|
Post by johnc on Nov 16, 2017 7:43:16 GMT
I got my subscription copy through the post yesterday and see that BMW must have been doing a bit of advertising! I only had a cursory glance at breakfast this morning but I see the group test of the 440iGC, new A5 Sportsback (don't know what flavour but probably S5) and the new Kia Stinger, puts the 440i out front. The letter page carries one from a guy who had an M4 and now has a 440i and he prefers the 440i and a look at buying an E92 335i which they say was nearly an M3 in performance but much cheaper (also 135i and E60 525D). Interesting looking article on the electric Porsche and the current GT2.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 16, 2017 10:51:03 GMT
Interesting, because Pistonheads were rather rude about the 440i coupe the other day when comparing it to the Stinger. To summarise, they said it went like stink but handled like a blancmange.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 20, 2017 12:24:52 GMT
I haven't read the 440i vs, etc article yet but I nearly didn't buy the mag at all due to the amount spunk they'd shot all over Porsche on the front cover.
I assume the pages inside that relate to Porsche will be stuck together.........
*** Obviously I have opened the mag and I see that Georg Kacher has written the Porsche stuff so no point in reading it then, eh?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Dec 5, 2017 12:04:53 GMT
Have read the 440i piece now and it actually seems quite balanced. Basically says that if you were comparing a 420d versus an equivalent A5 Sportback, the latter would walk it on grounds of design, showroom appeal, interior quality and refinement. But that when comparing the performance flagships, the driving experience should trump interior design etc, and that when it comes to actually driving, the 440i soundly spanks the S5.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Dec 5, 2017 13:42:46 GMT
In the latest EVO the new RS3 saloon has taken a bit of a beating in driving dynamics. Its clearly very fast but phrases like 'one-dimensional' were used.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Dec 5, 2017 14:04:44 GMT
In the latest EVO the new RS3 saloon has taken a bit of a beating in driving dynamics. Its clearly very fast but phrases like 'one-dimensional' were used. I do have a real problem with this kind of journalism because exactly where and when could you exploit a car on the public road to the extent that you notice the finer nuances of driving on the limit in cars which are quite clearly capable of breaking every speed limit before they get out of 3rd.
I read that article and thought I would rather have the RS3 for the engine, exhaust sound and the all weather capability which they said would leave the M2 lagging well behind. As a car for the road, it has to be capable in all weathers and conditions and if it's just a track weapon, buy a Caterham or Atom.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Dec 5, 2017 14:08:26 GMT
I have a friend whose wife has a 2016 RS3 Sportback and he loves it. Said friend has raced Lotuses and also has a 360 Modena, so he knows a thing or two about cars and driving. He says that the RS3 is of course something of a blunt weapon chassis-wise but says it is just so hilariously fast and snorty that in the everyday driving that it gets used for, the niceties of handling finesse are neither here nor there, and the security of the all-paw drive is useful to have.
I loved the one I tried, but my wife hated the design.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Dec 5, 2017 14:20:36 GMT
I'd also rather have the RS3 - I love 5 pot engines. Also, all the M2s I've seen have been driven by, as 12th would say, the thick of neck.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Dec 5, 2017 14:29:49 GMT
I’d have the RS3 over the M2 as well, but it would have to be the saloon as it looks much better than the estate, which isn’t usually (ever?) the case with Audi’s. Same reasons as above, makes much more sense as an every day car.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Dec 6, 2017 14:12:55 GMT
I’d have the RS3 over the M2 as well, but it would have to be the saloon as it looks much better than the estate, which isn’t usually (ever?) the case with Audi’s. Same reasons as above, makes much more sense as an every day car. The A3 saloon is a pretty car in S/RS form - the big wheels and arches remove the dumpiness that afflicts lesser versions.
