www.fueleconomy.gov has 1-series MPG numbers now

[Nixon]

From www.fueleconomy.gov, here are the 2008 MPG ratings for 1-series coupe's and convertibles (in City/Combined/Hwy format):

135i coupe (Manual): 17/20/25
135i coupe (Auto): 18/21/26
135i convert (Manual): 17/20/26
135i convert (Auto): 17/20/26

128i coupe (Manual): 18/21/28
128i coupe (Auto): 19/22/28
128i convert (Manual): 18/21/28
128i convert (Auto): 18/21/27

These are according to the new EPA test which hand out lower MPG's across the board for all vehicles. By comparison the 2008 numbers for the 335i are 17/20/26 (auto and manual).

Not on the EPA web site is the 123d, that is estimated at around 36 city, 45 hwy (give or take a few mpg). Considering these numbers, a chipped 123d with mid-6 second 0-60 times sounds better and better to me.

[larryn]

Remember these are using the brand new calculation for MPG figures, and shouldn't be compared to those 35mpg figures from other cars, using last year's calculations.

As for the 135i, it's pretty much as I expected. The car is extremely close to being as wide as a 335, but has a higher drag coefficient because it's more upright.

Thanks mucho for finding and posting!!

[Driv3r]

hmm so with the new way of testing they have finally brought some sense of reality, at least now the tests are conducted WITH A/C on.

In addition to having A/C on,
-faster highway speed & acceleration

[Cal]

Thanks for the info.

[BForbes]

Nixon, you are one of the most useful people around here. Thanks mans!!

[GatoGrande]

outstanding info - sort of what I was expecting.. Let's roll!

[Ryephile]

Thanks for posting the info!

Wow those are crappy numbers, even considering the new '08 EPA measurements. The '08 Cooper S has an '08 EPA of 26/29/34. An average of 20 mpg for a 135i is honestly disappointing for a TGDI engine. That's almost as bad as an RX-8!

[bum944]

Those numbers are fine for an occasional use car that gets to 60 in 4.8 sec, but for daily driving it's tough to swallow for such a smallish car. My guess is those that have one will love it and consider the mileage an acceptable trade-off.

[Nixon]

I do what I can!

My biggest surprise was the only ~2 MPG difference between the 128i and the 135i. For some reason I expected more of a difference between the two.

[Propagator]

Originally Posted by Nixon

I do what I can!

My biggest surprise was the only ~2 MPG difference between the 128i and the 135i. For some reason I expected more of a difference between the two.

First of all, thanks for the info Nixon.

About the small difference in fuel economy between the 135i and the 128i. This is part of what many of us have been complaining about. The N52 in the 128i is just not all that it can be. Keep in mind that the 2007 328i had the exact same EPA mileage as the 2006 330i, despite losing 25HP. And here again, the 128i disappoints by delivering neither the performance nor the efficiency that one would expect from a BMW N-series engine.

If it must be detuned to make the 135i shine, then fine. But at least give us better efficiency!

Direct injection is much needed here.

[rdkind62]

Thanks for the info. Let me echo what a few others have said here. The average mpg while it may be disappointing is probably not going to sway a person one way or the other from either buying or not buying. This is going to be my first BMW and if it got 10 mpg it would not dissuade me from getting what I have always considered to be the ultimate car.

[aesthetect]

Originally Posted by Nixon

My biggest surprise was the only ~2 MPG difference between the 128i and the 135i. For some reason I expected more of a difference between the two.

amen. would have made the 128 much much more attractive - substantially better economy coupled with the sports suspension/brakes etc.. :wub:

(COME ON Tii & 123d)

[investor27]

I second that. Bring the 123D over right now.

[Brandon26pdx]

If the 123d can come that close to doubling the 135i's fuel ecomony, we need that model here STAT.

Those figures do make you wince a little bit, considering premium octane gas will be 5 bucks/gal before you can turn around. I really do wonder if buying a gas guzzler is a very good long term proposition.

[john970]

Originally Posted by Nixon

135i coupe (Manual): 17/20/25
135i convert (Manual): 17/20/26

Anyone else notice the 135i convertible gets better gas mileage than the manual on the highway??

Must have to do with moving the antenna off of the roof or some other aerodynamic change that makes a difference at higher speeds.

[1ster]

That's pretty bad. BMW should throw one of these in for free...

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by john970

Anyone else notice the 135i convertible gets better gas mileage than the manual on the highway??

Must have to do with moving the antenna off of the roof or some other aerodynamic change that makes a difference at higher speeds.

Maybe more people are shaving their heads smooth now these days? (better aerodynamics with the convertible roof down?)

I saw that too, along with a couple of other 1-mpg oddities on other cars I looked up too that didn't make sense. At this point I'm chalking them up to rounding differences and the natural variability in this type of testing. (Like if one car tests 25.4999 MPG, it gets listed as 25 mpg. If the other car gets 25.5111 MPG, it might get listed as 26 mpg.)

Keep in mind that these cars aren't actually going anywhere during testing. It's all done on a dyno that simulates wind resistance.

[colonel1961]

Wow - a lot less than I would have thought - not that it's going to change how I drive, how much I drive, or how far I drive...

Thanks for the info!

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by colonel1961

Wow - a lot less than I would have thought - not that it's going to change how I drive, how much I drive, or how far I drive...

Thanks for the info!

I think that is pretty common. The $2475 projected average yearly gas cost for driving a 135i, vs $999 for something that gets hybrid-like gas mileage isn't enough for folks to change their current driving habits, or the cars they buy.

A typical two car family doesn't really think of it in terms of the savings they could see between both cars over a typical 4-year life of ownership of the car. That's about $6,000 bucks they pay for their decision to choose the cars they buy. The $6,000 bucks isn't even noticed, because it comes out of their pocket a few bucks at a time at the gas pump.

For all the whining we do about the price of gas, it really doesn't hit people's pocket book hard enough to do much about it.

[WolfsburgerMitFries]

Good catch, but the ratings are somewhat disappointing. Still gonna have to look at a Challeenger R/T.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by WolfsburgerMitFries

Good catch, but the ratings are somewhat disappointing. Still gonna have to look at a Challeenger R/T.

The R/T has the 5.7 V8 with "Multi-Displacement System" so it can cut down to just 4-cyl for highway cruising, right?

The 2008 Charger 5.7 V8 without the "Multi-Displacement System" is rated at 15/18/23.
The 2008 Challenger 5.7 V8 with the "Multi-Displacement System" might match, or even do better than the 135i's 17/20/25 ratings. Dodge only has to make up a 2 MPG difference.

That would hurt.

[C_Topher]

All gas mileage ratings are going to be skewed downward this year with a change in testing procedures. I wonder what they would have been last year?