F31 335d XDrive Handling
Discussion
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.
Thanks Smashy, that's pretty much what I expected up to 54mpg on a run but an average of low to mid 40s, my 335d xdrive was up to 46mpg on a run and 39mpg average IIRC. smashy said:
Yes back on!! if your thinking of keeping the car JMW1 I really would consider ACS springs. Either that or an old Typhoon ,RAF?
Not thinking of getting rid at the moment because it's a very good car and, at less than 2 years old, it's at the wrong point on the depreciation curve for making a change! If I was choosing a new F31 now it would certainly be a 340i but I don't feel so strongly that I'd take a financial pasting on my current car! 
Funny how are discussing the fuel economy of a 340i v 335d
I'm getting between 44-46mpg at just north of 70 - any quicker and it drops significantly, and anything lower results in 50+mpg. Driving style and speed are one of the biggest factors
However I didn't buy a 335d for that economy reason. I bought it for the 4wd, performance and handling (f30 and adaptive with 19s for me) and it definitely ticks those boxes. It's not a true sports car, but it's well above the VAGs and mercs I drove while on the hunt for a new car. On the test run, non-adaptive results in floating and body roll on the twisties. I suspect that ACS springs would improve this - more so on adaptive.
The 340i, should give better feedback and feel given its rwd setup, slightly lower cfg and less weight. Sound should be better but both have ASD (piped engine sound) so no difference in the cabin. The 340i economy maybe high thirties at best on themotorway run but that wouldn't sway me - Iast time I looked the discount was slightly higher and with a cheaper initial price the difference is minimal.
I'd choose the 340i if you want the better handling, but it won't be a sports car. Otherwise 335d is a good second and makes towing race cars an absolute dream especially with the 8 speed auto.
I'm getting between 44-46mpg at just north of 70 - any quicker and it drops significantly, and anything lower results in 50+mpg. Driving style and speed are one of the biggest factors
However I didn't buy a 335d for that economy reason. I bought it for the 4wd, performance and handling (f30 and adaptive with 19s for me) and it definitely ticks those boxes. It's not a true sports car, but it's well above the VAGs and mercs I drove while on the hunt for a new car. On the test run, non-adaptive results in floating and body roll on the twisties. I suspect that ACS springs would improve this - more so on adaptive.
The 340i, should give better feedback and feel given its rwd setup, slightly lower cfg and less weight. Sound should be better but both have ASD (piped engine sound) so no difference in the cabin. The 340i economy maybe high thirties at best on themotorway run but that wouldn't sway me - Iast time I looked the discount was slightly higher and with a cheaper initial price the difference is minimal.
I'd choose the 340i if you want the better handling, but it won't be a sports car. Otherwise 335d is a good second and makes towing race cars an absolute dream especially with the 8 speed auto.
tjlees said:
Funny how are discussing the fuel economy of a 340i v 335d
I'm getting between 44-46mpg at just north of 70 - any quicker and it drops significantly, and anything lower results in 50+mpg. Driving style and speed are one of the biggest factors
However I didn't buy a 335d for that economy reason. I bought it for the 4wd, performance and handling (f30 and adaptive with 19s for me) and it definitely ticks those boxes. It's not a true sports car, but it's well above the VAGs and mercs I drove while on the hunt for a new car. On the test run, non-adaptive results in floating and body roll on the twisties. I suspect that ACS springs would improve this - more so on adaptive.
The 340i, should give better feedback and feel given its rwd setup, slightly lower cfg and less weight. Sound should be better but both have ASD (piped engine sound) so no difference in the cabin. The 340i economy maybe high thirties at best on themotorway run but that wouldn't sway me - Iast time I looked the discount was slightly higher and with a cheaper initial price the difference is minimal.
I'd choose the 340i if you want the better handling, but it won't be a sports car. Otherwise 335d is a good second and makes towing race cars an absolute dream especially with the 8 speed auto.
I did buy the 335d for economy albeit for the range improvement rather than to save costs; however, fair play if you're getting 44-46mpg as an average because I've never seen a genuine 44 even on a run! If I was getting the sort of figures you're quoting I'd be very happy but sadly I'm not and the reason I find that disappointing is that I've always got relatively good mpg from my petrol cars. However, good to hear someone is pleased with the economy from their 335d - suspect I'd be happier to overlook the perceived shortcomings with mine if I was using it to tow racing cars around!! I'm getting between 44-46mpg at just north of 70 - any quicker and it drops significantly, and anything lower results in 50+mpg. Driving style and speed are one of the biggest factors
However I didn't buy a 335d for that economy reason. I bought it for the 4wd, performance and handling (f30 and adaptive with 19s for me) and it definitely ticks those boxes. It's not a true sports car, but it's well above the VAGs and mercs I drove while on the hunt for a new car. On the test run, non-adaptive results in floating and body roll on the twisties. I suspect that ACS springs would improve this - more so on adaptive.
