BMW M140i vs Golf R. Which is best for Britain and tuning?

[ScoobyChris]

CG2020UK said:

Your right mate I heard once you drive it over 90 days it magically solves on the issues and Denys physics despite all contrary evidence.

I’ve had mine for 5.5 years now and will take my experience over people who just rehash internet folklore.
The car really is easy to drive fast and pulling away from traffic lights in the rain today was uneventful and the car just shot off like a scalded cat with no fuss or drama. Clarkson also seemed to manage it in the rain against the Golf GTI in the infamous drag race.

Still, I’m probably just imagining it because of “physics” and the wealth of contrary evidence out there so please ignore me.

TTFN

Chris

[HM-2]

CG2020UK said:

ScoobyChris said:

Hmmm sounds like the opinion of someone who doesn’t drive one as a daily?

Chris

Your right mate I heard once you drive it over 90 days it magically solves on the issues and Denys physics despite all contrary evidence.

The M140i is faster in any direct straight-line comparison than the R in standard form (in many metrics by a significant margin), and getting power down really isn't that hard in the dry. IME you're much more likely to bog the R and get a crap start than you are mess up launching an M140i. Now obviously AWD lends benefits in situations where there's less available grip, and on a winding damp country road an M140i is very unlikely to keep pace with an R. But in any straight-line, dry-weather comparison, regardless of standing versus rolling start, slope (??) or other factors, the M140 is somewhere between slightly and significantly faster in standard form.

FWIW, a tuned M140i with no supporting modifications will definitely struggle to get the power down...but a tuned M140i with a proper limited slip differential and suspension tweaks will be a completely different story...

[CG2020UK]

ScoobyChris said:

I’ve had mine for 5.5 years now and will take my experience over people who just rehash internet folklore.
The car really is easy to drive fast and pulling away from traffic lights in the rain today was uneventful and the car just shot off like a scalded cat with no fuss or drama. Clarkson also seemed to manage it in the rain against the Golf GTI in the infamous drag race.

Still, I’m probably just imagining it because of “physics” and the wealth of contrary evidence out there so please ignore me.

TTFN

Chris

Mate I don’t even know what you are arguing here.

My comment is regarding the AWD hot hatches of its class not the 100bhp less FWD GTI. The same cars quicker in the Car WOW video off the line even in the dry.

Your talking about internet folklore but all of a sudden your RWD 300+bhp car isn’t spinning up and having traction control kick in when it’s 10C and soaking wet come on.

Next you’ll be telling us there isn’t anything wrong with suspension and it’s the best handling car in class that is amazing going down B roads.

Good car with flaws just like any other but this cult like obsession by owners is ridiculous.

[CG2020UK]

HM-2 said:

The M140i is faster in any direct straight-line comparison than the R in standard form (in many metrics by a significant margin), and getting power down really isn't that hard in the dry. IME you're much more likely to bog the R and get a crap start than you are mess up launching an M140i. Now obviously AWD lends benefits in situations where there's less available grip, and on a winding damp country road an M140i is very unlikely to keep pace with an R. But in any straight-line, dry-weather comparison, regardless of standing versus rolling start, slope (??) or other factors, the M140 is somewhere between slightly and significantly faster in standard form.

FWIW, a tuned M140i with no supporting modifications will definitely struggle to get the power down...but a tuned M140i with a proper limited slip differential and suspension tweaks will be a completely different story...

I literally said “The M140i is only going to be fastest on a dry, flat A road in a rolling race in summer.”

It’s a hairline in the Car WOW video so not a chance in the damp or wet like we get in the U.K.

https://youtu.be/m62NJftSS7g

I don’t own either so I don’t have a dog in this fight. I drive an M2 now and a GTI previously so I’m as unbiased as you’ll get.

Edited by CG2020UK on Sunday 23 October 16:36

[ScoobyChris]

CG2020UK said:

Mate I don’t even know what you are arguing here.

I’m calling you out on your comment saying you can only put the power down in summer from a rolling start on a slope (?). This just simply is not true.

CG2020UK said:

My comment is regarding the AWD hot hatches of its class not the 100bhp less FWD GTI.

And my comment was specifically to illustrate that other people driving the car can put the power down without issue in the wet without the wheels spinning up and traction control kicking in.

CG2020UK said:

Your talking about internet folklore but all of a sudden your RWD 300+bhp car isn’t spinning up and having traction control kick in when it’s 10C and soaking wet come on.

See above.

CG2020UK said:

Next you’ll be telling us there isn’t anything wrong with suspension and it’s the best handling car in class that is amazing going down B roads.

