F30 3 Series Fuel Economy NOT as Good as Advertises: EPA Revises MPG Down

by Tim Jones on March 19, 2012, 4:42 pm
EPA down grades BMW f30 328i fuel economy

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.


Leave a Comment

You must be a registered member to comment on stories. Please take a moment to register for your free account now. If you already have an account, log in using fields below.










128 responses to F30 3 Series Fuel Economy NOT as Good as Advertises: EPA Revises MPG Down

bl@ster commented:
March 19, 2012, 4:46 pm

What about the 335?
tim330i commented:
March 19, 2012, 4:49 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by bl@ster View Post
What about the 335?
No change. I updated the first post with the numbers.

Tim
justinnum1 commented:
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
sunny5280 commented:
March 19, 2012, 5:00 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim330i View Post
The EPA has revised the fuel economy numbers for the 2012 BMW 3 series from the preliminary numbers. These numbers are still peliminary 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.
Interesting the automatic equipped 335 achieves the same fuel mileage as the 328.
tturedraider commented:
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.
AzNMpower32 commented:
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.....
bl@ster commented:
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?
Carlos Thomas commented:
March 19, 2012, 5:28 pm

I don't see how the two can be the same.
tturedraider commented:
March 19, 2012, 5:31 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by bl@ster View Post
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?
You can still change your mind. You don't have to take delivery of the 328i.
samualcc commented:
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...
tarf commented:
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.
sr5959 commented:
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... :-)
pcbrew commented:
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.
justinnum1 commented:
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
malc410326 commented:
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"!
jgrasty commented:
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.
sr5959 commented:
March 19, 2012, 7:03 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinnum1 View Post
i could care less, anyone that actually gets those numbers drives like a grandma
i love that little turbo4
I love the turbo 4 too!!!

(Although I must admit I sometimes drive like a Grandma...)
HydeParkbmw commented:
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),
raleedy commented:
March 19, 2012, 7:40 pm

All the more reason to hang onto my E92.
justinnum1 commented:
March 19, 2012, 7:46 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by malc410326 View Post
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"!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr5959 View Post
I love the turbo 4 too!!!

(Although I must admit I sometimes drive like a Grandma...)
going from eco to sport mode is like going from a kia to a porsche

i actually like eco mode, i like confort too, **** i like em all, love this car. fantastic DD
bl@ster commented:
March 19, 2012, 7:54 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by samualcc View Post
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...
BMW USA website now lists 33mpg on highway for both 328 and 335.
unintelligible commented:
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.
tarf commented:
March 19, 2012, 8:27 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarf View Post
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.
528i is now showing up on the BMW website as 22 city and 32 highway.
jackson328xi commented:
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.
mr_clueless commented:
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.
samualcc commented:
March 19, 2012, 11:33 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by bl@ster View Post
BMW USA website now lists 33mpg on highway for both 328 and 335.
Booooo. I just didn't want it to be true
justinnum1 commented:
March 19, 2012, 11:48 pm

anyone with a 335 getting 33mpg on the highway?
Vishster commented:
March 20, 2012, 2:07 am

this is ridiculous from BMW.
bcl0328 commented:
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.
Mets335 commented:
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?
Michael Schott commented:
March 20, 2012, 8:39 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by tturedraider View Post
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.
The 2012 328 e92 with the N52 is rated at 28 mpg on the highway with AT and MT so there is still a significant difference between the N52 and the N20. By the way I've always gotten over 30 mpg (on the car's computer) on the highway so BMW has been conservative in their ratings.

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.
sunny5280 commented:
March 20, 2012, 9:09 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl0328 View Post
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.
This was my thinking when I went for the 8 cylinder X5 over the 6 cylinder. Looking at the fuel economy numbers the 6 cylinder didn't get much better than the 8. And the 8 offers so much more in terms of power. The same for my friend who just bought a used Jeep Grand Cherokee. The 8 cylinder achieves approximately the same fuel economy of the 6 (I think they're a single MPG off with the nod towards the 6). If one looks at the real life numbers as reported by owners the 6 actually did worse than the 8. Here's what I mean:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....16355&id=16356
Elias commented:
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!
tturedraider commented:
March 20, 2012, 10:24 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Schott View Post
The 2012 328 e92 with the N52 is rated at 28 mpg on the highway with AT and MT so there is still a significant difference between the N52 and the N20. By the way I've always gotten over 30 mpg (on the car's computer) on the highway so BMW has been conservative in their ratings.