The 340i, should give better feedback and feel given its rwd setup, slightly lower cfg and less weight. Sound should be better but both have ASD (piped engine sound) so no difference in the cabin. The 340i economy maybe high thirties at best on themotorway run but that wouldn't sway me - Iast time I looked the discount was slightly higher and with a cheaper initial price the difference is minimal.
I'd choose the 340i if you want the better handling, but it won't be a sports car. Otherwise 335d is a good second and makes towing race cars an absolute dream especially with the 8 speed auto.
Wills2 said:
From what you say I can begin to see that I made a huge error with a non-adaptive F31 335d xdrive, should have gone for an adaptive car as the 330d sdrive with adaptive was very good.
Perhaps but I get the impression an F31 335d with ACS springs is better than an F31 335d with adaptive; ACS springs and adaptive better still but if you're choosing between the two it seems ACS springs are probably the way to go...JNW1 said:
I did buy the 335d for economy albeit for the range improvement rather than to save costs; however, fair play if you're getting 44-46mpg as an average because I've never seen a genuine 44 even on a run! If I was getting the sort of figures you're quoting I'd be very happy but sadly I'm not and the reason I find that disappointing is that I've always got relatively good mpg from my petrol cars. However, good to hear someone is pleased with the economy from their 335d - suspect I'd be happier to overlook the perceived shortcomings with mine if I was using it to tow racing cars around!!
I think it's probably down eco pro mode and driving at a constant 70-75 with little braking 
any further north of that results in significantly less. Towing drops this to 33-34 even though I'm limited to 60.If I went for the f31 lci due wanting to put in more racing crap or dogs, I'd be going for a 340i and not fully convinced that the 4wd makes that much difference on traction. It does look better because it's lower and has the dual exhausts, and the handling should be better if I believe the reviews
It is always worth being cautious about what mpg the car reports.
On my 335xd GT the dash display was way out. It would show figures like 55mpg when brim-to-brim calculations showed lower numbers.
I used an app to track all fillups from day one, so that gave me the true figures. Since I felt that the OBC should at least attempt to show more accurate numbers I then re-calibrated the computer via the hidden menu. It now agrees with brim-to-brim numbers within a fraction of a percent.
Incidentally, the correction factor for mine on V-Power is 1066 (i.e. original number x 1000/1066). On normal diesel it requires 1000/1100 to match brim-to-brim numbers. V-Power requires a different factor due to the fuel composition being different. Originally it was displaying around 10% more mpg than I was really getting but knowing it was exaggerated was never very satisfying.
Over the last 9000 miles or so my real average is actually 39.44 mpg, mixed driving. The F34 GT is heavier, also x-drive and 335d. I can get an indicated 50 mpg over a tank if I really take it easy, but a few short trips or some fun knock it back again. Best tankful 45.54 mpg, worst 32.89. The latter figure is almost exactly the same as the very best tankful I ever got with my old Subaru Forester STi.
On my 335xd GT the dash display was way out. It would show figures like 55mpg when brim-to-brim calculations showed lower numbers.
I used an app to track all fillups from day one, so that gave me the true figures. Since I felt that the OBC should at least attempt to show more accurate numbers I then re-calibrated the computer via the hidden menu. It now agrees with brim-to-brim numbers within a fraction of a percent.
Incidentally, the correction factor for mine on V-Power is 1066 (i.e. original number x 1000/1066). On normal diesel it requires 1000/1100 to match brim-to-brim numbers. V-Power requires a different factor due to the fuel composition being different. Originally it was displaying around 10% more mpg than I was really getting but knowing it was exaggerated was never very satisfying.
Over the last 9000 miles or so my real average is actually 39.44 mpg, mixed driving. The F34 GT is heavier, also x-drive and 335d. I can get an indicated 50 mpg over a tank if I really take it easy, but a few short trips or some fun knock it back again. Best tankful 45.54 mpg, worst 32.89. The latter figure is almost exactly the same as the very best tankful I ever got with my old Subaru Forester STi.
Loads of interesting info on this thread which may be pertinent to Mrs E24mans latest work tool hopefully arriving this week, a 15 plate 435d Xdrive M-Sport Cabriolet.
The choice of car wasn't mine but she picked the above car which is coming on 18's instead of 19's, but still with Bridgestone runflats, and no adaptive suspension. We did go out in a car with 19's, runflats and non-adaptive and whilst it seemed ok it also seemed very jiggly and unforgiving over broken surfaces. Her identical spec car but on 18's had a much smoother drive over the dirt tracks that are passed off as Surrey's smooth tarmac.
