RE: BMW 330i M Sport prototype: Driven

[nunpuncher]

So they removed the last remaining bits that had any chance of making it a "drivers car".

I don't suppose it really matters anyway as they seem to know their audience
"3-Series customers tend to prefer passive suspension, often with an alloy wheel upgrade."
Fancy wheels and more M Sport/M performance badges for everyone.

[Black S2K]

225 said:

Well as a previous 340i owner I think things are looking good so far. More focus on handling, higher quality interior and would assume lower wind noise etc, more interior space and more tech, all with lower weight.

Who gives a monkies what the made up list price is, no one pays that much (Well maybe Joe public do) and 20% odd discounts won't be far off from launch. Plus it will all been down to the monthlies anyway for the majority of us.

So long as they do the m340i in touring form then all good, if it's x drive bit of a stter but hopefully someone at bmw now knows how to make a 4x4 system that handles well and doesn't have a jacked up ride height by now. Even my current barge of a v90 d5 r design manages that!

It's easier with a transverse engine, because the driveshafts pass behind the engine/transaxle.

With inline, you either raise the powertrain (Jaguar) or jack the car (BMW). Admittedly, the latter's a bit crass. Especially with a slant-six!

[GroundEffect]

telecat said:

Ares said:

telecat said:

Tried the ZF in a few cars and I have a Manual Box. They do not respond as I want them to and I find them annoying to use. In the US the M3 is pretty much 50/50 on the box and that's against a Dual clutch rather than the over rated ZF.

That becomes either a preference thing or a prejudice thing (and would depend what cars you've driven with a ZF?). I'm on my 4th incarnation of the ZF box. They've gone from good, to very good, to fantastic (and so fantastic that even former race-driver journos confuse them with DCT/PDK boxes)

In Europe sales are almost 90/10 towards the DCT.


Edit to add - according to Frank van Meel (BMW M chief), US M3 manual sales have gone from 75% in 2007 to less than 25% in 2017.

Edited by Ares on Thursday 16th August 11:44

I don't confuse them. The Lag off the line is a dead give away. Last Tried one in the Jaguar F-Type. It's behaviour approaching roundabouts and junctions put me off completely. As for how bad BMW manuals are that's pretty confusing to me. The Box in my M240 was very good to start with and has got better since it's oil change at the beginning of the month. And apologies the Figures I saw were for M2's.

Which is funny given the primary reason for choosing a proper Auto over a DCT from a driveability point of view, is that the launch performance of a true Auto is significantly better due to the torque converter.

[alfabadass]

Never thought i'd see the day where an Alfa is the car to beat for BMW!

[havoc]

Ares said:

Problem is, when both are/were offered, customers bought the auto in far greater volume!

As for not 'driving' a car without a manual box...don't knock it until you've tried it. My QV is the most involving car I've owned aside from my race Caterham.

Horses for courses - know a lot of people like paddle-shifts (presumably mostly automated manuals, rather than paddle-'controlled' (sic) torque-converter autos), and with modern big-torque turbocharged engines (where the necessary gearbox would probably be more 'robust' than slick rifle-bolt), I can see the relevance.

...but I guess I'm being a luddite, in a way - I LIKE high-revving, nat-asp engines where the torque builds progressively. I LIKE the feeling of changing gear myself, like finessing my rev-matching. And I see no practical* benefit, outside of drag-races and city traffic, to moving from that to a modern fat-turbo and paddleshift.




* Which is why this is different to e.g. ABS or synchromesh - both of those offer a real practical and safety benefit to the driver, with little downside in involvement (you can still double-declutch a synchro-box, you just don't have to / you can still cadence-brake in a car with ABS, you just don't have to).

[telecat]

havoc said:

Ares said:

Problem is, when both are/were offered, customers bought the auto in far greater volume!

As for not 'driving' a car without a manual box...don't knock it until you've tried it. My QV is the most involving car I've owned aside from my race Caterham.

Horses for courses - know a lot of people like paddle-shifts (presumably mostly automated manuals, rather than paddle-'controlled' (sic) torque-converter autos), and with modern big-torque turbocharged engines (where the necessary gearbox would probably be more 'robust' than slick rifle-bolt), I can see the relevance.

...but I guess I'm being a luddite, in a way - I LIKE high-revving, nat-asp engines where the torque builds progressively. I LIKE the feeling of changing gear myself, like finessing my rev-matching. And I see no practical* benefit, outside of drag-races and city traffic, to moving from that to a modern fat-turbo and paddleshift.




