BimmerFest BMW Forum banner
51K views 128 replies 57 participants last post by  namelessman 
#1 · (Edited)
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.
 
See less See more
#4 ·
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
 
#5 ·
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.
 
#6 · (Edited)
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.
 
#32 ·
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.
 
#40 ·
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? :dunno:

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/as-civic-hybrid-mileage-lawsuit-continues-honda-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.
 
#41 ·
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. :dunno:
 
#7 ·
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.....
 
#11 ·
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...
 
#14 ·
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.
 
#16 ·
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"! :supdude:
 
#21 ·
I love the turbo 4 too!!! :thumbup:

(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:bigpimp:

i actually like eco mode, i like confort too, **** i like em all, love this car. fantastic DD
 
#33 · (Edited)
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.do?action=sbs&id=16355&id=16356
 
#31 ·
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?
 
#34 ·
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!:tsk:
 
#46 ·
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?
 
#49 · (Edited)
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. :rofl: 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. :thumbdwn:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top