It's interesting about the Bridgestones being the worst runflats comment as in lieu of picking the car up last week she has been given a 15 plate 420d M-Sport GC on 18" Goodyear runflats and the briefest of drives in that was very twitchy indeed. Perhaps the combination of the Cab, the Xdrive and the Bridgestones work better the GC and the Goodyears? The 435d will probably stay on the runflats until rubber replacement looms when it will get some decent Michelins on the rims.
Economy wise, we did consider a 435i Cab and also an older (13 plate?) M3 Cab but for the M3 specifically the fuel cost figures for an anticipated 15k a year work vs the 435d work out about £2k difference - £6k is quite a sum over the anticipated 3 years ownership.
As I said, her choice of car, not mine, but once we had figured out that 4wd might be prudent to some of her anticipated winter work jaunts the 435d Xsport with a folding hard top made good sense.
Edit to add: I only mention the M-Sport to correctly inform regarding the suspension, I was relived to discover her car is completely debadged and all body-coloured so with the 18" wheels it is rather stealthy compared to the carbonised/chromified/M-badge-littered variants.
The choice of car wasn't mine but she picked the above car which is coming on 18's instead of 19's, but still with Bridgestone runflats, and no adaptive suspension. We did go out in a car with 19's, runflats and non-adaptive and whilst it seemed ok it also seemed very jiggly and unforgiving over broken surfaces. Her identical spec car but on 18's had a much smoother drive over the dirt tracks that are passed off as Surrey's smooth tarmac.
It's interesting about the Bridgestones being the worst runflats comment as in lieu of picking the car up last week she has been given a 15 plate 420d M-Sport GC on 18" Goodyear runflats and the briefest of drives in that was very twitchy indeed. Perhaps the combination of the Cab, the Xdrive and the Bridgestones work better the GC and the Goodyears? The 435d will probably stay on the runflats until rubber replacement looms when it will get some decent Michelins on the rims.
Economy wise, we did consider a 435i Cab and also an older (13 plate?) M3 Cab but for the M3 specifically the fuel cost figures for an anticipated 15k a year work vs the 435d work out about £2k difference - £6k is quite a sum over the anticipated 3 years ownership.
As I said, her choice of car, not mine, but once we had figured out that 4wd might be prudent to some of her anticipated winter work jaunts the 435d Xsport with a folding hard top made good sense.
Edit to add: I only mention the M-Sport to correctly inform regarding the suspension, I was relived to discover her car is completely debadged and all body-coloured so with the 18" wheels it is rather stealthy compared to the carbonised/chromified/M-badge-littered variants.
Edited by E24man on Monday 2nd May 09:44
wakaday said:
... It's a fast , but flawed car. Point a shoot in a straight line, very impressive , grip is amazing, but set it up a few bends and the body control is poor. It appears to me that the car is over sprung , particularly in the rear and under damped both ends. It crashes over pot holes, but can't control the body at high speed. Worst of both worlds. First BMW I've been disappointed with the handling, doesn't deserve an M badge.
Read this thread with interested. Well, apart from the fuel consumption discussions lol. OP the handling the describe is similar to what I find with my msport petrol f10. It feels underdamped and assuming the f30 is much heavier than prior 3's it's like the extra weight hasn't been fully taken into account. I notice the sway bars are tiny at the back on the f10. No idea about the f30. It's nowhere near as good as my old (admittedly fettled) e46 for twisties.
Be interested to hear how you get on.
I've just changed from 18" runflats to 19" without the runflats and there isn't much difference in handling or comfort, though the 19's are better. Most noticeably when hitting cats eyes, the runflats felt like you'd hit a brick! The 19" goodyears are massively quieter than the contisport runflats, despite beings 25mm wider but i put that down the nature of runflats.
Imagine the 19's with runflats must be terrible, i didn't like any of the 19" wheel options so bought some 437M wheels, but that's another issue.
I do find it bizzare that a car at this price point has so many things ruining it, that for literally another 50p could be sorted? The ACS springs could easily be standard, get rid of runflats or give the option to have standard tyres and i've just changed the brake pads to yellowstuff and they've made a world of difference to the initial bite and braking at more than 80%.
Imagine the 19's with runflats must be terrible, i didn't like any of the 19" wheel options so bought some 437M wheels, but that's another issue.