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.
Yes. The 2011 528 had the N52 and the 8AT. The numbers are from the window sticker and the EPA website. I'm sure they're on Edmunds, too.

Of course, I don't need to point out the 2012 E92/93 have the six speed AT.
Michael Schott commented:
March 20, 2012, 10:47 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by tturedraider View Post
Yes. The 2011 528 had the N52 and the 8AT. The numbers are from the window sticker and the EPA website. I'm sure they're on Edmunds, too.

Of course, I don't need to point out the 2012 E92/93 have the six speed AT.
Thanks for the information.

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.
sunny5280 commented:
March 20, 2012, 10:53 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Schott View Post
Thanks for the information.

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.
Here you go:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
dtc100 commented:
March 20, 2012, 10:54 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Schott View Post
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.
You'd better believe it. Dropping the RPM from 2500 to 1700 will do it for you on the highway.
tagheuer commented:
March 20, 2012, 1:04 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Schott View Post
The 2012 328 e92 with the N52 is rated at 28 mpg on the highway with AT and MT so there is still a significant difference between the N52 and the N20. By the way I've always gotten over 30 mpg (on the car's computer) on the highway so BMW has been conservative in their ratings.

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.
I think everyone will agree that relying on the OBC to accurately calculate FE is a lost cause, BMW's computer overstates the actual FE by a few MPG, agreed?

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/
sunny5280 commented:
March 20, 2012, 1:07 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tagheuer View Post
I think everyone will agree that relying on the OBC to accurately calculate FE is a lost cause, BMW's computer overstates the actual FE by a few MPG, agreed?

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/
I've had fairly good results with it over a long distances. I wouldn't rely on it if you reset it after every fill up. But on a long distance trips (hundreds of miles) it's been fairly accurate.
tagheuer commented:
March 20, 2012, 1:17 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunny5280 View Post
I've had fairly good results with it over a long distances. I wouldn't rely on it if you reset it after every fill up. But on a long distance trips (hundreds of miles) it's been fairly accurate.
so are you saying its more accurate on highway driving? I'm not sure I understand, if I reset after every fill, that can easily be a couple hundred miles.
sunny5280 commented:
March 20, 2012, 1:45 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tagheuer View Post
so are you saying its more accurate on highway driving? I'm not sure I understand, if I reset after every fill, that can easily be a couple hundred miles.
Sorry about that...it's more a matter of more sampling resulting in a closer reading to actual. When I went on two long distance trips ~1,500 miles the average fuel reading on the computer was very close to that of the calculated. Maybe I should have said over thousands of miles instead of hundreds.
tagheuer commented:
March 20, 2012, 2:19 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunny5280 View Post
Sorry about that...it's more a matter of more sampling resulting in a closer reading to actual. When I went on two long distance trips ~1,500 miles the average fuel reading on the computer was very close to that of the calculated. Maybe I should have said over thousands of miles instead of hundreds.
ok, I suppose that makes more sense.

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).
bl@ster commented:
March 20, 2012, 2:23 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl0328 View Post
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.
My 328 is about to hit US soil at the dock and I just called my CA to ask about trading up. They said that's fine, I can re-order, but they won't give me the same deal (1250 over invoice) as I got w/ my 328. They said since they get fewer production slots. I'm pissed.
Michael Schott commented:
March 20, 2012, 2:58 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post
You'd better believe it. Dropping the RPM from 2500 to 1700 will do it for you on the highway.
But we are not talking about a 30% drop in RPM's. It's more like 15%. From 2800 rpm at 75 mph to 2400 rpm at the same speed.
Robert A commented:
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?
sr5959 commented:
March 20, 2012, 5:24 pm

BMW are still running the TV ad highlighting 36mpg with the F30...
gator15 commented:
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.
Saintor commented:
March 20, 2012, 5:40 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert A View Post
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?
Nothing. That's a pointless fashion from Europe to relieve some conscience.

