[John 070]

They say 960,000 miles when comparing to the 328, and 193,333 miles when compared to the 335i. I think what they miss is the "must have" factor that people use in the decision-making process. For many BMW drivers, $3800 is simply withdrawing more $$$ from this or that acct. For a 335d buyer who can do that, it's simply the set-it and forget-it, i.e. forget about the $3800 more it costs.

Another error in their assumption imho is that diesel fuel is 30 cents more than unleaded, in my neighborhood it's more than that. So in a cost-benefit analysis the diesel may never break-even over its life.

What I think is a good move is that the car now meets 50-state emissions due to the urea fluid. Offer the 335d for the same price, or less, than a 335i, and there will be a compelling argument for the diesel in the USA. There's nothing wrong with the car, just its pricing.

[schorney]

I am seriously considering trading my 2007 335 for a 335d. My cost comparison is slightly different based on purchase price and fuel cost in Canada. Here is what I have based on the car I want to buy:

335 d = $60,200
335 i = $57,800

EPA rating 335 d = 8.711 L/100kms (32.4 miles per imperial gallon)
EPA rating 335 i = 11.76 L/100kms (24.02 miles per imperial gallon)

Current fuel prices are:

91 oct petrol = $0.879 per litre ($3.99 per imperial gallon)
Diesel = $0.839 per litre ($3.82 per imperial gallon)

If I drive 25,000 kms per year (15,500 miles), then it will take me 3 years to break even (or 75,000 kms or 46,500 miles).

Since I usually drive a car beyond 100,000 kms it is worth it environmentally and fiscally.

I am sure the break even point in Europe will will be even less than Canada.

[Saintor]

Another error in their assumption

You are doing an error; they are right. Economically, it doesn't make any sense agsinst a 328i and it doesn't really compare to a 335i.

I would pay *not* to have a tractor engine.

[methodtim]

Hmm... this is an interesting thought exercise if nothing else.

It's been proven over and over that paying a price premium for fuel efficiency makes very little economic sense because it takes a prohibitively long time to recoup the money spent on the hybrid/diesel solution. This applies to Priuses, Civic Hybrids, etc., as well as something new like a 335d.

Fortunately for the 335d, it's got massive amounts of torque to go along with bi-turbo goodness, so there are compelling reasons to get that car other than pure fuel economy. Don't get me wrong, the mpg numbers don't hurt, but it makes very little economic sense to pay that much of a premium just to save on fuel.

[ctm3]

Just this past Tuesday I just picked up my new monaco blue/saddle 335d with sport, prem, CWP, nav, HD radio. This is my 5th BMW (after 330xi, 530i, 545i, 550i). To the comment about the tractor engine, I'd say first that I doubt you have driven the 335d. For me, it is not about the fuel economy as much as about performance feel. This car seems to pull stronger than the 550i I owned, as it provides massive torque right from low RPM range. In my driving at least, I rarely rev the engine high, so 335d fits me well. This is my first car with an auto transmission (as manual is not an option for 335d), but I realized that it's the right transmission for this engine and I have adjusted to it. So far I love this car more than any other before.

[John 070]

To me, meeting regs so that it can be sold in Cali. spec states is a feat. Now that it's done, we realize that there is no realistic break-even to incent a US buyer to get a diesel. Some just want it, there's nothing wrong with that.

But who ever said a diesel has to cost more than an equivalent gas-powered model? What about the iPhone concept with AT&T, make the price so low people can't refuse it and adopt it. You'll take their money for years to come. Like a color laser printer that costs only $400, and the replacement toner costs $300. Make the urea cost $1000.

imho if the European car cos. priced the diesels more sensibly, they would get Americans to adopt them. Americans are free and easy when it comes to money, and not good in financial calculations anyway.

[Saintor]

It would have made much more sense to import a less 3-series with the 2.0 TD 200HP from the 123d in Europe, and sell it cheaper than a 328i. BMW sells 4 cyl. diesels for less than 6 cyl. gassers in Europe, even if it means a difference in equipment.

[ctm3]

Diesel engines cost more to produce. Diesel cars have always been more expensive from their petrol counterparts, everywhere in the world. The U.S. is no exception.

[ctm3]

Originally Posted by Saintor

It would have made much more sense to import a less 3-series with the 2.0 TD 200HP from the 123d in Europe, and sell it cheaper than a 328i. BMW sells 4 cyl. diesels for less than 6 cyl. gassers in Europe, even if it means a difference in equipment.

Perhaps from the economic standpoint, it would make more sense. But, I happen to prefer the 3.0 twin-turbo engine, as I like its performance.

You are comparing pricing of a smaller diesel engine (2.3) vs. 3.0 petrol. That's not a fair comparison. Of course, the smaller 4-cyl diesel will be less expensive than a 6-cyl. petrol.

[Saintor]

If saving money at the same of buying a 3-series is one priority - yes it is a good base for comparaison.

The 335d is dead at birth.

[ctm3]

Originally Posted by Saintor

If saving money at the same of buying a 3-series is one priority - yes it is a good base for comparaison.

The 335d is dead at birth.

I am not sure I understand what you mean, but I bought a 3-series, as I like its "tossability". I have had 3 5-series BMWs.

You can call it "dead at birth", but I am very glad it is finally offered for sale in the US. I also happen to think it's a great car, and I believe a few more people will like it as well.