I do find it bizzare that a car at this price point has so many things ruining it, that for literally another 50p could be sorted? The ACS springs could easily be standard, get rid of runflats or give the option to have standard tyres and i've just changed the brake pads to yellowstuff and they've made a world of difference to the initial bite and braking at more than 80%.
kingofdbrits said:
I do find it bizzare that a car at this price point has so many things ruining it, that for literally another 50p could be sorted? The ACS springs could easily be standard, get rid of runflats or give the option to have standard tyres and i've just changed the brake pads to yellowstuff and they've made a world of difference to the initial bite and braking at more than 80%.
Agree 100% with this; I reckon the chassis of the 335d X-Drive could (and should) be far better from the factory than it is and owners shouldn't need to resort to after-market modifications to correct things BMW ought to have got right in the first place. Fitting different springs, brake pads and conventional tyres instead of run-flats would add the square root of sod all to the cost and I'm sure most if not all owners would appreciate the difference!Totally Agree JNW1..especially the run flats ,they really do ruin things. If im lucky enough to get a new car again and its a BMW I think id specify 17s on a 3....my 16s on the one series were fine.
Just think I bought a Top Marque so called and in 3 weeks I had spent £2100 on suspension and non runflats to sort out a really bad ride.
Yes I bought the car unseen my because my SE one series was fine so had no reason to believe would not be the same but better. My model The Luxury I really think looks great just......
Just think I bought a Top Marque so called and in 3 weeks I had spent £2100 on suspension and non runflats to sort out a really bad ride.
Yes I bought the car unseen my because my SE one series was fine so had no reason to believe would not be the same but better. My model The Luxury I really think looks great just......
kingofdbrits said:
I've just changed from 18" runflats to 19" without the runflats and there isn't much difference in handling or comfort, though the 19's are better. Most noticeably when hitting cats eyes, the runflats felt like you'd hit a brick! The 19" goodyears are massively quieter than the contisport runflats, despite beings 25mm wider but i put that down the nature of runflats.
Imagine the 19's with runflats must be terrible, i didn't like any of the 19" wheel options so bought some 437M wheels, but that's another issue.
I do find it bizzare that a car at this price point has so many things ruining it, that for literally another 50p could be sorted? The ACS springs could easily be standard, get rid of runflats or give the option to have standard tyres and i've just changed the brake pads to yellowstuff and they've made a world of difference to the initial bite and braking at more than 80%.
Imagine the 19's with runflats must be terrible, i didn't like any of the 19" wheel options so bought some 437M wheels, but that's another issue.
I do find it bizzare that a car at this price point has so many things ruining it, that for literally another 50p could be sorted? The ACS springs could easily be standard, get rid of runflats or give the option to have standard tyres and i've just changed the brake pads to yellowstuff and they've made a world of difference to the initial bite and braking at more than 80%.
Braking at 80%? 80% of what?
ratty6464 said:
What tyre pressures are everyone using when swapping to non-runflats??
The consensus seems to be to start with the same pressures as run-flats and adjust if you don't think they feel quite right; I'm using the pressures per the strip on the inside of the driver's door frame and they seem ok. However, if different pressures are recommended I assume that on later cars that strip will also show recommended pressures for at least one size of non run-flat as I think you can now specify one of the 18" wheel designs with Michelin Pilot Super Sports? Same would presumably apply on something like an M135i as they come with Super Sports as standard but with an option to have run-flats if you want them; never looked at the strip on the inside of the driver's door on one of those but anyone know if there are two sets of recommended tyre pressures, one for conventional tyres and one for run flats? If so what's the difference in recommended pressures between the two?Edited by ratty6464 on Tuesday 3rd May 21:01
Edited by JNW1 on Wednesday 4th May 07:29
REALIST123 said:
kingofdbrits said:
I've just changed from 18" runflats to 19" without the runflats and there isn't much difference in handling or comfort, though the 19's are better. Most noticeably when hitting cats eyes, the runflats felt like you'd hit a brick! The 19" goodyears are massively quieter than the contisport runflats, despite beings 25mm wider but i put that down the nature of runflats.
Imagine the 19's with runflats must be terrible, i didn't like any of the 19" wheel options so bought some 437M wheels, but that's another issue.
I do find it bizzare that a car at this price point has so many things ruining it, that for literally another 50p could be sorted? The ACS springs could easily be standard, get rid of runflats or give the option to have standard tyres and i've just changed the brake pads to yellowstuff and they've made a world of difference to the initial bite and braking at more than 80%.
Imagine the 19's with runflats must be terrible, i didn't like any of the 19" wheel options so bought some 437M wheels, but that's another issue.
I do find it bizzare that a car at this price point has so many things ruining it, that for literally another 50p could be sorted? The ACS springs could easily be standard, get rid of runflats or give the option to have standard tyres and i've just changed the brake pads to yellowstuff and they've made a world of difference to the initial bite and braking at more than 80%.
Braking at 80%? 80% of what?
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff