Autocar road test - M235i

[s m]

In today's issue

The wet weather certainly hit the performance figures - manual box car ( no launch control )

0-60 6.3
0-100 14.7
30-70 5.7
ss 1/4 15.1 @ 100
ss km 26.4 @ 131.7

Weight 1560kg ( 15kg more than the hatch )

Test average 26.2mpg

They did say it was very wet for the performance testing and the Super Sports were quite worn - also no LSD option was specced on the demo ( £2520 option! )

[Gompo]

Thanks for these, I miss the old style Autocar Road Tests but it's good they perform these 'full' ones now and again.

Ever since the 'spy' pictures of the M235i I've been turned off by the looks, seems performance is roughly the same as the original 135i Coupe? Yes I know these were performed in the wet, and comparisons with the Golf R are not quite fair due to this being a manual.

[s m]

Gompo said:

Thanks for these, I miss the old style Autocar Road Tests but it's good they perform these 'full' ones now and again.

Ever since the 'spy' pictures of the M235i I've been turned off by the looks, seems performance is roughly the same as the original 135i Coupe? Yes I know these were performed in the wet, and comparisons with the Golf R are not quite fair due to this being a manual.

They do a full road test of something or other every week. They do show a lot of info you can't get elsewhere, like actual weights etc

[Heathwood]

I appreciate that it was wet, but those performance figures still seem incredibly disappointing. 8.4 secs to go from 60 to 100 - that can't have been affected much, if any, by wet weather?!

[s m]

Heathwood said:

I appreciate that it was wet, but those performance figures still seem incredibly disappointing. 8.4 secs to go from 60 to 100 - that can't have been affected much, if any, by wet weather?!

I thought the same to be honest.....unless the engine is so torquey it's breaking traction in 3rd/ electronics were reigning in power?

[sparks_E39]

I have seen one in the flesh up close, and they look great IMO.

[s m]

Anyway, back to drier conditions, here's a drag race of one with the Seat Cupra

http://youtu.be/97p_gZO4NXo

[Gompo]

s m said:

Gompo said:

Thanks for these, I miss the old style Autocar Road Tests but it's good they perform these 'full' ones now and again.

Ever since the 'spy' pictures of the M235i I've been turned off by the looks, seems performance is roughly the same as the original 135i Coupe? Yes I know these were performed in the wet, and comparisons with the Golf R are not quite fair due to this being a manual.

They do a full road test of something or other every week. They do show a lot of info you can't get elsewhere, like actual weights etc

Yes, I know they're still better than the majority of magazines these day. I seem to remember some US magazines, (C+D or R+T?) are quite rigorous?

I always used to like the Speedometer MPH reading versus the true MPH in the accelleration tests Autocar had, of which I am sure you have 100s of! Perhaps these days that test is a little more redundant with GPS etc.

Anyway, M235i, still not for me - I'd probably prefer a 3 door 135i

[Terminator X]

Strange really as M135i could do no wrong ... Tested against M3 in Evo Mag recently too and got a bit of a pasting.

TX.

[cerb4.5lee]

I was surprised how poor the figures were too as I like the M235i a lot but I think they should be taken with a pinch of salt as in the dry surely it should perform as well as the M135i as its slightly more powerful and slightly lighter.

Apart from the poor performance figures the article was really positive for the rest of the car as a package though.

[kambites]

cerb4.5lee said:

I was surprised how poor the figures were too as I like the M235i a lot but I think they should be taken with a pinch of salt as in the dry surely it should perform as well as the M135i as its slightly more powerful and slightly lighter.

I suppose the (presumably) lower centre of gravity will hurt the 2-series' traction a little off the line compared to the 1. I doubt it's going to be significant, though.

[cerb4.5lee]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Both M135i/M235i share exactly the same engine but its a little more powerful in the Coupe.

[s m]

cerb4.5lee said:

I was surprised how poor the figures were too as I like the M235i a lot but I think they should be taken with a pinch of salt as in the dry surely it should perform as well as the M135i as its slightly more powerful and slightly lighter.

Apart from the poor performance figures the article was really positive for the rest of the car as a package though.

Yes, I think the video above is more representative of dry times. Looks like the Golf R will be away and gone in the wet though looking at the conditions the Golf was tested in

[Dave Hedgehog]

Terminator X said:

Strange really as M135i could do no wrong ... Tested against M3 in Evo Mag recently too and got a bit of a pasting.

TX.

only too one particular fanboy jurno, most of the other reviews where far more balanced, evo had one as a long termer very early on and commented on its handling "foibles" especially in the wet

still its stonking engine in a good but fugly package for an excellent price, the 2 resolves the fuglyness but you pay a lot extra for that

[cerb4.5lee]

Terminator X said:

Strange really as M135i could do no wrong ... Tested against M3 in Evo Mag recently too and got a bit of a pasting.

TX.

Having owned and used a E92 M3 as a daily driver I know for a fact that the M135i/M235i would reward you for more of the time in that road environment...the M3 would be more enjoyable on a track though I would have thought.

[Clivey]

Of course wet weather will hit acceleration figures (especially from a standing start). Does anyone actually find this surprising?

[aeropilot]

s m said:

In today's issue

The wet weather certainly hit the performance figures - manual box car ( no launch control )

0-60 6.3
0-100 14.7
30-70 5.7
ss 1/4 15.1 @ 100


They did say it was very wet for the performance testing and the Super Sports were quite worn - also no LSD option was specced on the demo ( £2520 option! )

Worn PSS's in the wet are certainley not going to help the figures, nor is the manual box, but even so, that does seem awfully slow........

The LSD not be specced isn't a factor as the LSD is not able to be specced as an option from the factory, it is a dealer fit accessory.

[s m]

aeropilot said:

s m said:

In today's issue

The wet weather certainly hit the performance figures - manual box car ( no launch control )

0-60 6.3
0-100 14.7
30-70 5.7
ss 1/4 15.1 @ 100


They did say it was very wet for the performance testing and the Super Sports were quite worn - also no LSD option was specced on the demo ( £2520 option! )

Worn PSS's in the wet are certainley not going to help the figures, nor is the manual box, but even so, that does seem awfully slow........

The LSD not be specced isn't a factor as the LSD is not able to be specced as an option from the factory, it is a dealer fit accessory.

Yes, wasn't surprised at all at the slow time off the mark as questioned above, more the time from 60 on. Maybe traction was still an issue into 3rd, possible if there's lots of standing water. Many people will see that as a big flaw considering the amount of wet weather

[0a]

I know we always say it, but 1,560kg seems ridiculous for the baby coupe in the BMW range. What's the point of a smaller car if it isn't to save some weight to make the thing nicer to drive with a given engine?

[PHuzzy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The Evo video says 222bhp/ton.