[CoffeeBean]

This is probably a repost, but maybe some of you haven't seen it. Interesting stuff!

http://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale-...-so-different/

[Nitrousbird]

It seems a little apples to oranges comparing the 328 to the 335, especially without stating whether either had the sport suspension.

Why not compare a F30 to E90, both being sport suspension, both being N55 cars (to make it as equal as possible). Then the results could be better quantified.

[Bigmoon]

good point there nitrousbird ! compare the same model/ engine/chasis/struts ... come on now ..

[CoffeeBean]

That E90 definitely has sport suspension, not sure about the F30. Anyone know just by looking at it?

[Meeni]

In any case, the F30 measured better in all categories but 2, steering feedback (due to e-steering poor calibration) and factory dialed-in understeer. Only the 2nd would be significantly modified with a sport suspension.

[Bob Shiftright]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...wrap-up-review

Since the full M Sport Line package didn’t arrive until the 2013 model year, we spec’d our test car with a manual transmission, the $900 Adaptive M suspension (requiring the $2500 Sport Line trim that includes 18-inch wheels), and a few creature comforts.

[Bob Shiftright]

Road and Track first compared a non-sport pre-LCI E90 with a sport F30.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...-65-1-roa0813/

Not so fast. In real-world driving, we observed a gain of less than 1.5 mpg. At that rate, all of the new car's expensive technology would save a tank (roughly 17.5 gallons) of fuel every 10,000 miles. Is that trade-off worth it?

Nope. Our decision was unanimous: We liked the old car better, if only by a slight margin. And later, when we hopped into a post-face-lift, Sport-package-equipped E90 328i, it was game over for the F30. No contest.

[motoguy128]

It's a $30-45k sports sedan running premium fuel. Who gives a rats a** about fuel economy. Especially 2-3mpg in real world driving.

There's other aerodynamic enhancements that could have been done. I suspect the reality is that the 4 pot turbo is cheaper to build. Plus, Ultimately mfg will lose sales when short sighted consumers see an Audi with 32mpg and the 3 series as 30mph hwy. BFD.

[Antetokounmpo]

Originally Posted by motoguy128

It's a $30-45k sports sedan running premium fuel. Who gives a rats a** about fuel economy. Especially 2-3mpg in real world driving.

There's other aerodynamic enhancements that could have been done. I suspect the reality is that the 4 pot turbo is cheaper to build. Plus, Ultimately mfg will lose sales when short sighted consumers see an Audi with 32mpg and the 3 series as 30mph hwy. BFD.

The EPA and government care about MPG.

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by motoguy128

It's a $30-45k sports sedan running premium fuel. Who gives a rats a** about fuel economy. Especially 2-3mpg in real world driving.

There's other aerodynamic enhancements that could have been done. I suspect the reality is that the 4 pot turbo is cheaper to build. Plus, Ultimately mfg will lose sales when short sighted consumers see an Audi with 32mpg and the 3 series as 30mph hwy. BFD.

BMW, for one! They have to meet mandates. That is why...

• ...you have no spare or jack (weight)
• ...BMW has electric cars (to bring down the overall average for the cars they sell)
• ...they put in 8 speed A/T rather than 6 speed A/T
• ...BMW uses magnesium block engines rather than iron
• ...F30s have an electric power steering pump, so it does not load down the engine

Having driven the very latest F30 last week (2200 miles on the loaner's clock), the steering is (still) too light and the steering is not as strongly self centering (if you let go of the wheel at the end of the turn) so you have to think more in simply guiding the car around than the E90...reminds me of my 2001 E46.