# 328d EPA est fuel economy is released



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

3 series diesel EPA numbers just came out today:

2014 BMW 328d:	
37 Combined
32 City
45 Highway

2014 BMW 328d xDrive & 2014 BMW 328d xDrive Sports Wagon	
35 Combined
31 City
43 Highway

Better than any of the VW tdi :thumbup:


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

As expected for that little 4 banger.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Been waiting on this. Love it. Thanks for posting.


----------



## BB_cuda (Nov 8, 2011)

Typically, EPA numbers for diesels come in a little low as I know a couple guys that regularly get 46 hwy with their Jettas (2009 models). I bet that 45 mpg is closer to 48 real world if going about 65 mpg and using cruise control. Doing same 65, I get 41 mpg if no Ac running. Why is it that EPA numbers are low for diesels and inflated for gasoline(compared to real world experience)?


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

BB_cuda said:


> Typically, EPA numbers for diesels come in a little low as I know a couple guys that regularly get 46 hwy with their Jettas (2009 models). I bet that 45 mpg is closer to 48 real world if going about 65 mpg and using cruise control. Doing same 65, I get 41 mpg if no Ac running. Why is it that EPA numbers are low for diesels and inflated for gasoline(compared to real world experience)?


I'm not sure why diesels seem to come in with lower EPA numbers than gassers, but do know that the EPA cycles are about the worse case driving you could do. Check out their test cycle here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

I agree with you that higher mpg numbers are easy to achieve. A good thing might be to average the EPA numbers with the Euro numbers (43, 52, 60) for the same car and use that number as a reasonable target for people at least paying attention to the way they drive. Using this approximation, you would be shooting for 37.5 city, 44.5 combined, and 52.5 highway (numbers are in mpUSg) :thumbup:


----------



## txagbmw (Apr 15, 2013)

If don't push our 2010 328, just set the cruise on 65 it will do upper 30's. Gas engines have made a huge leap. Regular Fill up gives 490 mile range on mixed driving, Trips better.
On the 2013 X5d it just shows 19.7 combined. Can reset and goes to 19.7 mostly city driving. ??? if good or not. Wish the numbers were higher and didn't have so many emission
issues. Hope the 328 4 doesn't have as much trouble as the x5's


----------



## Hoooper (Jun 17, 2013)

Call me when it hits 500 Ft/lbs


----------



## 335dFan (Nov 8, 2012)

Hoooper said:


> Call me when it hits 500 Ft/lbs


I must say the potential MPG of the 328d is quite impressive and consistent with the experience of some of my UK colleagues who had the 320d, but, for me at least:

1. I would have a hard time spending that amount of money for a 3-series like this new fellow after having had the 335d with its potential.

2. At this point in my auto experience I would have to buy a less expensive vehicle (like a VW GTD or a SportsWagen TDI) if I wanted a fun car with much better mileage. I mean, for me now 32 mpg average over the life of the car and 40 mpg Interstate with JBD crank HP of roughly 300 HP and 500 ft/lbs of torque will have to do.

3. But the perverseness of this is: even with all the suspension mods I have done, until I improve my driving skill A LOT and I live somewhere else, there is no way I can effectively use all the power I have now, so I suppose for me it is the joy of having this car for a while in the golden years of my life. It won't be that many years more before someone else will have to be driving me around, so I figure I might as well have fun while it lasts.


----------



## Flyingman (Sep 13, 2009)

Hoooper said:


> Call me when it hits 500 Ft/lbs


+1:thumbup:


----------



## DBV (Sep 21, 2008)

Impressive numbers! The 328d xDrive will be very tempting for a high mileage, mostly freeway driver, like me. I wonder how the 5 series numbers will compare?

Although more in the 5 series class the Audi A6 TDI is hitting dealers lots now and EPA mpg is 38 Highway and 29 combined. Of course it is a bigger engine.



d geek said:


> 3 series diesel EPA numbers just came out today:
> 
> 2014 BMW 328d:
> 37 Combined
> ...


----------



## UncleJ (May 7, 2006)

Well the VW TDI's in the Golf/Jetta range seem to get well above the EPA numbers (I have heard well over 50 mpg from many owners) and they do not (yet) use that horrible urea system! For that alone I would probably lean toward one of those -- even with the obligatory timing belt change expense around 50K miles or so.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

UncleJ said:


> Well the VW TDI's in the Golf/Jetta range seem to get well above the EPA numbers (I have heard well over 50 mpg from many owners) and they do not (yet) use that horrible urea system! For that alone I would probably lean toward one of those -- even with the obligatory timing belt change expense around 50K miles or so.


