X Drive a waste of money on 3 & 4 Series?

[oldmanbm]

Just covered 50000 miles in my 2014 120D Sport X Drive. Yes 75% of the time not needed but the 25% when you are accelerating out of a greasy roundabout its ace. Very nippy wee car and bulletproof. Will miss it.

[bad company]

I've had my 335d since 2014. I love it and can't think of a better compromise of performance and economy with comfort thrown in. As others have said the 4 wheel drive is not usually necessary but can be useful.

My pcp ends in May so wondering what to go for next. Thinking of another 335d or 340 or possible a new S4,

[ninjag]

I find when I chuck my Xdrive 330d into sport mode it lets me throw the back end out more but will still correct at the last minute and makes it look like driver skill lol

[bennyboysvuk]

cerb4.5lee said:

I keep thinking about a manual M235i as my next car but I keep reading the experience you've had of the M135i and it concerns me a little.

I think we share a similar view of what makes for a good car(LSD/manual/RWD), would a LSD make the M135i/M235i a much better steer? or does the engine let the side down too.

Hi Lee. I think you'd need to test drive one for quite a while to be sure. I certainly find that having had M cars in the past, the M135i misses the mark on all of the driving stuff. At the point where you're starting to push a little harder when pressing on is exactly when the car rewards less and less and little things become annoying. Things like the lack of LSD then show up and that it rolls quite a bit and is a little understeery in balance. Then you brake hard and the hazard warning lights come on and stay on (I parked up today in the work car park, hazards flashing after braking from NSL). There are little things that annoy me about it too, like due to the wastegate being wide open on cold startup, it's a bit shouty first thing in the morning, just when I want to get away from my house quietly. Then the wastegate closes and the exhaust is pretty much mute, save for a slight air-sucking noise when flat out, but only if I have the parcel shelf removed and the rear seats down, otherwise it's inaudible.

I coded the ASD to the maximum setting and the fake engine noise is now a little more prominent, but I think it makes it seem less realistic too. It's nice to be able to hear the engine (an engine noise anyway) during everyday driving now though.

The little things that annoy me can't really be changed since the hazards can't be coded out of the braking and the engine is turbocharged, thus the huge startup noise is unavoidable.

My father in law owns an auto M135i and he loves it dearly, however even he noted that he couldn't get away from a wet T-junction very well due to the inside rear wanting to spin up. He treats the car like the small GT it is though and wouldn't replace it for anything but an M140i. He likes a quick car, but he's not a fast driver and doesn't really push it other than the odd blast of acceleration.

Overall, I really feel that the old school cars did all the feedback and NVH stuff better and I'm now leaning towards either a 996 or 997, but certainly either with a factory LSD (rare) or at least a Quaife LSD. That said, I've not test driven either yet, so I've yet to be convinced, but I'd be shocked if a 996 can't offer more direct feedback, more noise and less nannies than a new BMW.

I know that the M2 is a whole price category apart, but for the most part, it's going to be a lot better out of the box than the M135i if the current M3 is anything to go by. I think if you drove the M235i and either the current M3 or M2, you wouldn't look twice at the M235i.

Edited by bennyboysvuk on Wednesday 19th October 07:26

[Fox-]

oldmanbm said:

Just covered 50000 miles in my 2014 120D Sport X Drive. Yes 75% of the time not needed but the 25% when you are accelerating out of a greasy roundabout its ace. Very nippy wee car and bulletproof. Will miss it.

So you're saying it was needed for 12,500 of those miles?!

[cerb4.5lee]

bennyboysvuk said:

cerb4.5lee said:

I keep thinking about a manual M235i as my next car but I keep reading the experience you've had of the M135i and it concerns me a little.

I think we share a similar view of what makes for a good car(LSD/manual/RWD), would a LSD make the M135i/M235i a much better steer? or does the engine let the side down too.

Hi Lee. I think you'd need to test drive one for quite a while to be sure. I certainly find that having had M cars in the past, the M135i misses the mark on all of the driving stuff. At the point where you're starting to push a little harder when pressing on is exactly when the car rewards less and less and little things become annoying. Things like the lack of LSD then show up and that it rolls quite a bit and is a little understeery in balance. Then you brake hard and the hazard warning lights come on and stay on (I parked up today in the work car park, hazards flashing after braking from NSL). There are little things that annoy me about it too, like due to the wastegate being wide open on cold startup, it's a bit shouty first thing in the morning, just when I want to get away from my house quietly. Then the wastegate closes and the exhaust is pretty much mute, save for a slight air-sucking noise when flat out, but only if I have the parcel shelf removed and the rear seats down, otherwise it's inaudible.

