F31 335d XDrive Handling

[ratty6464]

335d said:

AliMc99 said:

My 335d tourer has adaptive. If specifying again I'd probably skip adaptive and just go for the acs springs (well actually I'd go for 340i petrol). I'd also prioritise Michelin PSS over adaptive.

I am about to switch to MPSS tyres, having endured the Bridgestone runflats which are commonly accepted as the worst tyre that BMW fit. Personally I would stick with the 335d if I was ordering again. It still seems to have a 10mpg advantage over the similar performance 340i. The range of the 340i would also be a concern as it has a 5% larger tank to go with its approx 35% greater thirst. The do sound nice though, and I like the 'wheelbarrow' exhausts...

MPSS tyres are brilliant. I had them previously and they were immense in the dry, secure in the wet and wore well too. They were a significant step up from the pilot sport 2s on previously.
Goodyear F1 asymetrics 2s are good too, had them on the Z4 but the PSS are a step up. That's why they're standard on the M5 and M2

[JNW1]

335d said:

Personally I would stick with the 335d if I was ordering again. It still seems to have a 10mpg advantage over the similar performance 340i. The range of the 340i would also be a concern as it has a 5% larger tank to go with its approx 35% greater thirst.

The main reason I wouldn't stick with diesel again is because in my experience the difference in mpg is nothing like as much as you suggest! Measured accurately (i.e. manually and not just off the computer) my F31 335d is just over 8mpg better than my E92 335i (38.5 v 30.1); those figures are running averages over a significant mileage (25k and 37k respectively) so there's no distortion as a result of individual fills. According to the published figures a 340i is significantly better on fuel than an E92 335i (over 20% better) but to be prudent let's say it's only 10% better in practice; that would put a 340i at a little over 33 in my hands against the 38 for the 335d and in cost terms that really isn't enough to get excited about in the context of a £40k car. In terms of range (which was more my reason for going diesel) the 335d will be better but only by around 50 miles; I seldom get more than 500 miles from a tank (typically it's more like 475) and in reality the range is only about 60 miles better than I used to see from my 335i (which is about half the improvement I was expecting). Obviously different people will get different absolute figures from both petrol and diesel depending on how and where they drive but my numbers reflect the same driver in very similar road conditions and hence the difference between the two is really a reflection of the cars and nothing else.

As diesel engines go I think the 35d is one of the best out there but it does lose out on refinement and noise compared to something like the B58 in the 340i and for me the compensation in terms of improved mpg just isn't enough to outweigh the downsides. All just my opinion of course but faced with choosing a top-range F31 again it would definitely be a 340i for me!

Edited by JNW1 on Saturday 30th April 15:58

[smashy]

Well sittng outside a coata in hastings from west london m4 m25 a21 plenty of 80mph plenty of 70 and plenty of 65 and 40 ..obc shows 54.8mpg in comfort ..that is impressive i think the 30d seems to be very good on fuel

[JNW1]

smashy said:

Well sittng outside a coata in hastings from west london m4 m25 a21 plenty of 80mph plenty of 70 and plenty of 65 and 40 ..obc shows 54.8mpg in comfort ..that is impressive i think the 30d seems to be very good on fuel

From what I can deduce I think the S-Drive 330d is about 3mpg better than the X-Drive version which is in turn about 2mpg better than the 335d (which is obviously X-Drive only over here). That would put an S-Drive 330d at around 5 or 6 mpg better than a 335d (so around 44 if you use my 38.5 for the 335d as a start point) and that would seem to square with the overall average a lot of owners quote; I can see a 10mpg difference between one of those and a 340i but not convinced it would be that much between a 335d and a 340i.

[Ross_T_Boss]

ratty6464 said:

Yeah it's the diesel with adaptive. Comfort is smooth but under damped when pressing on. Sport and sport plus improve it slightly but are still crap. Had a 4 hr drive yesterday and underlined how bouncy and not keyed into the road the car is at speed - the M3 was the polar opposite, absolutely locked into the road and held its line despite bumps and cambers.

I'm not expecting the 435d to have that same level of handling, but it's current setup is poor and the worst of both worlds neither relaxing or sporty. The way it corkscrews when accelerating hard is odd and it's not all due to xdrive.

