2009 BMW 335d vs. Audi A4 3.2

Great win for BMW, CONGRATS! I was surprised at how handily the BMW beat the Audi.

strange. c&d uses the 3.2 engine that is a discontinued version of the A4. If they want to prove disel fuel is the way to go then they should use bmw vs bmw not bmw's vs a discontinued Audi model.

by the was is that news? A4 3.2 is going away ad the S4 should be priced around that point.

Congrates to BMW, it not only dusted the Audi's diesel, it was cheaper.

I could've seen this coming a mile away. The new A4's are really slow, save for the S4, but that's priced way above the 335i. Man, the 335d really fucked up that Audi. The bleeding A4's are way too heavy, and dynamically they are way off the benchmark.

No IS350 is a joke.

Funny how car magazines often come up with these random comparison tests. Why didn't they compare a diesel BMW to a gasoline BMW? I am totally missing the point of this test.

Point of Article:

Q. Is a diesel BMW 335d a viable sport sedan?

A. Yes, very much so.

They could have proven your point by just testing the BMW 335d on its own. What's the point of doing a comparison test with a gasoline A4 3.2?

Because the A4 3.2 is a horribly inefficient car tuned mainly for performance rather then fuel economy... seriously, the quattro 3.2 has the same fuel economy as a Corvette.

"Although it might appear, solely by looking at the points totals, that the Audi A4 was trounced by the diesel BMW, in real-world driving the cars are actually much closer"
"While that makes our test an apples-to-oranges comparison, we're much more concerned about the engines involved here anyway — their power, performance, driveability, fuel consumption...and fun."
"We also prefer the Audi's 6-speed Tiptronic automatic transmission, simply because it performs such sweet throttle blips on manual downshifts"

As usual Huu76 resorts to encylopedia Brittanica and always reaches for the wrong volume.

He gets trounced so many times with his incorrect data but he still stands viligantly by his inferior Asian tin cans.

I read it. And here's what it said:

"We also wanted to see if the fuel mileage over 50,000 miles would be better than the poor result (18.7 mpg) we recorded during our previous hard-driving comparison test (July 2006)."

"In the process, it’s averaged about 26 mpg. Not bad, and about what we’d expect for the type of highway driving it’s been doing."

26mpg is good, you are correct. BUT (and you knew there was a "but") they said that was mainly highway cruising. When driven aggressively in a comparison test against the 550i the GS450h got 18.7mpg. When driven aggressively in the comparison test posted in this thread the 335d got 26mpg. If the 335d was used for highway cruising only it would average close to 36mpg. That's a pretty big difference. Would a 535d get lower mileage? Maybe but maybe not -- the existing 528i and 535i are rated at the same mpg as the 328i and 335i. What the GS450h MIGHT be is 0.1 seconds or so quicker 0-60 than a 535d would be, but I think most people would be willing to trade that for the 39% fuel economy improvement over the GS450h. Especially when it also doesn't have the handling handicap the GS450h has, or the half-sized trunk the GS450h has.

So, Lexus doesn't need to figure out how the make the GS450h German. They need to figure out how to make it worth the money.

I would love to have the 335d, but I don't know if it's safe in the snow area of Wisconsin during winter time. That is my only reservation, and it's a major concern. What do you guys think? Is it safe to drive the 335d during the winter up there, or should we go with the Audi A4 2.0T Quadro?

If I had to drive mainly in snow and / or winter conditions i would take the X-Version of the 3series. What most people don´t know ist that BMW actually produces more all-wheel power train vehicles than Audi.

There are RWD BMW's all over the alps driving in the snow. Just get snow tires and you will be pleasantly surprised by the acceleration, braking, and handling benefits of a balanced chassis in the snow.

Also, missing from the above bias blog is that the the BMW came equiped with a sports package and set-up while the Audi came stock making up for the differences in the various driving test. A standard 3-Series is about as fun to drive as tractor with its 14" rims. Furthermore, R&T stated that in previous comparisions of the A4 with the sports package and the 3-Series with the sports package the cars were neck and neck in overall driving capabilities. Also, everyone knows that diesel engines have massive torque compared to gasoline engines. So, what is the point of the comparision in the first place? Test it against Audi's 3.0 TDI engine with its massive torque capabilities equiped with a sports suspension/package with Audi's drive select and then you can have a fair comparision of the vehicles - apples to apples so to speak.

So, whoever posted this bias blog in the first place left out some important details in their introduction up there.

Biased blog? That's not a blog. You see above where it says "Read Article"? That's called a "link". By putting your mouse cursor on it and pressing the button it will magically take you to the site where you can, you know, ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE. I explain that because had you done so, you'd have noticed the article explicitly states Audi did not supply an S-line A4, while BMW did supply a sport package equipped 335d. Those were the decisions of the car manufacturers, not R&T, and certainly not me.

The point of posting a link to an article is so people read the article, not for me to rewrite it so you don't have to read it. Maybe you need me to cut your steak for you too while I'm at it?

Calm down, boys. VISO made a very good point, that a BMW 335d with sport suspension was compared to an Audi A4 3.2 with the standard suspension. Many of the bloggers apparently didn't read the entire article before posting their comments.

Road & Track acknowledged that fact, and stated that the purpose of the article was to ascertain if a diesel-powered sport sedan is a genuine sport sedan. The results of this article proved that diesel-powered performance cars are indeed possible.

That said, I too wondered why Road & Track didn't compare a 335d to a 335i. It would have made for a more meaningful comparison.

The anemic showing of Audi's 3.2-liter V6 is further proof that this engine's demise is way overdue. I currently own a 2009 A4, but I chose the twin-turbo 2-liter I-4. The 3.2 V6 has more horsepower and sounds smoother (and MIGHT actually FEEL slightly smoother), but the 2.0 I-4 has more torque (thus better real-world acceleration), better gas mileage, is lighter and is cheaper. Nobody in their right mind would buy an A4 with the 3.2 V6 unless they just couldn't bring themselves to buy an I-4 - not even a powerful, torquey, quiet, smooth I-4 like Audi's tiwn-turbo 2.0.

I will be getting the Audi S4 when it debuts here in the States. I can't wait to geet my hands on that sweet 3.0-liter supercharged V6! If the S4 weren't available, the 335d or 335i would be next choice (even if their interiors are a little cramped for me).

Speaking of diesels - what happened to Audi's 3.0-liter turbodiesel? It was supposed to be available on the current A4, but that proved not to be the case. What happened? Anybody know?

The 3.0 TDI is available in the current A4 and it is a peach of an Engine.

I95SpeedingTickets,

Maybe that engine is available in Europe in the A4, but it definitely is NOT available here in the States, at least not yet. However, they were supposed to bring it here to the U.S. last September.