Let's resume; the 335i auto has the same EPA mpg numbers as the 328i auto, all of them. It is true that the 335i auto could also be revised down eventually

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.
tturedraider commented:
March 20, 2012, 5:46 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by bl@ster View Post
My 328 is about to hit US soil at the dock and I just called my CA to ask about trading up. They said that's fine, I can re-order, but they won't give me the same deal (1250 over invoice) as I got w/ my 328. They said since they get fewer production slots. I'm pissed.
That's true. 328s out sell 335s by about 3 to 1, so that's the way they get their allocations.
tarf commented:
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)?
mr_clueless commented:
March 20, 2012, 7:02 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarf View Post
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)?
I think that's where the hybrids come in.
pcbrew commented:
March 20, 2012, 7:33 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarf View Post
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)?
It's hard to say. They could very well raise the price of the larger engined models to shift the numbers to the more efficient models. But, there are a lot of factors that go into CAFE. Here are links to 2 C&D articles. The first, from May, 2010 notes that the CAFE score is based on the old, un-adjusted EPA score and the OLD 328i (18/28 mpg) already met the 27.5 standard for 2016.
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

Quote:
The manufacturers will also get mpg credits for adopting efficient technologies that often show no effect on the official test cycles. These include active grille shutters (F10), electric heat pumps, stop-start systems (coming across BMW lineup), high-efficiency lights, and solar roof panels. The credit for such items could amount to about 3 mpg if several are used or even more if a manufacturer provides data to justify it.
Mark K commented:
March 20, 2012, 9:42 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarf View Post
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'm very curious too. Hopefully, they will have to stop overthinking and bring that 4 cylinder diesel much sooner than they thought. Oh, yes!
dtc100 commented:
March 21, 2012, 11:27 am

Now the N20 in the 528i gets better mpg than the N20 in the 328i.
Robert A commented:
March 21, 2012, 11:59 am

Hence these EPA mpg rating are of minimal value.
dtc100 commented:
March 21, 2012, 12:11 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert A View Post
Hence these EPA mpg rating are of minimal value.
when they are not favorable, and of significant value when they look good.

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?
tarf commented:
March 21, 2012, 12:24 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post
Now the N20 in the 528i gets better mpg than the N20 in the 328i.
From the BMW website under specs for each model with AT:
328i mpg is 23/33
528i mpg is 22/32
alpinweiss commented:
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.

sunny5280 commented:
March 21, 2012, 12:33 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinweiss View Post
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.

2011 328i EPA numbers are identical for manual and automatic:

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.
a71mg commented:
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.
tarf commented:
March 21, 2012, 12:45 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by a71mg View Post
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.
Previously, the BMW website listed the 335 as:
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."
raleedy commented:
March 21, 2012, 3:05 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarf View Post
From the BMW website under specs for each model with AT:
328i mpg is 23/33
528i mpg is 22/32
1. This is wrong. 528i hwy rating on BMWUSA is 34.
2. EPA numbers matter. People rely on them for comparisons.
3. YMMV means something. I wonder what it is.
Robert A commented:
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by raleedy View Post
1. This is wrong. 528i hwy rating on BMWUSA is 34.
2. EPA numbers matter. People rely on them for comparisons.
3. YMMV means something. I wonder what it is.
dtc100 commented:
March 21, 2012, 3:49 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert A View Post
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?
Luck of the draw that EPA did not get around to validate the 528i numbers? Although it may not be just luck that EPA decided to validate the 328i numbers since the 36 mpg number was significantly ahead of the rest of the pack. Most people will say the EPA numbers matter, whether you agree with the numbers or not.
Robert A commented:
March 21, 2012, 4:00 pm