I coded the ASD to the maximum setting and the fake engine noise is now a little more prominent, but I think it makes it seem less realistic too. It's nice to be able to hear the engine (an engine noise anyway) during everyday driving now though.

The little things that annoy me can't really be changed since the hazards can't be coded out of the braking and the engine is turbocharged, thus the huge startup noise is unavoidable.

My father in law owns an auto M135i and he loves it dearly, however even he noted that he couldn't get away from a wet T-junction very well due to the inside rear wanting to spin up. He treats the car like the small GT it is though and wouldn't replace it for anything but an M140i. He likes a quick car, but he's not a fast driver and doesn't really push it other than the odd blast of acceleration.

Overall, I really feel that the old school cars did all the feedback and NVH stuff better and I'm now leaning towards either a 996 or 997, but certainly either with a factory LSD (rare) or at least a Quaife LSD. That said, I've not test driven either yet, so I've yet to be convinced, but I'd be shocked if a 996 can't offer more direct feedback, more noise and less nannies than a new BMW.

I know that the M2 is a whole price category apart, but for the most part, it's going to be a lot better out of the box than the M135i if the current M3 is anything to go by. I think if you drove the M235i and either the current M3 or M2, you wouldn't look twice at the M235i.

Edited by bennyboysvuk on Wednesday 19th October 07:26

Thanks very much for taking the time and sharing your thoughts, I appreciate it.

[bennyboysvuk]

cerb4.5lee said:

Thanks very much for taking the time and sharing your thoughts, I appreciate it.

You're welcome. Have you tried the latest M3? I think you'd like it more than the E92 since the performance is hugely accessible. It felt like I could get it sideways at any speed too. I was far more impressed by it than I thought I would be.

[cerb4.5lee]

bennyboysvuk said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Thanks very much for taking the time and sharing your thoughts, I appreciate it.

You're welcome. Have you tried the latest M3? I think you'd like it more than the E92 since the performance is hugely accessible. It felt like I could get it sideways at any speed too. I was far more impressed by it than I thought I would be.

I've test driven the M4 Convertible and I really liked it(I'd go Coupe or M3 though), I liked it's accessibility and it's a big step up in terms of performance over the E92 as well.

I think the M2 would be my ideal but out of reach financially I reckon, plus I am not all that keen on the M tax you get with running M cars hence me considering something like the M235i.

The bottom line though is if you want a truely fun bmw you do have to go with the full fat M cars sadly.

[bennyboysvuk]

cerb4.5lee said:

I've test driven the M4 Convertible and I really liked it(I'd go Coupe or M3 though), I liked it's accessibility and it's a big step up in terms of performance over the E92 as well.

I think the M2 would be my ideal but out of reach financially I reckon, plus I am not all that keen on the M tax you get with running M cars hence me considering something like the M235i.

The bottom line though is if you want a truely fun bmw you do have to go with the full fat M cars sadly.

I think your final comment there is spot on. It seems that if you go for anything else you're always looking for mods that make it everything that an M car is as standard.

[FGB]

Having had a couple of older BMWs that have had me going sideways or even backwards when over cooking roundabout exits I find the xdrive on the 4 series a life saver.

In fact earlier this week while taking a corner that turned out to have a greasy surface I'm pretty sure the xdrive prevented a hedge visit.

It was either that or my instinctive driving god prowess

[E65Ross]

Whilst the M-tax is definitely there, the costs aren't really any higher than on anything else of similar performance these days. Audi, Merc etc are the same, Porsche certainly aren't any better. Even the performance hot hatches (eg Focus RS etc) have very high running costs.

[cerb4.5lee]

E65Ross said:

Whilst the M-tax is definitely there, the costs aren't really any higher than on anything else of similar performance these days. Audi, Merc etc are the same, Porsche certainly aren't any better. Even the performance hot hatches (eg Focus RS etc) have very high running costs.

For me though having had a E90 330i and a E92 M3, the fact that insurance/tax/servicing is double on the M3 and fuel costs are a fair bit higher too it makes a difference to the running costs.

I need a lottery win then I wouldn't have to worry!

I suppose like most things in life though you get what you pay for, hence why M cars are so much better than the standard cars if you enjoy fun.

