RE: BMW M140i Finale says bye to rear-drive six-pot
Discussion
Scobblelotcher said:
tril said:
J4CKO said:
You'll forgive me if I don't take that seriously, and it's a PFL RS3. The FL RS3 with more power is faster.DoubleD said:
Which is the most fun to drive? Thats the one to buy.
The one to be is whichever I want to buy. I enjoy never being limited by the amount of traction I have and being able to plant my foot whenever I want.Cups Renault said:
But it doesn't pull away in a straight line, older shape rs3s get left behind. Rs3 New shape from 40 the 140 pulls ahead, closes up a bit between 70-80 and then maintains above there. Pretty even. Have seen it a few times and also a few vids doing the rounds.
A great car is the Rs3 and sounds lovely, especially not being yet another 4 pot fart box but the in gear on a b58 140 is not to be under estimated........except in the wet!!
My experience of a PFL RS3 vs M140i is that it's fairly even from a roll and a blowout from a dig. Again, my experience of the FL RS3 is that it will pull on a 140i but different drivers, races etc will vary and realistically they are quite even matched in the bone dry. The beauty of the RS3 is it will perform consistently whatever the weather and the 140i will not. A great car is the Rs3 and sounds lovely, especially not being yet another 4 pot fart box but the in gear on a b58 140 is not to be under estimated........except in the wet!!
Scobblelotcher said:
There’s a fair few videos showing the M140i pulling away from the new RS3 on rolling races.
The RS3 has better traction but the M140i’s engine is the better engine for me, it’s power delivery and noise is amazing and the tunning options for it are brilliant.
One thing is very clear is the RS3 isn’t worth 10k+ more.
Totally disagree. The 2.5 is shockingly overbuilt from factory, there are 9 second RS3s in the US and they've only had their hands on the platform for just over a year. The tuning potential between the two isn't even close. The RS3 has better traction but the M140i’s engine is the better engine for me, it’s power delivery and noise is amazing and the tunning options for it are brilliant.
One thing is very clear is the RS3 isn’t worth 10k+ more.
It’s hard to argue the tunning capability of the M140i’s motor, in fact when you say it’s not even close, what are you basing that on? Also feel free to postthe numbers as I’ve been close to the tunning of high power M140i’s and other platforms using that engine.
Edited by RobM77 on Friday 15th February 15:07
Edited by RobM77 on Friday 15th February 16:22
Out of the box I don't think the m135i/140i is a better drivers car than most of its competitors be they 4wd or fwd.
The original Chris Harris review Vs the rs3 which is often banded about was the OLD rs3. A car built on a platform that was almost 10 years old at that time and I think that car is often accepted as being a bad day at the RS office. Subsequent reviews and group tests (even from Harris himself) were slightly less gushing regarding anything other than the engine, which deservedly gets plenty of praise.
The BMW was more or less the first of the current generation of c300bhp hatches and to me it always seemed like the competition in that generation just nailed chassis and epas better than BMW. They just felt like more engineering budget had went in that direction rather than on just the engine and extra padding for the steering wheel.
It was a unique car with unique characteristics and it certainly makes for a great daily use car being practical, surprisingly economical, well built and THAT engine. However, for me it's always acted as proof that it takes more than a rwd drive train and a great engine to make a driver's car. I'm actually quite hopeful for the next generation car that more focus is put on the actual drive backing up BMW's slogan of "the ultimate driving machine".
The original Chris Harris review Vs the rs3 which is often banded about was the OLD rs3. A car built on a platform that was almost 10 years old at that time and I think that car is often accepted as being a bad day at the RS office. Subsequent reviews and group tests (even from Harris himself) were slightly less gushing regarding anything other than the engine, which deservedly gets plenty of praise.
The BMW was more or less the first of the current generation of c300bhp hatches and to me it always seemed like the competition in that generation just nailed chassis and epas better than BMW. They just felt like more engineering budget had went in that direction rather than on just the engine and extra padding for the steering wheel.
It was a unique car with unique characteristics and it certainly makes for a great daily use car being practical, surprisingly economical, well built and THAT engine. However, for me it's always acted as proof that it takes more than a rwd drive train and a great engine to make a driver's car. I'm actually quite hopeful for the next generation car that more focus is put on the actual drive backing up BMW's slogan of "the ultimate driving machine".
