What car gives you V8 performance and over 30MPG highway?

socal baby!

— CLK63BlackSeries (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 3:11:21 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5   

engine is still running a bit hot there..

— SevorbeupstryIsBack (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 3:14:09 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

it's not an opinion. it's actual observed mileage.

— enthusiastx11 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 3:50:40 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

I have a new 335i Auto Convertible (which weighs much more than the sedan), and my only complaint is the poor fuel consumption. Maybe I drive too much in the city?

— MercBasher (View Profile)

Posted on 9/3/2007 10:11:30 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

the instant mpg readout is one thing. you need to VERIFY it with a 3 tank fillup average.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 4:05:42 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

A Lexus IS350 gets better fuel economy, is more reliable and handles better. Next article please.

— david989 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 5:42:38 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -36   

My Acura TL can get 36MPG if I start the MPG counter over while driving on the highway. That only lasts for a little while though...Nice try, but I'm not impressed. Any car will average an unusually high number for a short period of time.

— Blakura (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 8:53:36 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -3   

When I used to drive Grand Marquis cars before giving up on Ford, I consistently got 31 highway miles to the imperial gallon or better in Canada which is comparable to your Cadillac fuel economy. The Grand Marquis was not as fast off the line as I would have liked so Ford must have geared it for fuel economy during highway cruising.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 12:31:27 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Re: CommonSense...LOL!

Every now and then someone actually says something that I can't help but laugh...whether it is true or not!

— Need4Speed (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 3:47:32 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

You missed the point CommonSense, there is no comparison here between the big comfy U.S. highway cruisers and the small European cars that have no leg room in the rear. The point is that the gas mileage that these little European cars get can be matched by a big domestic sedan with a trade-off in performance.

BMW does earn kudos however for producing in-line six cylinder engines that are inherently in balance. I just hope these engines still use iron liners in their aluminum blocks.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 9/7/2007 7:56:47 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

I agree 100%, and I'm a BMW Owner/Fan. BMW has been using the same gauge design and interior illumination colors for the last 20 years (at least). OK. That's not 100% true, They have added an Orange illuminated ring around the gauges. So in the last 20 years, the only thing that BMW has done with the gauge design is add an orange light-ring around them, WOW!

Sorry to go off topic

— LexSucks (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 11:47:03 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2   

This is for a reason. Take the trendy white cluster found in many brands these days. Even on the lowest setting, it harms your night vision more than the softer oranges and reds found in others. BMW's were meant for cruising at autobahn speeds. Everything must support that from a safety standpoint (as well as performance).

Anyone who has night-driven where deer or squids (the two-wheeled variety) often cross understands how important night vision and recognition is. The orange/red lighting is the easiest on your night vision. Ask a pilot.

Bottom line: BMW takes the choice of safety/functionality over aesthetics in this case.

— beetee (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 11:41:39 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

The white gauges aren't bright enough to have to invoke readjustment of your eyes (to darkness)when looking back into the darkness IMO. Your eyes may indeed go though and adjustment period, but I've never struggled with night vision while driving a car with gauges that are white/green/blue.

Remember Audi used to have red gauges and they switched to white. I'm not sure if any studies have been done, but I doubt that vehicles with Orange/red color gauges are involved in less night-time accidents than cars with white/blue/green gauges.

People always bring up planes to justify the orange gauges. But these aren't planes. There isn't one gauge reading in the car that can be the difference between life and death.

Maybe its a personal thing, but after driving my BMW for 6 years, I'm ready to add some more color in my life. Hopefully I wont crash into anybody at nigh time :-)

— LexSucks (View Profile)

Posted on 9/3/2007 12:09:50 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Beetee is right, this has been proven time and time again. Yes, the red/orange color is not as cool or pleasing, but it does make a difference for night vision. Blue is the worst, green somwhere in the middle, and red the best for causing least disturbance to night vision.

— LJ745 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/5/2007 1:41:13 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

LexSucks, it isn't a matter of brightness. It's a matter of wavelengths and color temperature that are optimum for peak night vision performance. Having driven both the autobahn and some German country roads, I wholly understand what that percentage can mean.

Let's say you're speeding on the autobahn (or your local highway at autobahn speeds) at 1am. You thought you'd make your destination by 10pm, but traffic and a conference call slowed you down. You are obviously a bit road weary, so that decreases your perception and reaction times by 30% or more. We won't mention the effects of the caffeine you've been imbibing. You chance the radio to a more lively station and all the sudden the motorcycle that was 100 meters in front of you wildly bucks and slides across your path.

You have less than a second to react. By 'react' I say that to mean making an evasive move that will results in missing the bike/biker and keeping your car on the road (i.e. no over-correcting). Keep in mind you have no less than a 30% penalty right off the bat.

Your ability to react is first dependent on your ability to pick-up the sliding biker. If you don't see it, you can't react. The white wavelengths cause substantially more fatigue and degradation of night vision than the orange/red. So your 30% penalty is now up to 50%. No one said you were blind. No one even said the change is perceptible to you. But these things are happening in your body, and you now have half the time to react since you lost .4 seconds thanks, in part, to your fruity little console.

At 120+ on a highway, you'd WISH you were a plane. Both vehicles require preserving the driver/pilot's night vision as much as possible. The comparison is relevant.