[300bhp/ton]

Monty Python said:

Never needed AWD in over 30 years of driving. I'm sure there are circumstances where it's necessary (like those that actually go off-road), but otherwise I don't see much point.

Need is a strong word. Let's face it, does anyone need rwd, or a powerful engine. Nope. And frankly few truly 'need' a car at all.

On this basis AWD can and does provide advantages for normal road use in true UK. You might not need or use them every day, but that doesn't diminish their worth at all.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 20th October 13:03

[Allan L]

300bhp/ton said:

Need is a strong word. Let's face it, does anyone need rwd, or a powerful engine. Nope. And frankly few truly 'need' a car at all.

On this basis AWD can and does provide advantages for normal road use in true UK. You might not need the every day, but that doesn't diminish their worth at all.

Yes that sums the whole thing up well.
We, who grew up with rwd and still prefer it, find that the 40:60 front:rear gives the rwd feel but with better turn-in in normal driving conditions - it was that ratio that Ferguson Research came up with and which was used by Ford for their XR4x4 Sierra and later for the Jaguar X-type. I gather that the Xdrive has that balance until the computer starts messing it about and it certainly feels right to me.

[JNW1]

cerb4.5lee said:

bennyboysvuk said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Thanks very much for taking the time and sharing your thoughts, I appreciate it.

You're welcome. Have you tried the latest M3? I think you'd like it more than the E92 since the performance is hugely accessible. It felt like I could get it sideways at any speed too. I was far more impressed by it than I thought I would be.

I've test driven the M4 Convertible and I really liked it(I'd go Coupe or M3 though), I liked it's accessibility and it's a big step up in terms of performance over the E92 as well.

I think the M2 would be my ideal but out of reach financially I reckon, plus I am not all that keen on the M tax you get with running M cars hence me considering something like the M235i.

The bottom line though is if you want a truely fun bmw you do have to go with the full fat M cars sadly.

M235i or M240i with something like a Birds Dynamic Pack; may not reward quite like a pukka M-Car but might get you quite a long way there for a fair bit less initial outlay? Mind you, will be worth less when you come to sell it as well.....

[GTEYE]

I think the X Drive argument depends on where you live - in the South East of England, you would struggle to make an argument for it.

I've got a 2wd drive 4 Series which replaced a 2wd F30 3 Series, and at no point in the last 4 years (of very mild winters) have I wished I'd gone for 4 wheel drive.

Even if the X Drive would get you moving, the South East's choked up traffic conditions (with 1mm of snow) would ensure the road was blocked by countless numpties anyway....

Mind you, if I lived in Scotland, the North of England or possibly the mountains of Wales, I would have ticked that box. And winter tyres. Probably.

[cerb4.5lee]

JNW1 said:

M235i or M240i with something like a Birds Dynamic Pack; may not reward quite like a pukka M-Car but might get you quite a long way there for a fair bit less initial outlay? Mind you, will be worth less when you come to sell it as well.....

That's a good shout thanks and I do seem to fancy the M235i/M240i a lot, a LSD would sharpen things up a fair bit plus they're great for a little sideways fun every now and again.

[300bhp/ton]

Fox- said:

DUMBO100 said:

I've got a Golf R and BMW 520 and live in Glasgow, we has a bit of snow last year, the Golf was brilliant and the BMW not good at all. Both cars were on "all year" tyres. Will be getting 4wd cars in future

Why not just get good tyres?

I drove a 320d through Switzerland last year. They get much more snow than Glasgow....

So were you really driving on snow covered icy roads though?

Anyone who thinks it's just tyres, needs to have a go in more vehicles on more tyres of terrain.

i.e. try a proper 4x4 on aggressive mud terrain tyres on a wet grassy muddy field. The difference between running in 2wd and 4wd with the 'right' tyres in both configurations is simply massive. The same is true on snow for road cars.

Good tyres will make a big difference I agree. But 4wd is so much more capable. Think about it, if all you need are the right tyres and a good driver. How come rwd rally cars are always beaten by 4wd ones on any sort of slippery or loose surface?

[300bhp/ton]

GTEYE said:

I think the X Drive argument depends on where you live - in the South East of England, you would struggle to make an argument for it.

I've got a 2wd drive 4 Series which replaced a 2wd F30 3 Series, and at no point in the last 4 years (of very mild winters) have I wished I'd gone for 4 wheel drive.