Underneath it all I think there is a good car, as its relatively light for its size, has a low CoG, and the M4 can handle on a similar platform.

From reading this I would recommend lining up a couple of test drives, you're clearly expecting more than the 'typical' driver from the car. As you say it's under-damped and whilst springs will make it feel a hell of alot better for fast and spirited driving it will still be, and feel, under-damped. You can fully resolve that if you are willing to write off the Adaptive element, accept that the car is compromised from factory (no matter what you paid for it) and pay another £1800 and remote-work the morning in an uncomfortable waiting room.

As an update - another 500 miles of driving since my last post and I have no regrets on ditching the adaptive. The compromise on comfort is small for the transformation in handling, and not enough to feel any more tiring after a 2+ hours continuous drive. I actually feel less tired after a drive, which I attribute to the notable reduction in steering input to drive in a straight line.

[ratty6464]

Ross_T_Boss said:

ratty6464 said:

Yeah it's the diesel with adaptive. Comfort is smooth but under damped when pressing on. Sport and sport plus improve it slightly but are still crap. Had a 4 hr drive yesterday and underlined how bouncy and not keyed into the road the car is at speed - the M3 was the polar opposite, absolutely locked into the road and held its line despite bumps and cambers.

I'm not expecting the 435d to have that same level of handling, but it's current setup is poor and the worst of both worlds neither relaxing or sporty. The way it corkscrews when accelerating hard is odd and it's not all due to xdrive.

Underneath it all I think there is a good car, as its relatively light for its size, has a low CoG, and the M4 can handle on a similar platform.

From reading this I would recommend lining up a couple of test drives, you're clearly expecting more than the 'typical' driver from the car. As you say it's under-damped and whilst springs will make it feel a hell of alot better for fast and spirited driving it will still be, and feel, under-damped. You can fully resolve that if you are willing to write off the Adaptive element, accept that the car is compromised from factory (no matter what you paid for it) and pay another £1800 and remote-work the morning in an uncomfortable waiting room.

As an update - another 500 miles of driving since my last post and I have no regrets on ditching the adaptive. The compromise on comfort is small for the transformation in handling, and not enough to feel any more tiring after a 2+ hours continuous drive. I actually feel less tired after a drive, which I attribute to the notable reduction in steering input to drive in a straight line.

That's good to hear. - the ACS springs seem to get resounding support. think I'll try the springs and swap the tyres, then access if it's worth getting the dampers changed. If I wasn't commuting 75 miles a day I'd be done with it and get a 235i or second hand Cayman, but I thinker the 4 series does have untapped potential which people are uncovering with a few choice mods.

Has anyone got s remap?? Seems a big price difference between something like superchips and the work done by ACS, DMS birds Etc

[335d]

JNW1 said:

From what I can deduce I think the S-Drive 330d is about 3mpg better than the X-Drive version which is in turn about 2mpg better than the 335d (which is obviously X-Drive only over here). That would put an S-Drive 330d at around 5 or 6 mpg better than a 335d (so around 44 if you use my 38.5 for the 335d as a start point) and that would seem to square with the overall average a lot of owners quote; I can see a 10mpg difference between one of those and a 340i but not convinced it would be that much between a 335d and a 340i.

I think the 330xd and 335xd have very similar fuel economy, from what I have read on the other forum, with the 330d sDrive about 4mpg better.

Fuelly seems to think that the 340i averages 28.7mpg vs 38mpg for the 335d which is around the difference I would expect. I would be very surprised if you averaged 34mpg from a 340i, given the economy you currently see from the 335d. Diesel has 15% more energy than petrol by volume, and tends to exceed that difference in the real world.

Edited by 335d on Saturday 30th April 23:08

[smashy]

Apologies to the OP weve hijacked ,but I followed a lot of Babybmws M135i MPG threads and I have to agree with 335d I reckon my 54 mpg today would be mighty lower in a 340i and sadly would kill me mentally never mind financially

http://www.babybmw.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56075...

[JNW1]

335d said:

I think the 330xd and 335xd have very similar fuel economy, from what I have read on the other forum, with the 330d sDrive about 4mpg better.

Fuelly seems to think that the 340i averages 28.7mpg vs 38mpg for the 335d which is around the difference I would expect. I would be very surprised if you averaged 34mpg from a 340i, given the economy you currently see from the 335d. Diesel has 15% more energy than petrol by volume, and tends to exceed that difference in the real world.

