RE: BMW M340i xDrive prototype: Driven
Discussion
Um, but you said it was too floppy compared to the opposition? Not something I recall being or I could personally have criticised it for at all. I and others have only owned and driven M3s and 4s for many thousands of miles though, so don't let us get in the way of your internet observations.
Well I will tell you now 37MPG is a mile off, my 140i Shadow Edition barely nudges 25mpg with my missus driving.
They should only print real-world figures, not what the engine delivered on the dyno with no vehicle weight or wind/tyre resistance.
Looks nice though the car gotta say. I wish I had gone for the 3 series now over the 1, yet the 1 series does look beautiful IMO...
Still, I think an M3 estate is missing gotta be said... Make it happen BMW!
They should only print real-world figures, not what the engine delivered on the dyno with no vehicle weight or wind/tyre resistance.
Looks nice though the car gotta say. I wish I had gone for the 3 series now over the 1, yet the 1 series does look beautiful IMO...
Still, I think an M3 estate is missing gotta be said... Make it happen BMW!
Mike8448 said:
They should only print real-world figures, not what the engine delivered on the dyno with no vehicle weight or wind/tyre resistance.
You really don't understand how economy figures are derived, do you? I'm not saying the tests are good (especially NEDC which your car would have been tested on), but they are far from just running the engine on a dyno. They very much do take into account rolling and aerodynamic drag.
Mike8448 said:
Well I will tell you now 37MPG is a mile off, my 140i Shadow Edition barely nudges 25mpg with my missus driving.
They should only print real-world figures, not what the engine delivered on the dyno with no vehicle weight or wind/tyre resistance.
What sort of usage is that?They should only print real-world figures, not what the engine delivered on the dyno with no vehicle weight or wind/tyre resistance.
I use my M140i as a daily, and do a fair bit of motorway mileage admittedly, but I'm averaging 30MPG over 28,000 miles. I used to measure the consumption accurately by calculating the litres going in at refuel time against the trip mileage, but quickly worked out the computer is accurate to within a couple of percent, so stopped bothering.
As expected from a turbocharged engine, the range of fuel consumption is considerable, depending on what you're doing and how you're driving. On a charge across to West Wales, driving it as hard as I'd ever want to on the public road, I got 18 mpg average, Pootling up the motorway at 70-80 in ECO PRO, it gets well into the 40s. It is no heavier on fuel than the 2.0 mk1 Focus snotter I bought to tide me over while I was waiting for the BMW to be delivered.
Mike8448 said:
Well I will tell you now 37MPG is a mile off, my 140i Shadow Edition barely nudges 25mpg with my missus driving.
Errmmm ... I've average 30-33mpg across a tank in my 440i GC over the last 7 months. It has the MPPSK so is pushing out almost the same bhp / torque as the new M340i.And yes, I use the power whenever possible - it doesn't just bumble about at 1200rpm.
HighwayStar said:
pSyCoSiS said:
Impressive little package there - and 370bhp isn't to be sniffed at.
Shame though that the six cylinder petrol has disappeared completely from the range otherwise. It was what the 3 Series was famed for. Still remember the howling six pots form the E30s!
This is the 6 petrol....Shame though that the six cylinder petrol has disappeared completely from the range otherwise. It was what the 3 Series was famed for. Still remember the howling six pots form the E30s!
Limpet said:
Mike8448 said:
Well I will tell you now 37MPG is a mile off, my 140i Shadow Edition barely nudges 25mpg with my missus driving.
They should only print real-world figures, not what the engine delivered on the dyno with no vehicle weight or wind/tyre resistance.
What sort of usage is that?They should only print real-world figures, not what the engine delivered on the dyno with no vehicle weight or wind/tyre resistance.
I use my M140i as a daily, and do a fair bit of motorway mileage admittedly, but I'm averaging 30MPG over 28,000 miles. I used to measure the consumption accurately by calculating the litres going in at refuel time against the trip mileage, but quickly worked out the computer is accurate to within a couple of percent, so stopped bothering.
As expected from a turbocharged engine, the range of fuel consumption is considerable, depending on what you're doing and how you're driving. On a charge across to West Wales, driving it as hard as I'd ever want to on the public road, I got 18 mpg average, Pootling up the motorway at 70-80 in ECO PRO, it gets well into the 40s. It is no heavier on fuel than the 2.0 mk1 Focus snotter I bought to tide me over while I was waiting for the BMW to be delivered.