I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that, but what I will say is that internet folklore is at work again here and people who have never even been in one say it is “undrivable” without replacing the suspension, adding a diff, braces, M4 LCAs, etc. Anything can be improved by modifying if that’s your bag, but the reality is, out of the box it can be hustled along at 8/10ths quite happily and I haven’t felt the need to modify it.

Chris

[Dylanaledhall]

The Golf can't hold a candle to the 140 in a straight line, I'd still argue a stock M140i is significantly faster than a stage 1 remapped Golf R. When you tune the 140, on a dry straight line they're just missiles.

Again though, even though the Golf may be the most composed of the two, It still won't encourage you to drive quickly because of how mundane they are. Even tuned ones, people say yes they're quick but it's still like you're being driven, they're quite "robotic". Don't get me wrong, an M140i isn't a hoot to drive but in comparison it will be more than capable of putting a smile on your face, the one I drove definitely did. Like I would love to drive another M140, I definitely don't feel the same way towards the Golf. Sorry to any Golf fans but I just didn't engage with that car at all and I really wanted to, I went to the test drive hoping I would really like it and I just didn't bond with it unfortunately.

[HM-2]

CG2020UK said:

I literally said “The M140i is only going to be fastest on a dry, flat A road in a rolling race in summer.”

Maybe try reading my post again. The M140i is faster from both a stationary and rolling start in the dry in reality, as well is should be given the substantial power and torque advantages it has.

CG2020UK said:

It’s a hairline in the Car WOW video

Ah yes, and a Carwow video is the ultimate arbiter of comparative performance despite the fact stock M140is, including mine, will routinely do quarter miles in the mid 12s.

CG2020UK said:

I don’t own either so I don’t have a dog in this fight

Having no dog in the fight doesn't magically lend your claims additional validity, though, does it?

Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 23 October 17:14

[CG2020UK]

ScoobyChris said:

CG2020UK said:

Mate I don’t even know what you are arguing here.

I’m calling you out on your comment saying you can only put the power down in summer from a rolling start on a slope (?). This just simply is not true.

CG2020UK said:

My comment is regarding the AWD hot hatches of its class not the 100bhp less FWD GTI.

And my comment was specifically to illustrate that other people driving the car can put the power down without issue in the wet without the wheels spinning up and traction control kicking in.

CG2020UK said:

Your talking about internet folklore but all of a sudden your RWD 300+bhp car isn’t spinning up and having traction control kick in when it’s 10C and soaking wet come on.

See above.

CG2020UK said:

Next you’ll be telling us there isn’t anything wrong with suspension and it’s the best handling car in class that is amazing going down B roads.

I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that, but what I will say is that internet folklore is at work again here and people who have never even been in one say it is “undrivable” without replacing the suspension, adding a diff, braces, M4 LCAs, etc. Anything can be improved by modifying if that’s your bag, but the reality is, out of the box it can be hustled along at 8/10ths quite happily and I haven’t felt the need to modify it.

Chris

Come off it stomp the pedal on a 320D and it will even spin it’s wheels and fight for traction.

[ScoobyChris]

CG2020UK said:

Come off it stomp the pedal on a 320D and it will even spin it’s wheels and fight for traction.

My 120d didn’t although I tend to squeeze the pedal rather than stomp on it. Maybe this is why I get the best out of the cars ;-)

Chris

[HM-2]

CG2020UK said:

Come off it stomp the pedal on a 320D and it will even spin it’s wheels and fight for traction.

What kind of idiot uses this as a point of comparison? "If you treat the throttle of car X as a binary switch it will struggle for traction" no st.

[CG2020UK]

Dylanaledhall said:

The Golf can't hold a candle to the 140 in a straight line, I'd still argue a stock M140i is significantly faster than a stage 1 remapped Golf R. When you tune the 140, on a dry straight line they're just missiles.

Again though, even though the Golf may be the most composed of the two, It still won't encourage you to drive quickly because of how mundane they are. Even tuned ones, people say yes they're quick but it's still like you're being driven, they're quite "robotic". Don't get me wrong, an M140i isn't a hoot to drive but in comparison it will be more than capable of putting a smile on your face, the one I drove definitely did. Like I would love to drive another M140, I definitely don't feel the same way towards the Golf. Sorry to any Golf fans but I just didn't engage with that car at all and I really wanted to, I went to the test drive hoping I would really like it and I just didn't bond with it unfortunately.

But it literally can especially with the legal speeds you were talking about.

https://youtu.be/m62NJftSS7g

If you prefer the M140i definitely get it as that’s what matter at the end of the day and it’s still a good car. God knows I’d have had an M4 instead of an M2 if I’d followed my head instead of my heart.

However the cult following of just incorrect rubbish is ridiculous where they are now as quick as M4s or hammering AWD cars off the line on a wet Autumn’s day.

I’m a big believer in there is no such thing as a bad car just the wrong car for your use case.

[HM-2]

CG2020UK said:

However the cult following of just incorrect rubbish is ridiculous where they are now as quick as M4s or hammering AWD cars off the line on a wet Autumn’s day.

I really don't know if you're so unwilling to countenance the fact you're wrong that you'll happily just make up st, or if your basic reading comprehension is really that bad.

[Dylanaledhall]

CG2020UK said:

But it literally can especially with the legal speeds you were talking about.

https://youtu.be/m62NJftSS7g


I’m a big believer in there is no such thing as a bad car just the wrong car for your use case.

Golf does get dropped in that rolling race by the 140 which I'm not surprised by. Even at legal speeds, the 140 is a much quicker car, I cannot stress that enough. I remember watching that video when it came out and remember taking away that the 140 was much faster than the competition on a roll (obviously an RS3 didn't take part in the video so can't really comment on that).

To me, the 140 just feels so much quicker and that's the car that I did want as soon as I sat in it and drove off on the test drive. I know speed isn't everything but when you are looking to buy a performance car it does have to impress acceleration-wise. because we all know people buy these types of cars based on stats (0-60, power, torque and nurburgring lap times if that's your cup of tea).

The Golf is definitely not a bad car, like you say you probably end up with a car that's just not suited to your style or driving. I think a stage 2 one might be slightly better but I don't think a 40/50bhp difference will really make the car feel that drastically different, still a car that anyone can drive quickly in. To some that's massively appealing, I know many that buy them because they share with partners that may not be as into cars as themselves therefore want them to have something that's very safe, predictable and can be very sedated. I like my cars to be aggressive like with my ST I love to make it spin up and it's great fun in the wet, you can get the back end moving if that's your type of thing but I don't really like doing it much, especially because of the risk and it's not very sensible.
I'm sure I'd value the AWD for all year round but I genuinely think the novelty would wear off and I'd happily take a crappier 0-60 if it meant I was faster on a roll and was having more fun, with a much better engine and gearbox combination too.

[CG2020UK]

ScoobyChris said:

My 120d didn’t although I tend to squeeze the pedal rather than stomp on it. Maybe this is why I get the best out of the cars ;-)

Chris

Almost like your managing traction wouldn’t you say.

Imagine if some cars you could stamp down harder on the pedal as they weren’t as traction limited. You know like AWD cars.

[ScoobyChris]

Dylanaledhall said:

I know many that buy them because they share with partners that may not be as into cars as themselves therefore want them to have something that's very safe, predictable and can be very sedated.

My wife is a pretty inexperienced driver (and has no interest in cars or speed). We bought her a small city car when she wanted to start driving again but she has fallen out of love with it as the clutch is a bit fussy to use smoothly. Ironically, she hopped in the M140i and drives it about without any issue at all. Obviously she doesn’t drive it fast or push it, but the fact that it can be sedate enough for her to get from A to B is a big win for me.

Chris

[CG2020UK]

HM-2 said:

CG2020UK said:

I literally said “The M140i is only going to be fastest on a dry, flat A road in a rolling race in summer.”

Maybe try reading my post again. The M140i is faster from both a stationary and rolling start in the dry in reality, as well is should be given the substantial power and torque advantages it has.

CG2020UK said:

It’s a hairline in the Car WOW video

Ah yes, and a Carwow video is the ultimate arbiter of comparative performance despite the fact stock M140is, including mine, will routinely do quarter miles in the mid 12s.

CG2020UK said:

I don’t own either so I don’t have a dog in this fight

Having no dog in the fight doesn't magically lend your claims additional validity, though, does it?

Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 23 October 17:14

Now your making stuff up with blanket statements, you need to define a finish. The M140i needs time and road to grip up and get going simple as. 0-60 the Golf is quicker it’s a fact which in the real world makes the biggest difference on a public road.

Even coming up with specific days for your car to be quicker is just silly.

Car Wow videos are objective that’s why I use it. You coming in with your quarter mile time in the 12s means nothing as there is no evidence off it and it’s no different to everyone claiming their engine comes with an extra 50bhp from the factory.