* Which is why this is different to e.g. ABS or synchromesh - both of those offer a real practical and safety benefit to the driver, with little downside in involvement (you can still double-declutch a synchro-box, you just don't have to / you can still cadence-brake in a car with ABS, you just don't have to).

I have tried it. Mainly in the States. Last time was the Dodge Challenger with that ZF 8 Speed. I was glad to get home. My Son has a Golf with DSG. He hates the thing. Only reason he has it is that the seating position of the Golf is not good for his knee. He prefers driving his Primastar Van with a Manual box. If they insist on Auto boxes to mitigate a bad driving position then that's just laziness on behalf of the makers

[cerb4.5lee]

I must be the only one who actually likes the switch from a 6 cyl NA to a 4 cyl Turbo. My old E90 330i felt as flat as a pancake unless you revved the backside off it. Plus this new 330i has the same amount of torque as my V8 M3 did...only it comes in even earlier.

I'm all for Turbos in the heavy 3 series for sure. Shame its gone Auto only though, but I do understand that the market wants that.

[kuiper]

Singularly confused why the larger engines get auto only? I get it for the 320ds of this world bought as fleet cars for going along motorways, but surely the demand is there for the bigger engined cars bought more by enthusiasts?

[RudeDog]

All that effort applying camouflage but you can still see quite clearly that its a boring Beemer saloon.

[Ares]

Oily76 said:

corozin said:

Despite all the marketing hype it's clear this version of the 330i doesn't seem to have much more performance than the old E46 330ci had almost 20 years ago.

Clear how?

The 2000 model year 330ci had 228bhp and 221lb/ft torque, so the new model has 13% more power and 35% more torque and will probably weigh in at around 1500kg as well.

These figures suggest it will be quite a bit quicker, as well as significantly less polluting.

....and this model is mid-range, the 2000MY was the range topper.

[Ares]

wab172uk said:

Ares said:

Problem is, when both are/were offered, customers bought the auto in far greater volume!

As for not 'driving' a car without a manual box...don't knock it until you've tried it. My QV is the most involving car I've owned aside from my race Caterham.

Because people are inherently becoming lazy with driving. We are now seeing cars that will actually steer and brake for corners. And yet the majority of people will lap it up. More so the yoof, who seem to be offended that they have to put in effort to drive.

Over the years the use of indicators are becoming less so. Junctions, round-a-bouts. It's a guess where the car coming your way will go. I put this down to automatic boxes. Where in a manual your arm is moving anyway to change gear, so it's a simple arm movement up to hit the indicator. With Automatic cars, the drivers arm is no doubt lent on the armrest. And given it's a struggle, and no doubt offensive to be requested to move your arm, they remain stuck to the armrest, and they just steer left / right, in which direction they choose to go.

Also, the rise of Auto box sales has come from the better CO2, & mpg the auto boxes give you. But do they actually? Years ago, the Auto box always got worse mpg than the manual. Now, it's the other way round. And in the aftermath of cheat-gate we know why. Software programmed to go from 1st to 7th in a blink of an eye to get false readings. Same software is not attached to customer cars, hence why you can never replicate the mpg figures.

Also, as said by another poster, these auto boxes never give you the right gear at the right time. I've tied a few Audi DSG boxes. In normal mode, they just feel lazy, and in Dynamic mode, it just hangs onto the gear for dear life. Hate them

Years ago autoboxes were significantly inferior and slower. Technology has leapt forward so they are now better and faster than manuals (emotion, for some, notwithstanding).

Can't see how autoboxes are to blame for indicator use? Are they also to blame for global warming? Labour's anti-Semitism? Corbyns offensive beard? Brexit?

As for them never giving the right gear....all decent boxes have the option for you to fully control and chose the gear you want. They also mean that you know what gear you are in, and never select 2nd when you wanted 4th...or vice versa.

[Ares]

alfabadass said:

Never thought i'd see the day where an Alfa is the car to beat for BMW!

Thats down to how good the Giulia is, rather than how bad the BMW is.

[Ares]

GroundEffect said:

Which is funny given the primary reason for choosing a proper Auto over a DCT from a driveability point of view, is that the launch performance of a true Auto is significantly better due to the torque converter.

Haters are going to hate. Those who don't like autoboxes will find any excuse to back up their intangible hatred

[Ares]

havoc said:

Ares said:

Problem is, when both are/were offered, customers bought the auto in far greater volume!

As for not 'driving' a car without a manual box...don't knock it until you've tried it. My QV is the most involving car I've owned aside from my race Caterham.

Horses for courses - know a lot of people like paddle-shifts (presumably mostly automated manuals, rather than paddle-'controlled' (sic) torque-converter autos), and with modern big-torque turbocharged engines (where the necessary gearbox would probably be more 'robust' than slick rifle-bolt), I can see the relevance.