How do you explain a similar YOY bump in 335i city ratings?
dtc100 commented:
March 21, 2012, 4:03 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by raleedy View Post
1. This is wrong. 528i hwy rating on BMWUSA is 34.
2. EPA numbers matter. People rely on them for comparisons.
3. YMMV means something. I wonder what it is.
OK I see BMWUSA.com at one place says 34 mpg but the other page says 22/32 mpg.
tarf commented:
March 21, 2012, 4:07 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by raleedy View Post
1. This is wrong. 528i hwy rating on BMWUSA is 34.
Showing 32 highway in the spec section of their website:
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...fications.aspx
dtc100 commented:
March 21, 2012, 4:09 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert A View Post
How do you explain a similar YOY bump in 335i city ratings?
According to the above explanation, manufactures provide EPA those numbers annually after they do their own tests based on the EPA standards. I guess we have to ask BMW why the YOY bump. It did not seem to have anything to do with EPA, unless the EPA changes its standards every year.
Robert A commented:
March 21, 2012, 4:18 pm

Good luck on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post
I guess we have to ask BMW why the YOY bump.
Saintor commented:
March 21, 2012, 6:08 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post
OK I see BMWUSA.com at one place says 34 mpg but the other page says 22/32 mpg.
It seems to have changed because I remember having seen 23/34 on that page.
3284me commented:
March 22, 2012, 5:22 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by bl@ster View Post
BMW USA website now lists 33mpg on highway for both 328 and 335.
TV commercials still running 36.
raleedy commented:
March 22, 2012, 12:13 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert A View Post
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?
You have a point, but it's different from the one I was trying to make. The EPA ratings matter in the marketplace because people look at them, compare them and rely on them in making buying decisions. Whether or not that is a smart thing to do.
tagheuer commented:
March 22, 2012, 3:22 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by raleedy View Post
You have a point, but it's different from the one I was trying to make. The EPA ratings matter in the marketplace because people look at them, compare them and rely on them in making buying decisions. Whether or not that is a smart thing to do.
exactly...we often forget to take off our enthusiast glasses and pretend to be the average purchaser.

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...
Jav@Vossen commented:
March 22, 2012, 3:26 pm

Better to revise now than have people pissed off they don't get advertised ratings. They are still great ratings
ljgmdad commented:
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...
m8o commented:
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.
m8o commented:
March 23, 2012, 9:28 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3284me View Post
TV commercials still running 36.
As long as they don't say "EPA" I guess it's ok, as their findings are documented to be that. I'm quite sure they've hired an independent party to arrive at a confirmed value; will be curious which way that wind blows the final rating.
sunny5280 commented:
March 23, 2012, 10:53 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by m8o View Post
As long as they don't say "EPA" I guess it's ok, as their findings are documented to be that. I'm quite sure they've hired an independent party to arrive at a confirmed value; will be curious which way that wind blows the final rating.
I think what tarf provided in post #62 explains it all. It sounds as if the car still achieves the numbers BMW originally provided. However, due to what may be a fluke with the EPA testing, they're forced to use the lower numbers because that's what the EPA achieved. Given the EPA won't re-certify until the next model year it's quite possible the same car will achieve the previously published numbers. IMO the EPA should provide a re-certification process.
dtc100 commented:
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.
tarf commented:
March 23, 2012, 11:45 am

Quote:
I'm quite sure they've hired an independent party to arrive at a confirmed value; will be curious which way that wind blows the final rating.
Apparently, BMW didn't have an independent party test them:

"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.
sunny5280 commented:
March 23, 2012, 11:46 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post
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.
I've bought a lot of cars in my days (sadly quite a few in the last three years alone) and I would say the majority of sales staff were professional, knowledgeable, and honest in their dealings with me. While I've dealt with a few who have been shady my general experience has been positive.
m8o commented:
March 23, 2012, 12:02 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarf View Post
Apparently, BMW didn't have an independent party test them:
I'm replying w/a quote as my statement was the one quoted so guessing my statement was the impetus of the reply...