[CG2020UK]

Dylanaledhall said:

Golf does get dropped in that rolling race by the 140 which I'm not surprised by. Even at legal speeds, the 140 is a much quicker car, I cannot stress that enough. I remember watching that video when it came out and remember taking away that the 140 was much faster than the competition on a roll (obviously an RS3 didn't take part in the video so can't really comment on that).

To me, the 140 just feels so much quicker and that's the car that I did want as soon as I sat in it and drove off on the test drive. I know speed isn't everything but when you are looking to buy a performance car it does have to impress acceleration-wise. because we all know people buy these types of cars based on stats (0-60, power, torque and nurburgring lap times if that's your cup of tea).

The Golf is definitely not a bad car, like you say you probably end up with a car that's just not suited to your style or driving. I think a stage 2 one might be slightly better but I don't think a 40/50bhp difference will really make the car feel that drastically different, still a car that anyone can drive quickly in. To some that's massively appealing, I know many that buy them because they share with partners that may not be as into cars as themselves therefore want them to have something that's very safe, predictable and can be very sedated. I like my cars to be aggressive like with my ST I love to make it spin up and it's great fun in the wet, you can get the back end moving if that's your type of thing but I don't really like doing it much, especially because of the risk and it's not very sensible.
I'm sure I'd value the AWD for all year round but I genuinely think the novelty would wear off and I'd happily take a crappier 0-60 if it meant I was faster on a roll and was having more fun, with a much better engine and gearbox combination too.

Your very much preaching to the converted here regarding 0-60 or else I’d have bought a Tesla.

I totally agree an M140i is quicker on the move than an R I said it from one of my earlier posts. However off the line until you clear license losing speeds the Golf R is going to be quicker.

If you buy the car thinking otherwise and it’s a key factor your going to be disappointed.

If I had around £25K I’d be in a Type-R or I30N.

[Dylanaledhall]

ScoobyChris said:

My wife is a pretty inexperienced driver (and has no interest in cars or speed). We bought her a small city car when she wanted to start driving again but she has fallen out of love with it as the clutch is a bit fussy to use smoothly. Ironically, she hopped in the M140i and drives it about without any issue at all. Obviously she doesn’t drive it fast or push it, but the fact that it can be sedate enough for her to get from A to B is a big win for me.

Chris

I keep trying to get my girlfriend to drive the ST, she does want to but I want her to insure herself on like a temporary cover such as Veygo or Day insure because I don't want to add her as a named driver if she ends up never driving it or hates it etc

[popeyewhite]

CG2020UK said:

Now your making stuff up with blanket statements, you need to define a finish. The M140i needs time and road to grip up and get going simple as. 0-60 the Golf is quicker it’s a fact which in the real world makes the biggest difference on a public road.

i thought the Mi40i handling was very poor on fast twisty roads, the Golf r was better but neither could be described as exciting. They both felt quick, the BMW had the better auto box. Driven at legal speeds in a straight line the BMW was fun, the Golf was also fun, but went round corners quite well. Given the terrain round here (High Peak), as a main driver I'd take the Golf every time as it will also do winter, which will be a pain in the 140i.

Incidentally the standard '18 Golf r has quite regularly done very fast 0-60 times so I'm inclined to agree all being equal the Golf r will be quicker.

[HM-2]

CG2020UK said:

Now your making stuff up with blanket statements, you need to define a finish. The M140i needs time and road to grip up and get going simple as. 0-60 the Golf is quicker

Firstly, I'm using the measures you yourself have provided. Secondly, you're wrong. The M140i is faster 0-60 than the Mk7 Golf. 4.7 plays 4.6 in official stats and plenty of standard 140s have pulled times in the 4.4 range. Iirc the 140i is something like 10.9 0-100 with the R being a good20% slower.

CG2020UK said:

Even coming up with specific days for your car to be quicker is just silly.

Nobody did, you dolt.

CG2020UK said:

Car Wow videos are objective

The might be, but representative they are not. "Some random wker only managed X time on a greasy March day so that's as fast as a car can possibly go" makes you look utterly delusional.

CG2020UK said:

You coming in with your quarter mile time in the 12s means nothing as there is no evidence off it

Well, except the photos of my car doing a 12.7 second quarter, and the literally dozens of other 140is that have photographic proof and printed slips from drag racing showing completely bone stock cars doing mid 12s, and dipping as low as 12.4.

CG2020UK said:

and it’s no different to everyone claiming their engine comes with an extra 50bhp from the factory.

Well it sort of is because there's a huge wealth of documentary evidence of unmodified B58s dynoing in the 360-370 range.

Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 23 October 19:59