Edited by 335d on Saturday 30th April 23:08

So you think a 340i would be worse on fuel than my old E92 335i then? Figures from BMW would suggest otherwise! As for sites like Fuelly, I don't know how or where those people drive and it may be that those who buy the diesel have (say) a different average mileage profile (more long runs?) from those who buy the petrol (and if that's true you're immediately comparing apples and pears). Now I don't know for certain whether that's the case but I do know exactly how my 335d and 335i have been driven and there's only just over 8mpg difference between the two in very similar conditions measured over quite a significant mileage; the figures from BMW say a 340i is more economical than an E92 335i so I don't understand why the mpg gap to a 335d would be bigger with the newer car?

Edited by JNW1 on Sunday 1st May 08:09

Edited by JNW1 on Sunday 1st May 08:10

[Wills2]

smashy said:

Apologies to the OP weve hijacked ,but I followed a lot of Babybmws M135i MPG threads and I have to agree with 335d I reckon my 54 mpg today would be mighty lower in a 340i and sadly would kill me mentally never mind financially

I must say I have no idea how you're achieving an all up average of 54mpg smashy, is that from day one and hasn't been reset?

It's incredible really, do you live at the top of a big hill, push your car out of the drive and then free wheel to work?

[smashy]

Wills2 said:

I must say I have no idea how you're achieving an all up average of 54mpg smashy, is that from day one and hasn't been reset?

It's incredible really, do you live at the top of a big hill, push your car out of the drive and then free wheel to work?

Wills2 what can I say? I am not into spreadsheets or brim to brim stuff but allways reset the OBC on journeys ,it interests me, after 23k miles in all types of journeys I reckon my 330d is a tad better mpg wise than my 120d.That 54mpg down to hastings I put up well with the return journey ended up all in 52mg ,not bad really though is it got stuck with traffic on the M4 near heathrow and I never use stop start no eco pro used bit of sport for fun lasting a few seconds to wind my partner up

For example twice a year I do a 3 day cornwall ,allways around 650 miles last two times in my 120d returned 44mpg .In the 330d 45mpg ,the up and down nature of the roads kill the MPG.

One night coming backto London on the M4 around Berkshire/wiltshire I did a test with my 120d resetting the OBC evertytime 20 miles at 80mph gave me 47mpg 20 miles 70mph gave me 56mpg 20 miles and 55/60 mph (couldnt keep constant re lorries) gave me 72MPG....... one night in the 330d found me in the same position so i did it again ,can you believe I was just 1 mpg lower in comfort at 80mph and 70mh and I put it in eco pro for the 55mph bit and incredibly did 72mpg again ,not making this up wills. Allways use Shell Nitro+ but who knows what that really does if anything

I would love to do my tests with a 340i to see difference

Edited by smashy on Sunday 1st May 14:38

Edited by smashy on Sunday 1st May 14:40

Edited by smashy on Sunday 1st May 15:01

[Wills2]

So have you got the long term average then? I've seen 34mpg on single journeys via the trip computer, but the long term average is 27mpg.

[smashy]

I havent unless its deep in the bowls of the I drive or somewhere. I mean to say I once did across london in my 120d and achieved a mighty 21 mpg so all things are possible, thing is I mostly do long journeys and thats where the Derv is king isnt it

[Wills2]

There are two read outs, the journey/trip and OBC, the OBC shows long term visible in your BC in the instrument cluster where you toggle between temp/date/time etc...

I reset my journey/trip but left the OBC alone since day one for a long term average.

[smashy]

Wills just been to the car to have a look ,firstly hastings and back 192 miles was 54.4mpg not 51...... secondly on the Idrive was 5999miles at 43.6 mpg ive never changed that but reckon it was reset at service time it does fit with my mileages. In that mix I do 8 times a week a 3 mile journey then 3 miles back home to take and pick my partner up from work so thats around 50 miles a week of never warmed up stop start london traffic.

