph with 33.4 mpg.
November 21, 2012, 11:37 am
Wow, 33-36mpg highway is impressive for F30 N55. It would have been my choice too were it not for the aggressive radar wielding tax collectors in my locales.:-)