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Dec 6, 2017 15:50:30 GMT
Not for me, M2 every time over an RS3. The looks alone are enough but I know that the RS3 would bore me in a relative short time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 19:26:16 GMT
Not for me, M2 every time over an RS3. The looks alone are enough but I know that the RS3 would bore me in a relative short time. Are you a thickneck? I guess I'd be one too as I'd choose the M2......but I'd rather have a black or white 1M for looks. I do miss the white one who used to do the same commute as me some mornings in the Summer Then again, I'd happily drive a saloon RS3 and pretend I was Walter Rohrl with the window down and stereo muted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 9:00:06 GMT
The thought of an RS3/TTRS with decent steering is one of the few that has caused me to consider changing my car. But alas no such thing exists, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Dec 7, 2017 9:41:50 GMT
The thought of an RS3/TTRS with decent steering is one of the few that has caused me to consider changing my car. But alas no such thing exists, it seems. The latest RS3/TTRS engine is an aluminium affair which saves a considerable amount of weight so it is a significant improvement on the old one. I think you should go and try one for a decent drive because the Journos often make a big thing out of not very much. The steering feel on mine isn't as good as the last car but now I am used to it, I can still place it accurately and I just sense what it is doing through slightly different means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 9:48:43 GMT
I did say 'consider' - truth be told I think I am now too mean/sensible. I aim to stop working in nine years, and the amount of depreciation I'd be funding would be too painful - I'd rather it went in the pension.
|
|
|
Post by alf on Jan 3, 2018 17:40:10 GMT
I still want to see someone try the XE S V6 against the 440i / S5 / C43 AMG - has it been done since the facelifted XE took the power quite a bit higher? It seems widely ignored.
The E9X 335i remains a major performance bargain - it goes well, handles well, and is eminently tuneable with loads of parts available. I don't think the newer shape 335i / 440i moved the game on that much - not compared to the current C class over the last one, or the S5 now over the old one, etc. The BMW is good now, but it was good before. If I fell on harder times an E9X 335i would be a serious consideration....
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 4, 2018 13:08:50 GMT
To be fair, I think the 340i/440i is a performance bargain. Saloons start used for under £25k for cars no older than late 2015, Tourings, Coupes and Gran Coupes kick in under £30k and convertibles start around £30k. 35i variants are £5-10k less than that.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 4, 2018 13:39:18 GMT
I've just had a look on AT and the prices for the limited number of estate versions on sale are interesting - £29.5k for a 2015/65 with 20k miles or £400 more for a 2017/17 with 100 miles.
I know the specs may vary a bit but all the newer ones appear to have at least the pano roof. Not sure if any have electric seats though, as that's quickly becoming an issue for Mrs Tim!
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Jan 4, 2018 13:48:51 GMT
I agree that’s it’s a relative bargain compared to the direct competition, possibly because it’s perceived as more of a normal model than an S4/5 or C43?
Evo have a 4 cylinder Alfa as their sports saloon of choice, with the Mercedes and Audi as runners up, no mention of the 340i/440i which was a surprise as I thought they liked it.
edit: Tim - there are 4 x 340i estates with memory seats, but none look especially good value to me.
|
|
|
Post by Sav on Jan 4, 2018 22:33:44 GMT
I think the 340i particularly becomes a relative bargain with the discounts that can be achieved on new ones. Then, you’re almost looking at a 340i with a 330i list price or less. It doesn’t appear that the discounts are particularly generous for the XE-S, C43 or S4. Those cars quickly become 50k + cars, and at that price, I would want top-dog like an M3 or C63.
I do wonder about the 340i’s performance deficit in reality. The B58 seems to be quite an engine in the smaller BMW’s. Of course, the M240i has more power and torque, but some of the 0-100 mph runs it has achieved are outstanding – can’t think a 340i would be that far behind. And you can still have a manual with the 340i Saloon and 440i Coupe.
The 340i Shadow Edition makes it even better value. Individually adding all of those options to a non-Shadow edition would cost more, but I don’t like the black grills or black tail pipes, so I would give it a miss.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 5, 2018 12:46:51 GMT
Having just driven my 440i 2,500 miles around Europe, I'm not aware that it has anything that could be described as a performance deficit, particularly for the price-point. It goes like stink when you prod it. In fact, pretty much every review comments that the car feels extremely quick (including the one to which this thread relates).
And yet the economy is acceptable - on our way back to England from the Alps on Tuesday, I filled up outside Bourg-en-Bresse and then next re-fuelled in Kent, where I managed to squeeze 53 litres (11.7 gallons) in. That's give or take 700kms (435 miles). So that's 37.1mpg, which is almost exactly what the trip computer suggested (it read 37.4mpg for the full journey from Courmayeur). Moreover, that's with an average speed of over 70mph for entire 900km trip.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 5, 2018 13:10:50 GMT
I presume Sav meant the deficit compared with the M3/4 or C63?