C.MW said:
I understand that to defend your fond memories of a certain car, you can of course go as far as to say someone else's experience is nonsense. Yea, it's indeed PH here. May be you're right and your M3 is stiff as hell and all that, but everything is discussed in relative terms here so drive it back to back with its competitors and you will find out. If you don't bother to do so, do some google research and count how many reviewers criticised the car for not having enough feel. A fact remains a fact.
The figure F30 stands at 29300NM per degree and 40000 for the F80 M3, That’s more rigid than a carbon tubbed car like the Carrera GT.
I test drove an F80 and one thing it didn’t feel like was sloppy or imprecise.He can't I've just sold My F80 m3 after 90,000 miles in 3 years it was the most rigid and stiff car I've had, the front end was as sharp as knife, he's talking nonsense but this is PH.
Have you changed your mind about stiffness and moved onto something else now?Wills2 said:
Huskyman said:
C.MW said:
I hope they fixed the weak chassis from the F30. Yes it was light, but it wasn't rigid enough to form the proper basis for the full-cream M variants and as a result the M3/M4 suffered numb steering and general lack of feedback through every touch point. The heavier competitors like the RC-F and AMG C63 were a lot better in that regard. If you can't make it light AND rigid, I suggest you make it rigid first and go from there; a rigid structure is a must for any true sports cars.
Could you qualify this statement please? I cannot find any info on the AMG C63? Edited by C.MW on Wednesday 12th December 04:43
The figure F30 stands at 29300NM per degree and 40000 for the F80 M3, That’s more rigid than a carbon tubbed car like the Carrera GT.
I test drove an F80 and one thing it didn’t feel like was sloppy or imprecise.
Edited by C.MW on Wednesday 12th December 23:18
Anyone who thinks that an F8x has a ‘weak chassis’ and ‘[isn’t] rigid enough’ needs to lay off the crack pipe for a while. The C63 is absolutely nowhere near it, in terms of stiffness. Just absolutely nowhere near.
The F8x has plenty of faults but lack of rigidity is definitely not one of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CJ6IwVzV-A#t=10
Would be very interested in one of these as a successor to my M235i, however, I'll be waiting a while until the prices drop, drastically might I add - I'm expecting an M340i xDrive with the usual options (Pro Nav, CC, Adaptive suspension, heated seats etc) to come in at around £50k, deals to be had for mid/low 40's shortly after release...
Moved onto what? I repeat, read the damn comment correctly. And yeah, well done for providing that link. As if they will admit weakness of their own product in their promotional video.
Anyone who thinks that an F8x has a ‘weak chassis’ and ‘[isn’t] rigid enough’ needs to lay off the crack pipe for a while. The C63 is absolutely nowhere near it, in terms of stiffness. Just absolutely nowhere near.
The F8x has plenty of faults but lack of rigidity is definitely not one of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CJ6IwVzV-A#t=10
PorkInsider said:
C.MW said:
I understand that to defend your fond memories of a certain car, you can of course go as far as to say someone else's experience is nonsense. Yea, it's indeed PH here. May be you're right and your M3 is stiff as hell and all that, but everything is discussed in relative terms here so drive it back to back with its competitors and you will find out. If you don't bother to do so, do some google research and count how many reviewers criticised the car for not having enough feel. A fact remains a fact.
The figure F30 stands at 29300NM per degree and 40000 for the F80 M3, That’s more rigid than a carbon tubbed car like the Carrera GT.
I test drove an F80 and one thing it didn’t feel like was sloppy or imprecise.He can't I've just sold My F80 m3 after 90,000 miles in 3 years it was the most rigid and stiff car I've had, the front end was as sharp as knife, he's talking nonsense but this is PH.
Have you changed your mind about stiffness and moved onto something else now?Wills2 said:
Huskyman said:
C.MW said:
I hope they fixed the weak chassis from the F30. Yes it was light, but it wasn't rigid enough to form the proper basis for the full-cream M variants and as a result the M3/M4 suffered numb steering and general lack of feedback through every touch point. The heavier competitors like the RC-F and AMG C63 were a lot better in that regard. If you can't make it light AND rigid, I suggest you make it rigid first and go from there; a rigid structure is a must for any true sports cars.