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.
sr5959 commented:
March 23, 2012, 6:47 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarf View Post
"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).
."
I'm amazed EPA are not testing all car's fuel economy independently, there's not that many new models released each year. Also they should test a number of cars of same spec and average out the results, not have one test vehicle.
dtc100 commented:
March 23, 2012, 8:44 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunny5280 View Post
I've bought a lot of cars in my days (sadly quite a few in the last three years alone) and I would say the majority of sales staff were professional, knowledgeable, and honest in their dealings with me. While I've dealt with a few who have been shady my general experience has been positive.
I have bought many cars in the past, never really had any issue with the sales, because from very early now I learned from a very trustworthy salesman, that when a professional salesman's lips were moving, he was lying. The same was true, when a customer's lips were moving, he was lying.

So we are all good.
samualcc commented:
March 23, 2012, 10:43 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr5959 View Post
I'm amazed EPA are not testing all car's fuel economy independently, there's not that many new models released each year. Also they should test a number of cars of same spec and average out the results, not have one test vehicle.
Money money money. I doubt honestly if the EPA is actually funded to that level. Seems like common sense that they would test every car.
ljgmdad commented:
March 23, 2012, 11:49 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr5959 View Post
I'm amazed EPA are not testing all car's fuel economy independently, there's not that many new models released each year. Also they should test a number of cars of same spec and average out the results, not have one test vehicle.
Nah. They shouldn't test any cars. They shouldn't exist. They do more harm than good, and cost us money in the process.
hhgolf commented:
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.
westwest888 commented:
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?
glitched79 commented:
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.
tturedraider commented:
March 28, 2012, 1:00 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by westwest888 View Post
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?
It took you NINE DAYS to post on this?!?! Dude, you're slipping.

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.
westwest888 commented:
March 28, 2012, 2:21 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by tturedraider View Post
It took you NINE DAYS to post on this?!?! Dude, you're slipping.
A lot has happened. iPad HD came out. We're shipping new software. The new 911 is tempting me but it's $98,500 MSRP the way I want it. Tech stocks are up 50% in 3 months which helps. My buddy might buy a 335i M-Sport so I was looking at flashing my S4 to 405 hp to show him who is in charge, but that requires a $2500 cooling upgrade to do it "right" so I'm not so sure. Looked at a C63 AMG coupe but it gets 10 MPG and is $75k. Nice looking car though.
3ismagic# commented:
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.
dtc100 commented:
March 28, 2012, 2:49 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ismagic# View Post
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.
If the revised mpg stands, it is proof there is not a lot of efficiency to be squeezed out of the N20 either, if we compare the N52 528i and N20 528i both equipped with the 8spd AT.

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.
dtc100 commented:
March 28, 2012, 2:58 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tturedraider View Post
It took you NINE DAYS to post on this?!?! Dude, you're slipping.

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.
West is all about cars $60k and up, with his S4 at the bottom of his "food chain." He just likes to post in the $45k car forum arguing why a $45k car is not as good as his $60k+ car.
westwest888 commented:
March 29, 2012, 12:39 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post
West is all about cars $60k and up, with his S4 at the bottom of his "food chain." He just likes to post in the $45k car forum arguing why a $45k car is not as good as his $60k+ car.
I think my car was sticker $51,900. I got for invoice with conquer BMW owner discount.

I come here to study the anthropology of folks paying the same for 1999cc automatics.
dtc100 commented:
March 29, 2012, 2:32 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by westwest888 View Post
I think my car was sticker $51,900. I got for invoice with conquer BMW owner discount.
Why I said it was at the bottom of your food chain.

Quote:
I come here to study the anthropology of folks paying the same for 1999cc automatics.
Fair enough, you are one of a kind for examination as well.
mkaresh commented:
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
voip-ninja commented:
March 29, 2012, 10:22 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkaresh View Post
I'm still seeing the old 24/36 on the EPA site:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...8i&srchtyp=ymm
That's interesting, I wonder if it's just an error with the website or if they revised their numbers for some reason.

