2009 BMW 335d vs. Audi A4 3.2

Great win for BMW, CONGRATS! I was surprised at how handily the BMW beat the Audi.

— America (View Profile)

Posted on 4/4/2009 12:30:37 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

.92g is the clue to this late april fools joke.

— Badgewhore (View Profile)

Posted on 4/5/2009 4:21:00 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -3   

.92g is the clue to this late april fools joke.

— Badgewhore (View Profile)

Posted on 4/5/2009 4:21:54 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -3   

I could've seen this coming a mile away. The new A4's are really slow, save for the S4, but that's priced way above the 335i. Man, the 335d really fucked up that Audi. The bleeding A4's are way too heavy, and dynamically they are way off the benchmark.

— dhkss2002 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/4/2009 1:12:46 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5   

Funny how car magazines often come up with these random comparison tests. Why didn't they compare a diesel BMW to a gasoline BMW? I am totally missing the point of this test.

— JustaCar (View Profile)

Posted on 4/4/2009 2:56:02 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

"Although it might appear, solely by looking at the points totals, that the Audi A4 was trounced by the diesel BMW, in real-world driving the cars are actually much closer"
"While that makes our test an apples-to-oranges comparison, we're much more concerned about the engines involved here anyway — their power, performance, driveability, fuel consumption...and fun."
"We also prefer the Audi's 6-speed Tiptronic automatic transmission, simply because it performs such sweet throttle blips on manual downshifts"

— 1evlaudi (View Profile)

Posted on 4/4/2009 11:00:48 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

BMW needs all the help it can get.
Makes you wonder why someone would want to buy a 335i now. Once again, BMW finds a way to cannibalize their own sales since they're finding it hard to compete without incentives nowadays.

However, R&T also did a longterm test on the larger GS450h and its real world mileage of 26mpg is even higher than the 335d's (I'm going to assume a 5-series diesel will get even crappier mileage). Just imagine if Lexus put the same powertrain into the smaller IS (a true performance hybrid instead of the more miserly HS250h)
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=4479

It just goes to show how far behind the German's are because of their reluctance to give-up higher profit margin diesels.

They should've included a hybrid (not like they'd test it anyway) in this comparison just so they could place it last and make the Germans feel better about themselves (Autobilde would've).

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/5/2009 4:00:35 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -9   

Since nobody will read my link anyway, the GSh's 0-60 is the same as the BMW335d's but unfortunately Lexus hasn't found a way to make the GSh German...yet.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/5/2009 4:02:32 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -7   

Forget that last post, I got it mixed up with a road test from CardandDriver. Same results but wanted a post from the same rag.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/5/2009 4:07:57 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -6   

I would love to have the 335d, but I don't know if it's safe in the snow area of Wisconsin during winter time. That is my only reservation, and it's a major concern. What do you guys think? Is it safe to drive the 335d during the winter up there, or should we go with the Audi A4 2.0T Quadro?

— investor27 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/5/2009 10:00:15 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

JRrob,
You omitted this part where they admit the car does better in the city.
"...This car’s forte is local trips in traffic, where the hybrid system can be best put to use."

The GS450h and smaller displacemeent 335d get the same city mileage, which is important because that's where most of these cars will drive.

Nobody's going to argue that a larger displacement gasoline engine will outdo a smaller diesel on the highway, but overall there's only possibly a 2 or 3mpg real world combined diffrence (the E320 Bluetec gets 3mpg better combined vs the GS450h).

Now, when the smaller HS250h comes out you'll see the diesels falter again. Using the same drivetrain as the Camry-hybrid (it gets 43.5mpg city/42mpg highway), retuned, it'll drop to about 37mpg combined with 0-60 in the mid 6 sec range. Not as sporty but respectable with roughly 50% higher mileage than the 335d.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=121755
On top of that, the HS250h is rumoured to run on regular gas, not the premium/diesel priced stuff.
http://jalopnik.com/5128655/lexus-hs250h-a-prius-for-the-country-club
So on top of paying more for the same performance, the BMW also will cost roughly 12% more to fill up until the summer when the gasoline/diesel spread inevitably grows again.
http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/

BMW's only reply would be to ship over surplus 320d's that get the same mileage and 0-60 as a Camry-hybrid (combined 43mpg US and 0-60 8sec) but uses more expensive fuel.

Back to my original question. What's the point of buying a 335i when a 335d does the same thing? BMW shoots itself in the foot once again.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/5/2009 12:29:11 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -7   

Also, missing from the above bias blog is that the the BMW came equiped with a sports package and set-up while the Audi came stock making up for the differences in the various driving test. A standard 3-Series is about as fun to drive as tractor with its 14" rims. Furthermore, R&T stated that in previous comparisions of the A4 with the sports package and the 3-Series with the sports package the cars were neck and neck in overall driving capabilities. Also, everyone knows that diesel engines have massive torque compared to gasoline engines. So, what is the point of the comparision in the first place? Test it against Audi's 3.0 TDI engine with its massive torque capabilities equiped with a sports suspension/package with Audi's drive select and then you can have a fair comparision of the vehicles - apples to apples so to speak.

So, whoever posted this bias blog in the first place left out some important details in their introduction up there.

— VISO (View Profile)

Posted on 4/5/2009 2:39:29 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -5   

Calm down, boys. VISO made a very good point, that a BMW 335d with sport suspension was compared to an Audi A4 3.2 with the standard suspension. Many of the bloggers apparently didn't read the entire article before posting their comments.

Road & Track acknowledged that fact, and stated that the purpose of the article was to ascertain if a diesel-powered sport sedan is a genuine sport sedan. The results of this article proved that diesel-powered performance cars are indeed possible.

That said, I too wondered why Road & Track didn't compare a 335d to a 335i. It would have made for a more meaningful comparison.

The anemic showing of Audi's 3.2-liter V6 is further proof that this engine's demise is way overdue. I currently own a 2009 A4, but I chose the twin-turbo 2-liter I-4. The 3.2 V6 has more horsepower and sounds smoother (and MIGHT actually FEEL slightly smoother), but the 2.0 I-4 has more torque (thus better real-world acceleration), better gas mileage, is lighter and is cheaper. Nobody in their right mind would buy an A4 with the 3.2 V6 unless they just couldn't bring themselves to buy an I-4 - not even a powerful, torquey, quiet, smooth I-4 like Audi's tiwn-turbo 2.0.

I will be getting the Audi S4 when it debuts here in the States. I can't wait to geet my hands on that sweet 3.0-liter supercharged V6! If the S4 weren't available, the 335d or 335i would be next choice (even if their interiors are a little cramped for me).

Speaking of diesels - what happened to Audi's 3.0-liter turbodiesel? It was supposed to be available on the current A4, but that proved not to be the case. What happened? Anybody know?

— Audiphile (View Profile)

Posted on 4/6/2009 3:37:17 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1