— beetee (View Profile)

Posted on 9/5/2007 2:48:31 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

LexSucks, I'd like to add to your instrument lighting comments. I recall from my defence industry days that Lockheed used blue-filtered white light in its long-range patrol aircaft instruments for example and that U.S. submarines used red instrument lights. I had 3 Audi cars in the eighties which all had red instrument lighting and my tired old eyes could never focus on red properly. I find the white lighting on my current leased Audi A6 instruments much better. I have different digital clocks all over the bedroom so I can tell the time in any direction without changing my position in bed and, for me, blue or green digits work much better than red. I think that orange lightig is just a silly marketing gimmick. My friend's wife bought an electric clock from Sharper Image that had all different colored digits and she loves it. I used to have a Honda V65 Magna motorcyle with tastefully different colors on the gauges and warning lights in the instrument cluster. If not overdone, different colors can be useful but my eyes focus better on blues and greens.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 9/7/2007 8:13:36 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

This is very hard to believe but im starting to like the rear end of the 3 series sedan.

— M53R (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 10:19:06 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 6   

sevorbeupstryisback: the car is not "running warm" and the engine temperature guage that you are referring to is actually the oil pressure guage.

— SixxFive (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 10:46:44 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Until the Motor Trend, automobilemag and other auto magazine said so, I will NOT belief it.

— Lexus (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 3:21:03 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2   

did you read the headline?

and hundreds of thousands of buyers disagree. it's a great looking car! what's better in the class in your opinion?

— enthusiastx11 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 3:52:52 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 6   

Note that the 335 is a twin turbo six that pumps out 300 bhp and 285 lb/ft of torque if i'm not mistaken. 0-60 come in under 5 according to some tests. I believe that would qualify as V8 performance...considering some V8 cars don't come very close to these numbers.

— Need4Speed (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 3:54:28 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

nicad What are you talking about? The IS350 performs like a Corolla, it's a pathetic, cheaply built car with awful design and subpar performance. The BMW is in a completely different league.

— Star (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 8:23:51 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

"that's funny, cuz i've smoked sooo many BMW's with the IS 350"

And I've beaten plenty of M3s and 911s in my S4. But I still know it's slower. It's the DRIVER, not the car, stupid. The 3 Series drivers probably didn't even know you wanted to race, because they don't take Lexus sports sedans very seriously.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 9/3/2007 11:44:03 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

just don't be lulled to sleep with that boring interior. Great car, though.

— senorgato (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 5:27:33 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

Ok, ok, my 14 year old PoS Ford Probe GT V6 5-spd stick with close to 200,000 miles gets 30 MPG cruising at 70 mpg. I don't get modern V8 performance, but it still has low-end torque and is fun to drive. Normally, it averages around 25 mpg in mixed driving.

Yeah, I know, it's not a new BMW, but it also doesn't have the price sticker and the worries of one.

— vdiv (View Profile)

Posted on 9/2/2007 10:15:50 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

HAHAHA I love the photos in front of The BRIG in Venice. Got drunk there yesterday =-)

Here's a question. Would the coupe get the same millage as the four-door? Better? Worse?

— MunkyTooL (View Profile)

Posted on 9/3/2007 12:20:27 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Yes the BMW 3 Series is has V8 performance but can it NOT goe into overheat when it is push to the limit? Remember couple months ago it went overheat on the fourth laps when being compare to the G37.

Well at least it did NOT catch on fire like the new Audi R8.

— Lexus (View Profile)

Posted on 9/3/2007 12:37:34 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -5   

sighn me up!

— truckmen (View Profile)

Posted on 9/3/2007 4:04:40 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

I don't want one turbo much less two,too many parts and two many problems.I'll take the IS-350 V6 any day.

— autopro (View Profile)

Posted on 9/3/2007 11:52:31 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -3   

The Corvette. Been doing for years now..

— paul3230 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/3/2007 11:56:53 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

I normally trust 001's posts. But this one leaves out way too much info. Was cruise on? Was the road flat or sloped? Does average mean average over a certain amount of time, if so how long? Or did it mean a snapshot while lifting off the accelerator? No one actually believes that this car gets 31.7mpg on the highway. But any car can show that number on their readout at any given time. Mine shows 99.9mpg on highway all the time, does that mean I average 99.9? Not likely.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 9/3/2007 2:32:42 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

lol

I got 9mpg in our Yukon XL rental out on the open road, twisting through the Colorado mountains. However, it did have six people in it and the trunk was loaded with luggage. We couldn't fit in a Q7, so I had to switch to the GMC!

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 9/3/2007 11:46:05 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

That 335 engine is an amazing creation when you factor in price and efficiency. Where else can you get that kind of performance and efficiency for that price? Answer: Nowhere.

— indoctrin8ed (View Profile)

Posted on 9/3/2007 10:03:21 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Hmmm...never thought people took those Fuel Average Readings on the dash board too seriously. Because they are not that accurate.

— Porschinator (View Profile)

Posted on 9/4/2007 5:58:59 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

love it. love it. love it.

not a better rounded car out there for anywhere near this price.

— enthusiastx11 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/4/2007 6:31:23 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

I think this would be more convincing with the 330i. I was impressed when I first read the 330i did 20/30 mpg.

— bigTYME (View Profile)

Posted on 9/4/2007 11:49:56 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

the 335 is nice but ... horsepowerfreaks kit on the late model M3 is where im at. got boost?

— InfinitiBoston (View Profile)

Posted on 9/5/2007 2:01:19 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?column=1&id=23523

Old EPA rating says 29mpg...

135 should be even faster and gas saving.

— JTRacer (View Profile)

Posted on 9/6/2007 5:57:34 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1