Does the 340/440 have a sub-60 litre tank?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 5, 2018 13:51:56 GMT
I presume Sav meant the deficit compared with the M3/4 or C63? Does the 340/440 have a sub-60 litre tank? No, it's 60 litres, but the fuel range indicator must be fairly pessimistic, as I have never managed to get more than 55 litres into it, even when the range indicator is having a heart attack that the car is imminently going to run dry.
For example, when I filled up in Kent, it said my remaining range was 25 miles, but I only managed to squeeze 53 litres in. 7 litres is 1.5 gallons, so at 37mpg, I'd actually have been good for a further 55 miles.
In fact, I've just looked up the stated fuel range of the 440i on Parkers and it says 475 miles, so that matches pretty well.
Obviously, I am well aware that a 435d could have done the entire 1,000+km journey on a single tank.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 5, 2018 14:04:21 GMT
I think I'd get irritated at having to fill up three times a fortnight, based on our current mileage and the expected fuel economy to be around 30.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 5, 2018 15:29:56 GMT
If my mileage was that high, I would have a 435d, no question about it. But I do about 8k a year (2.5k of which is an annual trip to Italy), which is around 150 miles per week on average and there are weeks where the car doesn't move at all. So I can afford to indulge.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 5, 2018 16:06:45 GMT
Obviously, I am well aware that a 435d could have done the entire 1,000+km journey on a single tank.
Maybe! 37.1mpg with an average over 70mph is really good. On a motorway cruise I can get 50mpg as long as I don't venture over 80mph or engage in any acceleration games.
To get an average of 70mph means you must have been tramping on somewhat which would probably leave mine nearer 43/45mpg in similar circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Jan 5, 2018 16:07:16 GMT
I think I'd get irritated at having to fill up three times a fortnight, based on our current mileage and the expected fuel economy to be around 30. I filled up yesterday morning and will have to do so again tonight, with a 550-600 mile range. I hate filling up..... Over 400 miles for a medium size car with a decent petrol engine is pretty good though. john - my European mpg had always been 10%+ better than theoretically similar driving in the U.K. I got all the way from Dover to Milan via an Alpine pass on 1 tank in the 520d cruising at 80-85mph
|
|
|
Post by Sav on Jan 5, 2018 23:43:13 GMT
I was referring to the 340i’s power deficit compared to its closest rivals. Despite that, it appears to match or exceed them in terms of straight-line pace. Autocar recently pitted the 440i against an XE-S with the updated 375 bhp unit, and the Kia Stinger. Both have more power, quite a bit more, yet they said the 440i felt it had the strongest motor. That correlates to what owners are saying, and the 0-100 mph runs done with B58-engined BMW’s.
35i and 40i BMW’s are impressive. In an E92 335i Autocar did 0-60 mph in 5.2 secs and 0-100 mph in 12.2 secs – still fairly rapid today. In an M135i they did 0-60 mph in 4.6 secs, and 0-100 mph in 11.4 secs – merely 0.1 secs behind a 1M. Of course, that’s magazine stuff, but it’s clear from what owners say that the N55 and B58 BMW’s are damn quick in normal conditions. And quicker than cars that have more power.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 6, 2018 8:14:15 GMT
........the N55 and B58 BMW’s are damn quick in normal conditions. And quicker than cars that have more power. Perhaps BMW's conservative power claims are a little more conservative than normal now that they have turbos bolted on.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 8, 2018 10:47:32 GMT
........the N55 and B58 BMW’s are damn quick in normal conditions. And quicker than cars that have more power. Perhaps BMW's conservative power claims are a little more conservative than normal now that they have turbos bolted on. I think I've raised this point before. When you look at magazine tests of things like the big SUVs then a Merc Ml/X5/Audi Q7 is always significantly faster for both 0-60 and top speed than, say, a Range Rover despite the latter always having a similar level of power, being the same weight and usually having the same gearbox. I know the measures are irrelevant but to me it gives an indication of comparative performance. I get the impression that there could be a big variance in claimed power figures. Either that or the German car manufacturers as a group have decided to cheat (nothing's unlikely after dieselgate) by winding the boost right up on the press cars
|
|