RobM77 said:
I think (but don't know - this is purely my opinion) that the differences we see in the tuning world between Audi and BMW are likely based on differences between what owners enjoy about their cars, rather than mechanical differences between the cars. As proven on the last few pages, Audi RS owners are often (but not always) interested in grip and performance (e.g. using full throttle on a slippery road), whereas BMW owners are more likely to just enjoy driving as a process (I'd be bored if I could use full throttle in all corners; I want something to do when I'm driving). Ergo, Audi RS owners are more likely to tune their cars' engines, because it gives them more of what they enjoy. To get more of what I enjoy, as a BMW owner, I would need to work on the suspension instead, so I'd turn to someone like Birds. Different strokes for different folks. I'd be surprised if BMW engines wouldn't respond to tuning in the same way as Audi engines. Interestingly, I'd like to see this flipped on its head: what could be done to the suspension to make an Audi more interesting to drive? Could an RS3 handle like an Mitsi Evo VI with a bit of suspension work? Could it go from a car that sends me to sleep to a car that wakes me up?
So a RS3 sends you to sleep Edited by RobM77 on Friday 15th February 15:07
Edited by RobM77 on Friday 15th February 16:22
have you seriously ever driven one? It handles just fine it really does.TX.
The pre-FL RS3 I drove had a cracking engine, a great gearbox, and surprisingly decent damping for an Audi RS model. No doubt it's a hugely capable all weather car. But I just didn't particularly enjoy it- I think it was the lack of neutrality, front end wash and grabby rather than progressive brakes that really ruined it for me.
It's a shame nothing offers the combination of A45 AMG chassis (which IMO was leagues above the RS3, and with the exception of the dreadful ride on 19" wheels betters the BMW too) with the RS3 motor and gearbox, because that almost certainly would have tempted me away from an M140i.
It's a shame nothing offers the combination of A45 AMG chassis (which IMO was leagues above the RS3, and with the exception of the dreadful ride on 19" wheels betters the BMW too) with the RS3 motor and gearbox, because that almost certainly would have tempted me away from an M140i.
Limpet said:
Why the M140i / RS3 comparisons? The M140i is priced and pitched to compete with the S3, not the RS3.
BMW Mxi= Audi Sx
BMW Mx = Audi RSx
Of course but it just demonstrate how the M140i punches above itd weight. I paid £26k for s new M135i LCI and would have chosen it even if the RS3 had been the same price.BMW Mxi= Audi Sx
BMW Mx = Audi RSx
HM-2 said:
I don't think they're substantively different- same basic engine code, same bore/stroke, same block.
In fact I'm not sure what internally differs between the various (300-400bhp) versions of the 2.5TFSI.
Yeah they might not be, I am pretty sure the 340 whatever engine out of the first ttrs/RS3 is the same as the 365 whatever engine in the pre facelift second RS3. But the 400hp one I thought may have had something else.In fact I'm not sure what internally differs between the various (300-400bhp) versions of the 2.5TFSI.
Edit, I looked into this. The 400PS one is engine code DAZA, the oldest ones are CEPA/CEPB and the pre facelift is CZGB. So there are differences small as they might be. DAZA has an aluminium crankcase
Edited by TomScrut on Saturday 16th February 09:05
TomScrut said:
Those who don't like the RS3, which one have they driven? The original and pre facelift are meant to be worse than the current (but not being made at the moment) model.
Don't think it's really a fair comparison though. As said above, Rs3 is the full package, m140i is not an M car.
M2 would be a more fair competition.
Kawasicki said:
I’m also sad to see the end of “small” BMWs with what I mostly associate with the brand, rear wheel drive. It’s the end of an era.
I also agree that it seemed to be their USP.
I wonder if they will sell Mini now? Do they still need that brand?
It makes them lots of money, so no they wont want to sell miniI also agree that it seemed to be their USP.
I wonder if they will sell Mini now? Do they still need that brand?
xjay1337 said:
TomScrut said:
Those who don't like the RS3, which one have they driven? The original and pre facelift are meant to be worse than the current (but not being made at the moment) model.
Don't think it's really a fair comparison though. As said above, Rs3 is the full package, m140i is not an M car.
M2 would be a more fair competition.
beresd said:
I'm confused (in that passive agressive way that means I am not, but think what has been said is stupid)....it says 140 (first number being series, second numbers being engine size), yet looking like a 3l engine...so surely 130?
BMW's badging stopped following engine size a long time ago.beresd said:
I'm confused (in that passive agressive way that means I am not, but think what has been said is stupid)....it says 140 (first number being series, second numbers being engine size), yet looking like a 3l engine...so surely 130?
Got the car for you thenhttps://racecarsdirect.com/Advert/Details/95854/bm...
xjay1337 said:
beresd said:
I'm confused (in that passive agressive way that means I am not, but think what has been said is stupid)....it says 140 (first number being series, second numbers being engine size), yet looking like a 3l engine...so surely 130?
Got the car for you thenhttps://racecarsdirect.com/Advert/Details/95854/bm...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff