av_audi

The new numbers are 23/33mpg for the auto, down from 24/36 (I think [BMW site specs].

A discussion on bimmerfest states the numbers for the manual are 23/34. This doesn't automatically imply the initial numbers were too good to be true, but maybe they were. Did BMW screw up? Or maybe the EPA did? Regardless, as I said before, I'll wait for Consumer Reports' real-world testing. Most tests done for the EPA are just simulations, with occasional verification by the EPA with dyno testing. Also, while the EPA highway test is probably more representative of typical driving, many of us are interested in true highway cruising for which CR provides measured mpgs, which tend to be much higher than EPA. Go to the EPA test sire to see what kinds of speed patterns they actually use.

Blake P

*checks to make sure he's not on a BMW forum... scratches head*

av_audi

Sorry it comes across that way. Think of this as a followup to some of the shootout reviews that were posted a week or two ago. A very big deal was made about how the 328i was getting so much better gas mileage than the A4, and so the engine must have been a substantial improvement over the A4's 2.0T. Now that the 328i hwy mpgs have been revised down to 33mpg, it is not an efficiency standout anymore once you factor in the increased weight and reduced efficiency of AWD on the A4 (about 7-10% penalty).

SFV A4

I think it matters much. The 3 is a direct competitor to the A4. When I first read about the new 3's mpg numbers, I was stunned and wowed. Now it doesn't seem like such a big improvement. That, coupled with the odd headlight styling, and I am turned off all around.