What exactly is horrible about the urea system? The Passat uses the urea system and although its a bigger vehicle, gets better mpg than the Golf/Jetta.

Timing belt interval for the new tdi is 130k miles.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

DBV said:


> Impressive numbers! The 328d xDrive will be very tempting for a high mileage, mostly freeway driver, like me. I wonder how the 5 series numbers will compare?
> 
> Although more in the 5 series class the Audi A6 TDI is hitting dealers lots now and EPA mpg is 38 Highway and 29 combined. Of course it is a bigger engine.


Looking at bmw.com, the Euro 530d (US '535d') uses between 17 and 23% more fuel than the Euro 320d (US 328d)- depending on the cycle used for the Euro fuel economy testing. So you can extrapolate that the US 535d numbers will come close to 28 city, 37 highway, and 32 combined.


----------



## wxmanCCM (Feb 17, 2010)

BB_cuda said:


> ...Why is it that EPA numbers are low for diesels and inflated for gasoline(compared to real world experience)?


One of the reasons is that EPA uses a correction factor to account for "ethanol in fuel" according to the Technical Support Document to the "new" EPA fuel mileage estimates (EPA, "Final Technical Support Document - Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicle Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates." December 2006, http://www.epa.gov/carlabel/documents/420r06017.pdf)....

"...We also are finalizing an additional downward adjustment to fuel economy estimates within the 5-cycle method. We put in place a downward adjustment to account for effects that cannot be replicated on the dynamometer. There are many factors that affect fuel economy that are not accounted for in any of our existing test cycles. These include road grade, wind, tire pressure, heavier loads, hills, snow/ice, *effects of ethanol in gasoline*, and others. We are finalizing a 9.5% downward adjustment to account for these effects...." (Page 3)

Of course, diesel fuel (ULSD) doesn't contain any ethanol, but the correction factor apparently applies to all ICE vehicles.

Also EPA _expected_ diesels to significantly outperform their 2008 fuel mileage values...

"...As can be seen, diesels appear to perform the best with respect to their label fuel economy [pre-2008], outperforming the label by 4.3%. Conventional gasoline vehicles come very close to meeting their label, falling short by only 1.4%. Conventional vehicles with relatively high combined fuel economy (here assumed to be 32 mpg or more, representing the top 10% of conventional vehicles in terms of fuel economy) performed only slightly worse, falling short by 1.7%. Hybrids fall short by a much larger margin, 8.2%. Thus, the greater shortfall seen with hybrids appears to be more related to hybrid technology than to simply high levels of fuel economy.

With respect to the mpg-based label values [post-2008], diesels still perform the best of the four types of vehicles, now exceeding their label values by 18%...." (Page 8)


----------



## UncleJ (May 7, 2006)

The "horrible" urea system just adds another layer of potential problems. In the early stages it was a source of problems with leaks, poor installations, and difficulties with dealers/wrenches being unfamiliar with it. The "system" itself is probably not "horrible" it is the execution of the installation that has caused the problems in most cases. The fluid itself is not benign and can corrode (like salt water) if not cleaned up when spilled or leaked. It is "horrible" in just being something else to go wrong and worry about.:eeps:


----------



## AutoUnion (Apr 11, 2005)

Fantastic! So many new diesels hitting lots soon


----------



## MarcL (Jan 15, 2004)

AutoUnion said:


> Fantastic! So many new diesels hitting lots soon


Yes, indeed. Among them, I think the 328d X drive is really special. Solid performance, fantastic mileage and AWD versatility. This could be my wife's new car with twice the MPGs of her current Volvo XC70.

Where are the Audi 4 cylinder diesels?


----------



## BB_cuda (Nov 8, 2011)

Coming new bodied A4 2014 be a 2.0L 4 cylinder TDI. A3 2.0L TDI been around awhile. It will be curious if A4 has longitudinally mounted 2.0 vs transverse like A3, Jetta, and Passat.


----------



## AutoUnion (Apr 11, 2005)

MarcL said:


> Yes, indeed. Among them, I think the 328d X drive is really special. Solid performance, fantastic mileage and AWD versatility. This could be my wife's new car with twice the MPGs of her current Volvo XC70.
> 
> Where are the Audi 4 cylinder diesels?


A4 TDI coming when the B9 is out next year.

- Sent from Galaxy S4


----------



## AutoUnion (Apr 11, 2005)

BB_cuda said:


> Coming new bodied A4 2014 be a 2.0L 4 cylinder TDI. A3 2.0L TDI been around awhile. It will be curious if A4 has longitudinally mounted 2.0 vs transverse like A3, Jetta, and Passat.


A4 is NOT based on a VW platform, therefore will be longitudinally mountrd.

- Sent from Galaxy S4


----------