...but I guess I'm being a luddite, in a way - I LIKE high-revving, nat-asp engines where the torque builds progressively. I LIKE the feeling of changing gear myself, like finessing my rev-matching. And I see no practical* benefit, outside of drag-races and city traffic, to moving from that to a modern fat-turbo and paddleshift.




* Which is why this is different to e.g. ABS or synchromesh - both of those offer a real practical and safety benefit to the driver, with little downside in involvement (you can still double-declutch a synchro-box, you just don't have to / you can still cadence-brake in a car with ABS, you just don't have to).

I don't think it is different. My current car revs higher than all but two of my history of cars (a 13,000rpm red-line race Caterham and a 8500rpm Exige), it just has a lot more flexibility so that its not hard work if you don't want it to be. It also provides as much gear changing input if I want, but doesn't if I don't want. It gives huge flexibility, and therein becomes the practical benefit.

[Ares]

telecat said:

havoc said:

Ares said:

Problem is, when both are/were offered, customers bought the auto in far greater volume!

As for not 'driving' a car without a manual box...don't knock it until you've tried it. My QV is the most involving car I've owned aside from my race Caterham.

Horses for courses - know a lot of people like paddle-shifts (presumably mostly automated manuals, rather than paddle-'controlled' (sic) torque-converter autos), and with modern big-torque turbocharged engines (where the necessary gearbox would probably be more 'robust' than slick rifle-bolt), I can see the relevance.

...but I guess I'm being a luddite, in a way - I LIKE high-revving, nat-asp engines where the torque builds progressively. I LIKE the feeling of changing gear myself, like finessing my rev-matching. And I see no practical* benefit, outside of drag-races and city traffic, to moving from that to a modern fat-turbo and paddleshift.




* Which is why this is different to e.g. ABS or synchromesh - both of those offer a real practical and safety benefit to the driver, with little downside in involvement (you can still double-declutch a synchro-box, you just don't have to / you can still cadence-brake in a car with ABS, you just don't have to).

I have tried it. Mainly in the States. Last time was the Dodge Challenger with that ZF 8 Speed. I was glad to get home. My Son has a Golf with DSG. He hates the thing. Only reason he has it is that the seating position of the Golf is not good for his knee. He prefers driving his Primastar Van with a Manual box. If they insist on Auto boxes to mitigate a bad driving position then that's just laziness on behalf of the makers

So you've driven a st version of the ZF and made assumptions about them all

[Ares]

cerb4.5lee said:

I must be the only one who actually likes the switch from a 6 cyl NA to a 4 cyl Turbo. My old E90 330i felt as flat as a pancake unless you revved the backside off it. Plus this new 330i has the same amount of torque as my V8 M3 did...only it comes in even earlier.

I'm all for Turbos in the heavy 3 series for sure. Shame its gone Auto only though, but I do understand that the market wants that.

Exactly. In a sub-1000kg sports car, peaky NA engines are fine.
In a sporting saloon, you don't want to have to work hard to get good performance.

[BFleming]

The number of manual cars I've owned far outweighs the auto's, but the 8 speed ZF box in my current F11 525d is superb. None of the gear confusion of older auto's, no lag between gears, but not a neck-breaking jolt either (as I found with the DSG box).

[anonymous-user]

cerb4.5lee said:

I must be the only one who actually likes the switch from a 6 cyl NA to a 4 cyl Turbo. My old E90 330i felt as flat as a pancake unless you revved the backside off it. Plus this new 330i has the same amount of torque as my V8 M3 did...only it comes in even earlier.

I'm all for Turbos in the heavy 3 series for sure. Shame its gone Auto only though, but I do understand that the market wants that.

i Agree! The real horror for me is all the xDrive nonsense, which seems to be increasingly not an option on anything properly pokey in their model range. If you live in the Alps, fair enough, buy the xDrive model, but please stop ruining perfectly decent rwd cars with all that extra pointless mass and clobber. Leave it to Audi, they've been ruining their cars with it for years....... ;-)

[zeeboy]

Yet another example of imaginative, innovative, ground-breaking styling from BMW :yawn:

[nickfrog]

kuiper said:

Singularly confused why the larger engines get auto only? I get it for the 320ds of this world bought as fleet cars for going along motorways, but surely the demand is there for the bigger engined cars bought more by enthusiasts?

Simple : you can be a enthusiast and prefer auto, not that there is an agreed definition of what an enthusiast is. It's possible that different enthusiasts like different things.