Filed under: Sedans/Saloons, Green, Crossovers/CUVs, BMW
BMW 335d will be released in November as 2009 model
Click above for more high-res images of the 2009 BMW 3 Series
Rest easy, torque-lovers, BMW will be releasing the diesel version of its uber-popular 3 Series sedan in the United States later this year, exactly on schedule. Because it's so late in the year, the Bavarian automaker will be labeling it as a 2009 model, leading some to believe that the 335d was not going to be coming until next year. Not so, according to BMW spokesman Tom Plucinsky, who confirmed to KickingTires that both the 335d and the X5 35d will be making it Stateside sometime in November after production begins in September.
Both upcoming diesel models from BMW will use a 3.0-liter twin turbo oil-burner rated at 265hp and 425 lb-ft of torque. That's plenty of stump-pulling torque, but the best news could be the expected fuel mileage of 23 mpg in the city and 33 mpg on the highway when paired with the six speed automatic.
Gallery: 2009 BMW 3 Series
[Source: Kicking Tires]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
John Johnson 9:04AM (8/06/2008)
Want want want want.
Pricing?
Reply
MemphisNET 9:42AM (8/06/2008)
I second that!
Too bad the hatch 1series diesel can't make the trip across the pond.
Egon 10:07AM (8/06/2008)
Considering it's a BMW, pricing will start at MSRP with 'market adjustment' and BS 'dealership fees' piled on. Yes, it's what the market will bear, but I've never paid sticker and certainly wouldn't consider MSRP+. But that's just me...
MikeofLA 10:32AM (8/06/2008)
To Egon:
When i ordered and took delivery of my 335i in early '07 I paid $500 less then MSRP. It all depends on how you buy cars, your ability to deal and of course the dealership.
bilbo baggins 11:17AM (8/06/2008)
Very smart of them to make this decision. They can price it higher now to counter the poor dollar. What a waste. These cars should have been here years ago !! Western world they say....really?!
montoym 8:53PM (8/06/2008)
These cars couldn't have come here until recently. ULSD(Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel) fuel was only required to be sold as of 2007.
It has been available overseas for many more years and that's the reason we have not seen the modern diesel technology until recently.
JohnRico 9:07AM (8/06/2008)
It's about time BMW gives us, at least, 1 of their d-models. Now, what about the lovely 135d, and the 128d?
Reply
Omer 10:24AM (8/06/2008)
i rather have 320d or 520d. I believe 520d wagon (or estate as they call it) specifically is one the most popular BMW model in Europe. kinds of makes sense since 520d wagon has more space small SUV or CUV, more economical cost and mpg, better looking, sporty, and safe.
boneheadotto 9:09AM (8/06/2008)
gas mileage looks ok until you realize that diesel costs 15% more than premuim gas and 19% more than low grade. So now you are really looking at a car that gets
19/28 instead of 23/33. Id rather spend less and get a 335 or even a 328. Plus these uber complicated diesels are not likely to be that reliable (atleast not their new fancy catalytic converters that are new to the market)
Reply
Quattrofan 9:24AM (8/06/2008)
Your reliability concerns are probably unfounded, but the numbers on diesel are simply unfavorable - Diesel being almost $6 in California.
BlackCanary 9:28AM (8/06/2008)
23/33 is not exactly amazing to begin with but when you add in the extra cost of diesel you are exactly correct. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to buy the Diesel model over the regular version. There is likely no cost savings, performance is not as good and who knows about reliability. I would guess it is fine but who knows?
Pat 9:34AM (8/06/2008)
For some it's a matter of using less fuel rather than using less money. But I understand your point.
And typically, diesels last longer than gas vehicles. Not sure how new all the diesel tech is on the 335d is as BMW has been producing diesels for a long time.
Russell 11:19AM (8/06/2008)
I would think performance of diesel 3L (265 hp/425 lb-ft) would be better compared to gasoline 3L (230 hp/230 lb-ft).
BlackCanary 10:14AM (8/06/2008)
"For some it's a matter of using less fuel rather than using less money."
Ok then this is still not a good choice if that is your goal. If you are looking for altruistic virtues in your car, should you not be looking for the most fuel efficient model possible? If your altruism depends on the car also being a BMW thus no sacrifice iin performance, luxury, and panache - than you seem to be missing your own point.
I still can not find any logical reason to purchase a diesel 3 over a standard 3.
boneheadotto 10:27AM (8/06/2008)
the engine itself is likely reliable but the complicated urea injection, bluetech whoha, and other emissions controls that have taken years to develop and are new to the market, worry me. Their reliability is unknown and if they fail your car will be the least environmentally friendly thing on the road, and you likely will not know. For this reason i will stear clear.
Matt 10:36AM (8/06/2008)
I bet if you plan to tow something, the diesel will likely offer a higher capacity than the regular gasoline-burning models.
On another note, It will be interesting to see how many rubber seals are surrounding the engine bay; the M-B E320 Bluetec's engine compartment is fully sealed off with additional sound-deadening to quell the idling motor.
mdm-adph 10:39AM (8/06/2008)
Well, diesel may cost 15 to 19 percent more, but it typically gets about 35% better gas mileage (VW's in particular), so you're still saving money. And I don't know what you mean my "uber-complicated diesels" with "lower reliability" -- there's LOADS of people driving late-model TDI's with 300k miles on them.
zamafir 10:39AM (8/06/2008)
Taking into account the A4 3.0TDI (which we're getting in the US and which is cheaper) achieves 26/43 (US, according to autoblog, and that's WITH quattro) the BMW's figures seem quite paltry and uncompetitive. Hell the audi also hits 60 a fraction of a second quicker.
I'll agree with most, 33 highway MPG with a naught to sixty of 6.0 when your competitors are returning 43 highway mpg and a naught to sixty of 5.9 seconds is pathetic. When, oh when, is BMW going to return to the ultimate driving machine past and build cars that aren't the same weight as their competitors which include awd.
why not the LS2LS7? 11:27AM (8/06/2008)
zamafir:
You're making a rather poor comparison.
You're using European cycle numbers converted to US gallons. These figures will not be a good comparison. Because, for example, the Prius gets north of 60mpg (US) on the European combined cycle, and yet is rated about 45mpg on our ratings. If you use figures like you quote, all your comparisons will be way off, making the Prius look like it gets about twice the fuel economy of a Cobalt XFE when instead it gets about 35% better.
The Jetta TDI with the VW 2.0TDI engine and only FWD is rated at 30/41 here. There's no way the A4 3.0TDI with AWD is going to be rated at 26/43. You'll be lucky to see 26/34.
Pat 2:32PM (8/06/2008)
BlackCanary : "Ok then this is still not a good choice if that is your goal. If you are looking for altruistic virtues in your car, should you not be looking for the most fuel efficient model possible? If your altruism depends on the car also being a BMW thus no sacrifice iin performance, luxury, and panache - than you seem to be missing your own point."
For some, buying the most fuel efficient car model possible makes sense. For some, being socially conscious and minimizing their fuel usage makes sense. You don't have to be an extremist to do your part to reduce fuel usage.
You seem to be missing your own point. If money, not fuel usage is the issue, then shouldn't you buy the cheapest car possible?
To the OP - assuming your numbers are correct, I'm not sure if comparing low grade gas to diesel is the correct method when talking about BMW. Doesn't the 335 or 328 use mid or premium?