• Aug 6, 2008
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.


[Source: Kicking Tires]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 53 Comments
      • 6 Years Ago
      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)
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        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?
        • 6 Years Ago
        matt said
        "The regular-sipping 2.5 liter is rated at 21/29, while the diesel comes in at 30/41. That's a savings of 42.86% city and 41.38% highway, respectively, which is easily able to justify the cost increase associated with diesel."

        Like i mentioned earlier, there is not apples to apples comparison with VW. The 2.5L is a 5 cylinder and a gas hog at that. The Diesel is a 2.0L 4cylinder. So the 40+% mpg difference is not an accurate was to compare these. Yes a 2.0L diesel will get better than a 2.0L gas but the diff is likely to be 15-25% diff. Given the high cost of diesel motors i dont think it is really worth the cost.

        As for the Prius costing more up front and in the long term... That has not been the case for any Prius owners yet. The depreciation has been so small on the Prius that they could be getting only 10mpg and still be more cost effective in the long term. Those cars have not depreciated hardly at all.
        • 6 Years Ago
        "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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        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?
        • 6 Years Ago
        The diesel 3-Series gets 5 MPG better (highway) than the gasoline variant, which is 17.857% better mileage. Honestly, I'd guess that would even the car out, cost-wise, to really provide the same dollar-per-mile equation, given the higher cost of diesel, as the "regular" version, with the only changes being:

        Making fewer trips to the gas station/more miles per tank

        Spending more each fill-up (most likely balancing out to provide no real difference in price, over-all, other than the offset higher cost)

        and providing more horse power/torque, which accomplishes idling the engine at lower RPMs and having to push the engine not as hard to acheive the same performance (torque at much lower levels, more of it, etc) being good for reliability of the engine, proven or not for BMW, and in general probably being a faster vehicle.

        That and I'm sure it's good for the "look at my Prius, it costs more up front and in the long term, with or without a replacement battery, and is worse for the environment than a standard car, while carrying the only real benefit of preserving gas useage, while spending thousands of dollars more to do it" image, that is to say a false sense of responsibility and cost-savings, in the hopes it will somehow help your ego and/or public image.

        That is to say, unless you like torque, or you transport your entire vehicle with you on frequent trips to Europe (and drive it over there), there is no other logically justifiable reason to purchase the diesel version over the gasoline version, and this is coming from a big fan of diesels.

        Likewise, comparing this vehicle to a vehicle that actuallty benefits from having diesel, such as the Diesel Jetta:

        The regular-sipping 2.5 liter is rated at 21/29, while the diesel comes in at 30/41. That's a savings of 42.86% city and 41.38% highway, respectively, which is easily able to justify the cost increase associated with diesel.
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        I would think performance of diesel 3L (265 hp/425 lb-ft) would be better compared to gasoline 3L (230 hp/230 lb-ft).

      • 6 Years Ago
      Ok here are the numbers for my area for each car driven 15,000 miles per year.

      328i 18/28mpg or 23 combined (est)
      Premium Fuel Cost = $4.10
      Gallons used = 652
      Annual Fuel cost = $2,673

      Vs.

      335d 23/33 or 28 combined (est)
      Diesel Cost = $4.70
      Gallons Used = 536
      Annual Fuel Cost = $2,519

      The 335d will save the owner $154 a year but if the 335d starts at the same price point as the 335i it will be $39,000. A 328i starts at $32,700. It would take 40 years to make up the difference using fuel as the only variable when driving 15K miles a year.
        • 6 Years Ago
        But the 335d out-accelerates the 328i to 60mph by full second.

        Why are you comparing the fuel economy to the faster car and the purchase price to the cheaper, slower car?

        Of course the 328i will be cheaper and slower. And the 335i will be more expensive to run and faster.
      • 6 Years Ago
      It's about time BMW gives us, at least, 1 of their d-models. Now, what about the lovely 135d, and the 128d?
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
      • 6 Years Ago
      The 328i with automatic transmission does 0-60 in 6.9 seconds. The 335i with automatic transmission does 0-60 in 5.6 seconds. The 335d which only has the auto available, does 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. So performance wise the 335d is still closer to a 335i than a 328i.

      Now on the highway, where the most of the big mileage is racked up in the U.S. (your situation may vary), the 335d gets 27% better mileage than the 335i. Diesel costs only about 15% more than premium gasoline right now.

      It may not be hugely compelling, but a 335d is definitely worth considering, I'd say.
        • 6 Years Ago
        It will likely slide right in-between the 328i and 335i on performance and long-term cost.

        Not a 'better' option for everyone, just an intermediate option for some.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Kudos to BMW for bringing their wonderful diesel to the US market...
      Amazing how Audi have completely screwed up as usual and not yet have their TDi's over here. Audi with their years of experience in TDi's and their high publicity in LeMans racing combined with record high fuel prices in the US market have totally failed to capture the market...It's been long rumored about the 3.0 v6 TDi making it here, but it has been the case for so long now. It will be sold first in the Q7, and maybe at some point in the A4...
      Damn Audi get your act together and bring your diesels over here now, don't wimp out and start to offer the 2.0L also not just the massively expensive 3.0L engine and bring it in the A4 and more importantly A4 Avant.
      It would be a perfect commuter car...

      • 6 Years Ago
      Agree with others. There are even more efficient diesels in BMW's other markets. It's a start, but I'd much rather have the 320d which gets more like 30 city/40 hwy. Hopefully this will prove popular enough with people who can't do the math to realize it's a bad deal, that they will bring in some of the more efficient diesels later on.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Crap mileage and engine is too big.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I'll second the MINI diesel. The BMW mileage numbers are WEAK. What happened to the 40mpg BMW diesels? This is truly pathetic.

      A gas 3-series with fuel saving tech like start-stop, lower resistance tires, different gearing might nail that same 33mpg. I'm decidedly underwhelmed.

      Our 4 year old 325it gets about 30 on the freeway @ 60mph.
      • 6 Years Ago
      To quote Clarkson:

      Diesel - it's the fuel of satan...

      I'll stick with gasoline/petrol engines for now. Especially when HCCI engines debut:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCCI

      -ted
      • 6 Years Ago
      the question is: will the higher mpg offset the premium over the 335i and the higher cost of diesel fuel.

      of course, you could run it on fry grease too...

      (in ca, diesel costs quite a bit more than gas)
      • 6 Years Ago
      Thats cool they are bring them to america, but the gas mileage is the same as my 2.0L gas jetta.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Let's understand what's going on here.
      BMW NEED the diesel model to be sold more than the US buyers want to buy it. How so? Because BMW have already admitted they can't reach the projected CAFE Regs mandated in America, over the next decade.
      Conclusion: BMW need to work far harder on their non gasoline engine develpment, or move to hybrids. W/o the artificial tax breaks on diesel, as in Europe, getting an average of 28 (US) mpg from this engine is pretty darn underwhelming. As already stated it looks a far better deal to buy a 328i than this likely overpriced diesel variant. Try harder BMW!
    • Load More Comments