It's very hard to believe that the 328i gets the same fuel econ as the 335i.
m8o commented:
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
Robert A commented:
March 30, 2012, 12:38 am

What make you sure they haven't already done so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by m8o View Post
If the EPA were to physically test the 335i, I'm sure the 328i will no longer be getting the same economy numbers. - lol
yogibearstie commented:
March 30, 2012, 11:23 am

The lower MPG makes the 335d owners feel a bit better.
tarf commented:
March 31, 2012, 8:18 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkaresh View Post
I'm still seeing the old 24/36 on the EPA site:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...8i&srchtyp=ymm
Finally changed: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/32175.shtml
Saintor commented:
March 31, 2012, 9:15 am

So now the 528i has a better fuel economy than a 328i... lol. EPA should insure more consistency.
CE750Jockey commented:
March 31, 2012, 10:29 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
So now the 528i has a better fuel economy than a 328i... lol. EPA should insure more consistency.
It's the EPA, a government behemoth that can't do anything right. A guy in one office says one thing, and a guy in another office, a state over, says something completely contrary. It's a typical government FUBAR.
sunny5280 commented:
March 31, 2012, 10:40 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
So now the 528i has a better fuel economy than a 328i... lol. EPA should insure more consistency.
I think tarf provided a fairly plausible explanation why this may be the case in post #62.
floydarogers commented:
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
Lorenzzo commented:
November 2, 2012, 4:50 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by floydarogers View Post
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
They've actually announced they're going to write checks to owners each year for the difference.
Tirpitz commented:
November 2, 2012, 5:34 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorenzzo View Post
They've actually announced they're going to write checks to owners each year for the difference.
The article I saw said they were going to issue debit cards to people which is slightly different than writing a check. The debit card would have money added to it each year you still owned the vehicle.
FrogmanF30 commented:
November 2, 2012, 6:48 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorenzzo View Post
They've actually announced they're going to write checks to owners each year for the difference.
Does that mean if I get better mileage on my car than BMW advertised, I have to pay BMW something each year I benefit from that?
mr_clueless commented:
November 2, 2012, 7:13 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrogmanF30 View Post
Does that mean if I get better mileage on my car than BMW advertised, I have to pay BMW something each year I benefit from that?
I am sure if you were getting 50% better gas mileage than advertised, BMW would want to buy your car to figure out how it's happening, so that they can sell you (and everyone else) that design for more money.
LarryboysUDM commented:
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"
dunderhi commented:
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
Lorenzzo commented:
November 3, 2012, 1:19 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirpitz View Post
The article I saw said they were going to issue debit cards to people which is slightly different than writing a check. The debit card would have money added to it each year you still owned the vehicle.
No, it's no different provided I was speaking figuratively, which I was. I'll be honest, I wasn't targeting accountants or people who would actually make this distinction in this context on a message board. Get a life.
dailydriver commented:
November 3, 2012, 3:06 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunderhi View Post
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
Perhaps the EPA changes their testing standard just so they can justify re-testing some of the vehicles that are more fun to drive
jfox335i commented:
November 3, 2012, 7:24 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinnum1 View Post
i could care less, anyone that actually gets those numbers drives like a grandma
i love that little turbo4
Agreed. I don't know how to get 26mpg and I don't think I'll ever find out. If I wanted fuel economy, I would have gotten one of those toy electric cars.

21.4MPG. Not shabby considering how much time I spend ripping around in Sport mode.
neilk commented:
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.
golovko commented:
November 20, 2012, 2:39 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilk View Post
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.
Nice!

What driving mode were you in?
neilk commented:
November 20, 2012, 2:57 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by golovko View Post
Nice!

What driving mode were you in?
Let me add I have a 328i... I was probably in Eco-pro with some quick jaunts to 80-85, but otherwise following the flow of traffic. On the way down, I think I averaged 37 or so.

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.
DZeckhausen commented:
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.
Elias commented:
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.
tim330i commented:
November 20, 2012, 5:43 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
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.
Comparing EPA numbers to your real world numbers isn't a fair comparison, don't you think? There are plenty of people with F30 328i 3 series getting much better then EPA MPG.

Tim
woodswatchco commented:
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.





Quote:
Originally Posted by bl@ster View Post
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?
Robert A commented:
November 20, 2012, 11:23 pm

Have you checked the accuracy of the mpg display against tank fill ups?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DZeckhausen View Post
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.
FrogmanF30 commented:
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.
Robert A commented:
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.
namelessman commented:
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.
JustinTJ commented:
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.
namelessman commented:
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.:-)