[335d]

JNW1 said:

So you think a 340i would be worse on fuel than my old E92 335i then? Figures from BMW would suggest otherwise! As for sites like Fuelly, I don't know how or where those people drive and it may be that those who buy the diesel have (say) a different average mileage profile (more long runs?) from those who buy the petrol (and if that's true you're immediately comparing apples and pears). Now I don't know for certain whether that's the case but I do know exactly how my 335d and 335i have been driven and there's only just over 8mpg difference between the two in very similar conditions measured over quite a significant mileage; the figures from BMW say a 340i is more economical than an E92 335i so I don't understand why the mpg gap to a 335d would be bigger with the newer car?

I think it is entirely possible that the 340i have similar or worse fuel economy than your E92 335i. In my experience older BMWs (and other cars) got pretty close to their claimed fuel economy figures. Four of my petrol BMWs actually averaged almost exactly the quoted figures. These days that is almost unheard of, as what BMW seem to have done is increasingly designed the cars to perform well in the tests, and very little or perhaps none of that translates into real world improvement. The 340i is still in its honeymoon period, so owners have yet to be completely objective. As pointed out (by smashy) in this thread, the M135i is a surprisingly thirsty car when not coasting along the motorway.

[JNW1]

. S

smashy said:

Wills just been to the car to have a look ,firstly hastings and back 192 miles was 54.4mpg not 51...... secondly on the Idrive was 5999miles at 43.6 mpg ive never changed that but reckon it was reset at service time it does fit with my mileages. In that mix I do 8 times a week a 3 mile journey then 3 miles back home to take and pick my partner up from work so thats around 50 miles a week of never warmed up stop start london traffic.

So even assuming your OBC is accurate (they're optimistic in my experience) your long-term average is around 44mpg? Sounds broadly in line with the mid-40's most 330d S-Drive owners claim although I still say the only way to get a truly accurate result is by measuring the old fashioned way across a number of fill-ups.

For that reason I rarely bother resetting the trip but last week I did just prior to heading to a course in Cranfield and, after the round-trip from North Yorkshire, the trip suggested over 300 miles covered at around 43mpg and an average speed of over 60mph. Sadly the truth was just under 40mpg which is why I take all these figures quoted off the computer with a very large pinch of salt; mpg figures for relatively short individual journeys off the trip are borderline meaningless IMO...

[smashy]

You may be right and fair play if you are....look I feel these new derv engines are a liability id rather have a petrol and if I had the 340i equivelent figures from my readings (skewed or not) I could make a reasonably accurate guess on the financial hit,I do a lot of miles.

You may think a 200 mile round journey at 54 mpg is pointless but if I did that in a 340i and it showed say 34mpg I know where I stand IMHO
JNW1 what car do you drive again? Sorry

Edited by smashy on Sunday 1st May 19:38

[JNW1]

335d said:

I think it is entirely possible that the 340i have similar or worse fuel economy than your E92 335i. In my experience older BMWs (and other cars) got pretty close to their claimed fuel economy figures. Four of my petrol BMWs actually averaged almost exactly the quoted figures. These days that is almost unheard of, as what BMW seem to have done is increasingly designed the cars to perform well in the tests, and very little or perhaps none of that translates into real world improvement. The 340i is still in its honeymoon period, so owners have yet to be completely objective. As pointed out (by smashy) in this thread, the M135i is a surprisingly thirsty car when not coasting along the motorway.

My E92 335i had the later N55 engine (the same as in the M135i albeit in a slightly lower state of tune) and I'm not aware there have been any fundamental changes to the way official mpg figures are calculated since that engine was tested? However, even if you assume the B58 engine offers no improvement whatsoever over the N55 - and that none of the claimed 20% improvement in mpg is achievable in reality - it's still not 10mpg or 35% worse than a 335d in the same conditions with the same driver! Anyway, we've probably done this to death but suffice to say I think anyone who chooses a 335d over a 340i because they think the latter will be significantly worse on fuel could be making a big mistake...

[JNW1]

smashy said:

You may be right and fair play if you are....look I feel these new derv engines are a liability id rather have a petrol and if I had the 340i equivelent figures from my readings (skewed or not) I could make a reasonably accurate guess on the financial hit,I do a lot of miles.

You may think a 200 mile round journey at 54 mpg is pointless but if I did that in a 340i and it showed say 34mpg I know where I stand IMHO
JNW1 what car do you drive again? Sorry

Edited by smashy on Sunday 1st May 19:38

Current car is F31 335d.....