Even if the X Drive would get you moving, the South East's choked up traffic conditions (with 1mm of snow) would ensure the road was blocked by countless numpties anyway....

Mind you, if I lived in Scotland, the North of England or possibly the mountains of Wales, I would have ticked that box. And winter tyres. Probably.

The last few years have seen less snow. But we do get snow in SE England too.... and more than 1mm.

And it's not just snow where AWD is nice. It's general winter conditions. Even a damp gritted road is way more slippery than a dry road in summer. And with RWD it simply is easier to wheel spin, slide and generally make less use of the power.

If the vehicle is a bit peppy or had some grunt, this is hugely evident. For example, I have two RWD V8 cars, both loads of fun and both very exploitable. But on a damp road or one that has been gritted, you really have to watch yourself. You can't simply use the power the same.

My Camaro will quite happily wheel spin at 50mph and even pulling out to overtake without being stupid can result in a slide or wheelspin when you get to the middle of the road (where more salt/grit is).

My V12 XJ-S and a 6.0 V12 XJ12 and well, all my other RWD cars have been the same.

On the flip side, my Impreza Turbo is very deployable in these conditions. Obviously you can't really stop or corner any better, but in terms of having fun. Well the AWD allows a somewhat reckless abandonment in this regard. You can just flaw it and know that at worse it might scrabble the front wheels a little. Do that in the Camaro and you'll be facing the wrong way pretty quickly.



And as a truly direct comparison. I owned a 4.0 Jeep Cherokee. Fairly speedy for what it was, about mid 8's to 60mph and would fly up to 95mph or so no probs at all. It could be run in RWD or AWD on the road. And on anything other than warm dry roads, it went way better and was much more deployable in AWD mode. You really could throw it about and use the power. In RWD it'd snap sideways very easily exiting T junctions or low speed corners.

[GTEYE]

300bhp/ton said:

GTEYE said:

I think the X Drive argument depends on where you live - in the South East of England, you would struggle to make an argument for it.

I've got a 2wd drive 4 Series which replaced a 2wd F30 3 Series, and at no point in the last 4 years (of very mild winters) have I wished I'd gone for 4 wheel drive.

Even if the X Drive would get you moving, the South East's choked up traffic conditions (with 1mm of snow) would ensure the road was blocked by countless numpties anyway....

Mind you, if I lived in Scotland, the North of England or possibly the mountains of Wales, I would have ticked that box. And winter tyres. Probably.

The last few years have seen less snow. But we do get snow in SE England too.... and more than 1mm.

And it's not just snow where AWD is nice. It's general winter conditions. Even a damp gritted road is way more slippery than a dry road in summer. And with RWD it simply is easier to wheel spin, slide and generally make less use of the power.

If the vehicle is a bit peppy or had some grunt, this is hugely evident. For example, I have two RWD V8 cars, both loads of fun and both very exploitable. But on a damp road or one that has been gritted, you really have to watch yourself. You can't simply use the power the same.

My Camaro will quite happily wheel spin at 50mph and even pulling out to overtake without being stupid can result in a slide or wheelspin when you get to the middle of the road (where more salt/grit is).

My V12 XJ-S and a 6.0 V12 XJ12 and well, all my other RWD cars have been the same.

On the flip side, my Impreza Turbo is very deployable in these conditions. Obviously you can't really stop or corner any better, but in terms of having fun. Well the AWD allows a somewhat reckless abandonment in this regard. You can just flaw it and know that at worse it might scrabble the front wheels a little. Do that in the Camaro and you'll be facing the wrong way pretty quickly.



And as a truly direct comparison. I owned a 4.0 Jeep Cherokee. Fairly speedy for what it was, about mid 8's to 60mph and would fly up to 95mph or so no probs at all. It could be run in RWD or AWD on the road. And on anything other than warm dry roads, it went way better and was much more deployable in AWD mode. You really could throw it about and use the power. In RWD it'd snap sideways very easily exiting T junctions or low speed corners.

I'll definitely agree with you that a Camaro, XJ-S or XJ-12 have big potential to be "interesting" on slippery roads.

But a modern RWD BMW with the stability control on is actually a pretty forgiving thing to drive even on slippery wet roads. If you accept that it is designed to cut power/brake if it detects wheelspin/ sliding etc - it will never defy the laws of physics, but it would certainly stop the T junction slide of your Cherokee in RWD mode.

There's obviously no substitute for driving sensibly for the conditions, but the car does its best to help you!