With plans to head up north (from L.A.) to San Luis Obispo for the long weekend, I requested the 135i. I figured with its effortless power, roomy (for two) cabin and (hopefully) decent fuel mileage, the baby Bimmer would be trumps for the trip. Rather than get tangled up in all the Friday traffic, we hit the road early (7:15am) Saturday morning as I wanted to enjoy the drive.
The 135i's suspension just confirmed my belief that, if you're driving a BMW, you don't need an electronically-adjustable suspension. Striking a perfect balance between athleticism in the turns and a supple ride on the freeway, the 135 was a great road tripper. The seats were comfortable too; no complaints from my sometimes finicky back in spite of the rather flat bottom cushion and lack of lumbar adjustment.
Taking an exit off the 101 for a break, we came upon Los Alamos (population about 1200) where we couldn't resist a cupla photo ops:
Cruising at 70-80 mph most of the way for the 578-mile road trip, the 135i averaged just about 24 mpg. This reminded me that there hasn't been a mileage update in some time, so here ya go:
Best Tank: 25.0 mpg
Worst Tank: 13.9 mpg
Overall Average: 19.9 mpg
Pretty darn good considering the EPA estimates are 17 city, 25 highway and 20 combined. Not to mention the 300 hp and 300 lb-ft on tap...
John DiPietro, Automotive Editor
hondacura4 says:
02:08 PM, 09/ 2/08
"The 135i's suspension just confirmed my belief that, if you're driving a BMW, you don't need an electronically-adjustable suspension."
Finally someone with some sense. Great engineering goes a L O N G way.
desmolicious says:
02:26 PM, 09/ 2/08
Old town SLO is so nice. What a gorgeous place. I try and get breakfast at McLintocks on Higuera whenever I ride up to San Fran. Funny how one meal of tri-tip and eggs can stick with you all day!
As for the 135, great choice. The 24mpg 70-80mph average makes me feel just a bit better about driving a 330i instead of a 335, as I'll get 30-32mpg at those speeds.
firstwagon says:
07:25 PM, 09/ 2/08
Was the worst tank on a racetrack?
joefrompa says:
08:26 AM, 09/ 3/08
Pretty solid mileage, but I'd like to see better considering this car has several mileage saving advances over the 335i ( as well as less frontal area and a little less weight ).
Great review though. Totally agree with the suspension...I'd rather have a purely mechanical driving machine than an electronically adjusting one, for the sake of longevity.
Joe
John DiPietro says:
02:14 PM, 09/ 3/08
firstwagon,
No, we don't include gas used during track time in our calculation. We fill before and then after the track/performance testing and don't enter that mileage/fuel usage.
joe,
Oddly enough, the EPA numbers for the 335 are 17/26/20. So the heavier car with the same engine and six-speed manual rates one mpg better on the highway?! Strange. My guess is that the 335i has better aero efficiency at high speeds.
geraldo1 says:
05:42 PM, 09/ 3/08
Your numbers are pretty similar to my 2007 BMW 335xi (auto trans and AWD). EPA is 17/25.
The best hwy mileage I've gotten has been 27 mpg over 700+ miles (Chicago-Atlanta), at an average 80 mph (according to the Garmin GPS). I do get about 19-22 in mixed driving, but most of what I do is really short city driving in Chicago for leisure (I fly out of town for work). I would much rather pay for Chicago parking and have fun driving than take a cab or public trans any day of the week.
Another thing that surprises me is the amount of cabin noise at 100+ mph. I'm not sure whether to attribute that to (a) small car (so get over it), (b) crappy midwest highways or (c) the run-flats.
bimmerjay says:
07:16 PM, 09/ 3/08
"So the heavier car with the same engine and six-speed manual rates one mpg better on the highway?! Strange. My guess is that the 335i has better aero efficiency at high speeds."
The 1's ginormous headlights probably cost it the 1 mpg highway over the 3.
"Another thing that surprises me is the amount of cabin noise at 100+ mph. I'm not sure whether to attribute that to (a) small car (so get over it), (b) crappy midwest highways or (c) the run-flats."
Now how would you know about road noise at 100+ mph on U.S. highways?? =O It's likely noise from pavement not designed for travel at those speeds. Originally from the midwest myself, I know how rough the road surfaces can be. On the German autobahns, my 335i was extremely quiet at a 125 mph cruise (seriously felt like 70), however wind noise picks up considerably above 130.
sandcountry360 says:
09:07 AM, 09/ 4/08
So it gets 2 mpg better than a 320hp Tahoe and this is Good!?!?!?! Call me crazy, but those are TERRIBLE fuel economy figures for a diminuitive 2+2 coupe. I get nearly the same fuel economy in my 300hp SUV, but I do drive a little slower. This car should get At Least the same Fuel Economy as a V6 Accord, but it's not even close. And I thought small displacement turbos might be the way of the futere. I'm sure it's a great little car, but for the money I'll take a Corvette.
geraldo1 says:
09:29 AM, 09/ 4/08
bimmerjay,
"Now how would you know about road noise at 100+ mph on U.S. highways?? =O"
- Actually, more like 120+ mph at a couple of points ;-) However, I tend to agree with you about midwest roads. Not an expert on road surfaces by any means, but the amount of noise coming from the roads is significant at 80+ mph -- makes the Bluetooth speakerphone a bit unusable. More importantly, lane width and overall traffic flow are really unsuitable for high speed driving. Not to mention the little matter of a $600 speeding ticket in GA on the way home to Chicago (*ugh*)
John DiPietro says:
03:57 PM, 09/ 4/08
sandcountry,
To keep it apples to apples (driving climate, same group of drivers) we had a long-term Tahoe and averaged 14.6 mpg, which is about par for the full-size 'ute course. If you're averaging 18 mpg in an Tahoe, you must be driving nearly all the time on open freeways. EPA estimates for the Tahoe 4WD 5.3 V8 are 14 city, 19 highway and 16 combined.
And keep in mind that much of our driving takes place in and around traffic-snarled L.A. -- a worst-case scenario for fuel mileage.
Driven with an eye (foot?) towards fuel economy, we could probably average 22 mpg with our 135i. Still, with a twin-turbo inline six, that kinda defeats the purpose of driving this high-performance car that can hit 60 in five seconds flat.
sandcountry360 says:
09:21 PM, 09/ 4/08
"And keep in mind that much of our driving takes place in and around traffic-snarled L.A." - Which is why I was using the EPA numbers you gave. 15 city for a Tahoe XFE, 17 for a 135i. The highway's a little different, but not nearly enough. Not that anyone would ever cross shop the two, but seeing how the Tahoe weighs almost twice as much and has more power, you'd think the disparity would be much greater. Not to mention that plenty of much larger midsize sedans with almost as much power do a good deal better- especially on the highway. And if it were a cheap car, it could be more easily forgiven, but wasn't this thing like $42k? I guess, considering the size it should easily give back 30+ on the highway, especially with a manual transmission. And yes, I know fuel economy was not the purpose of this car, but consider this- the utterly tiny 135i gets [i]the same[/i] fuel economy as a 535xi. The regular 535i actually does it one better. To me, something's just a little backwards about that.