Could you qualify this statement please? I cannot find any info on the AMG C63? Edited by C.MW on Wednesday 12th December 04:43
The figure F30 stands at 29300NM per degree and 40000 for the F80 M3, That’s more rigid than a carbon tubbed car like the Carrera GT.
I test drove an F80 and one thing it didn’t feel like was sloppy or imprecise.
Edited by C.MW on Wednesday 12th December 23:18
Anyone who thinks that an F8x has a ‘weak chassis’ and ‘[isn’t] rigid enough’ needs to lay off the crack pipe for a while. The C63 is absolutely nowhere near it, in terms of stiffness. Just absolutely nowhere near.
The F8x has plenty of faults but lack of rigidity is definitely not one of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CJ6IwVzV-A#t=10
Road and track weren't exactly heaping praise on it. https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives...
Ok it's the 330i but the comments about the huge size of the thing apply. It's bigger than the E39 5 series and the E32 7 series FFS.
Ok it's the 330i but the comments about the huge size of the thing apply. It's bigger than the E39 5 series and the E32 7 series FFS.
kambites said:
I can't see numbers for the regular F80 3-series, but the M3 was apparently 40,000nm/deg which is pretty bloody stiff for a mass produced saloon car! To put that perspective, my Elise is a mighty 11000nm/deg, albeit with half the weight to contain.
Where do you get this info?? daveco said:
kambites said:
I can't see numbers for the regular F80 3-series, but the M3 was apparently 40,000nm/deg which is pretty bloody stiff for a mass produced saloon car! To put that perspective, my Elise is a mighty 11000nm/deg, albeit with half the weight to contain.
Where do you get this info?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CJ6IwVzV-A#t=10
ETA: Ah just noticed that video was already linked above.
If you want to choose to disbelieve BMW's figures that's your prerogative I suppose, but I see no reason to do so. I'm not defending how the F80 drove - from what little experience I have of it, it's pretty numb and uninspiring. However, it didn't feel floppy to me, just poorly set up.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 13th December 15:16
kambites said:
daveco said:
kambites said:
I can't see numbers for the regular F80 3-series, but the M3 was apparently 40,000nm/deg which is pretty bloody stiff for a mass produced saloon car! To put that perspective, my Elise is a mighty 11000nm/deg, albeit with half the weight to contain.
Where do you get this info?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CJ6IwVzV-A#t=10
ETA: Ah just noticed that video was already linked above.
If you want to choose to disbelieve BMW's figures that's your prerogative I suppose, but I see no reason to do so. I'm not defending how the F80 drove - from what little experience I have of it, it's pretty numb and uninspiring. However, it didn't feel floppy to me, just poorly set up.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 13th December 15:16
Wiki says the e46 is 70% more rigid than the e36, but then that's irrelevant if you can't compare it to the competition for context!
daveco said:
kambites said:
I can't see numbers for the regular F80 3-series, but the M3 was apparently 40,000nm/deg which is pretty bloody stiff for a mass produced saloon car! To put that perspective, my Elise is a mighty 11000nm/deg, albeit with half the weight to contain.
Where do you get this info?? http://youwheel.com/home/2016/06/20/car-body-torsi...
Edited by HighwayStar on Thursday 13th December 15:27
It's all a bit rubbish anyway really; manufacturers love spouting out ever great torsional rigidity figures for their cars but all modern tin-top cars are so far into diminishing returns that it's pretty much irrelevant IMO. On road tyres anything over about 15000nm/deg/tonne is enough that I can't feel any difference from going further.
kambites said:
It's all a bit rubbish anyway really; manufacturers love spouting out ever great torsional rigidity figures for their cars but all modern tin-top cars are so far into diminishing returns that it's pretty much irrelevant IMO. On road tyres anything over about 15000nm/deg/tonne is enough that I can't feel any difference from going further.
Always impresses me how solid and stuff car bodies are now, I remember older cars that used to twist noticeably as you jacked them up, you noticed it upon opening doors, Mk2 Golfs were bad, 5 doors worse than 3 doors for obvious reasons, but the one that was worst was my 944 cab, scuttle shake was pretty bad.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff