G20 M340i vs. F80 M3

[BluM4]

I am truly surprised the new M340i is as fast as my F82. I have a feeling a semi-loaded M340i is going to be in the mid to high $50k. A bargain compared to the F80/F82.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2...i-paris-debut/

[minn19]

I’m not, it had to catch up with the competition so I figured it would be close, especially considering what the new 540 xDrive can do 0-60. It was a given the new 340/440 would be faster.

What I am surprised about is that they completely killed the manual for them. Queue a lot of pissed off future threads/posts. It doesn’t bode well for the next gen M3/4. I wonder if they’ll develope/certify a MT just for the M series. I have my doubts.

[nicknaz]

It's always been the suspension, brakes, weight reduction that make m3 special.

Just because the 8at 340 can match 6mt 0-60 isn't that big a deal.

I guess if the 340 is going to trap 115+ mph that would be a big deal

[PshhhhhMW]

Originally Posted by BluM4

I am truly surprised the new M340i is as fast as my F82. I have a feeling a semi-loaded M340i is going to be in the mid to high $50k. A bargain compared to the F80/F82.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2...i-paris-debut/

As quick as your f82 but not as fast. You'll start walking it at highway speeds.

[BluM4]

Originally Posted by nicknaz

It's always been the suspension, brakes, weight reduction that make m3 special.

Just because the 8at 340 can match 6mt 0-60 isn't that big a deal.

I guess if the 340 is going to trap 115+ mph that would be a big deal

Definitely true for the G80.

The V8 in the E90/E92 was the real differentiator compared to the regular 3 series, including the newer F30. BMW should keep the V8 (similar to the C63) for the F80/F82.

[nicknaz]

Originally Posted by BluM4

Definitely true for the G80.

The V8 in the E90/E92 was the real differentiator compared to the regular 3 series, including the newer F30. BMW should keep the V8 (similar to the C63) for the F80/F82.

I do like the v8 sounds, but e9x m3 was heavy.

Personally, I'd accept anything (very high output 4cyl, even) if it was paired with significant weight reduction, aero, and ability to fit 305 tires all around.

[hellokitty]

I have both 335is and f80 m3 and trust me, I always go for the m3 on the weekends. It just handles so much better and drives like a bmw should.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by BluM4

Definitely true for the G80.

The V8 in the E90/E92 was the real differentiator compared to the regular 3 series, including the newer F30. BMW should keep the V8 (similar to the C63) for the F80/F82.

The E30 had a "lowly" 4-pot while the high end E30 non-M had a 6-cylinder. Did it make the E30 M3 a lesser car because of it?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by BluM4

I am truly surprised the new M340i is as fast as my F82. I have a feeling a semi-loaded M340i is going to be in the mid to high $50k. A bargain compared to the F80/F82.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2...i-paris-debut/

Well, for starters it's AWD, which definitely helps with the off the line acceleration needed for good 0-60mph. But even then, at 4.2 seconds it's still a few ticks slower than BMW's claimed 0-60mph time for the DCT F8X M3/4. Not that 0-60mph matter that much though...

[nicknaz]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Not that 0-60mph matter that much though...

Doesn't matter to road course users since we've seen lower powered cars turning great laps and can appreciate a nuanced discussion on that topic but I've been SHOCKED by how much casual users value that 0-60 stat and associate that with being fast.

I guess for them, that's the most / only relatable aspect of performance (since everyone has floored it from a stoplight, regardless of what they are driving?)

[allinon72]

Same debate as the current F80/82 vs. 340i argument. It may be quick but it will not have the rawness, driving dynamics, uniqueness, or soul of an M.

[guess2098]

There are many cars can do better 0-60 than M but doesn't make them a better car.

[instarand]

Many people are starting to call one car "faster" than another based on 0-60. My reply is always, "what's its Nurburgring time??" A true gauge of fast. I guess it's that most people will never drive on a track but anybody can mash the petal of an auto at a stop light and smile. So nothing wrong with that I guess.

AWD technology and easy auto transmissions are allowing virtually any quick car to have 0-60 times that look like a Porsche. And hey, that's cool. General consumers eat that up.

My buddy has a 5-series and always bragged that it was faster than my 997 because of its recorded 0-60 time. I'm like dude... if I wanted to go to jail or die I'd show you how "fast" your heavy, slow 5 series is on a 15 mile race up the Merritt Parkway (a narrow, windy highway in southern CT). Or better yet, let's take both cars to a track day and spend a lot of money and new tires to prove a dumb argument lol!

But regardless, it is impressive what bmw has done w the new 3 series. 0-60 times are getting fast across all manufactures and it's fun to watch it all. Lots of low end torque, awd that hooks the power up real efficiently, and transmissions that allow you to just mash the petal.

To a previous posters point, let's get a G20 and an F80 for a 60-120 MPH "roll" race.

[mkoesel]

BMW is simply keeping up with the competition. The G20 M340i is no more an M3 alternative than any of its segment counterparts.

2019 Infiniti Q50 RS400 400hp
2019 Volvo S60 T8 400hp
2019 Mercedes C43 385hp
2019 BMW M340i 382hp
2019 Jaguar XE S 380hp
2019 Audi S4 354hp

[minn19]

Originally Posted by instarand

Many people are starting to call one car "faster" than another based on 0-60. My reply is always, "what's its Nurburgring time??" A true gauge of fast. I guess it's that most people will never drive on a track but anybody can mash the petal of an auto at a stop light and smile. So nothing wrong with that I guess.

AWD technology and easy auto transmissions are allowing virtually any quick car to have 0-60 times that look like a Porsche. And hey, that's cool. General consumers eat that up.

My buddy has a 5-series and always bragged that it was faster than my 997 because of its recorded 0-60 time. I'm like dude... if I wanted to go to jail or die I'd show you how "fast" your heavy, slow 5 series is on a 15 mile race up the Merritt Parkway (a narrow, windy highway in southern CT). Or better yet, let's take both cars to a track day and spend a lot of money and new tires to prove a dumb argument lol!

But regardless, it is impressive what bmw has done w the new 3 series. 0-60 times are getting fast across all manufactures and it's fun to watch it all. Lots of low end torque, awd that hooks the power up real efficiently, and transmissions that allow you to just mash the petal.

To a previous posters point, let's get a G20 and an F80 for a 60-120 MPH "roll" race.

I get what you are saying, but 0-60 times and even the ‘Ring times (any lap time for that matter) are two of the most meaningless stats for a fun drivers car. It is pure marketing and means nothing to 99.5% of the buyers out there. I guess 0-60 is the most useful stat as people like to just mash the pedal and go without thinking about other attributes of the car.

[erictrainer]

IMHO even within this forum the ones who judge a cars capability based on track times remain a small minority. Quite honestly I get it, because not long ago l was that guy too, once you really start tracking and chasing times is when you start measuring with a different stick.

The first thing the average car enthusiast will look at when car reviews are out is the 0-60 and 1/4 times, and car manufactures get this all too well.

[nicknaz]

Originally Posted by instarand

My buddy has a 5-series and always bragged that it was faster than my 997 because of its recorded 0-60 time. I'm like dude... if I wanted to go to jail or die I'd show you how "fast" your heavy, slow 5 series is on a 15 mile race up the Merritt Parkway (a narrow, windy highway in southern CT). Or better yet, let's take both cars to a track day and spend a lot of money and new tires to prove a dumb argument lol

Put it another way, you claim your 997 is better in the canyons and at the track and since neither of you want to drive hard enough in the canyons or invest in track time, your claim will be hypothetical.

Whereas when you pull up to a light and floor it, you might lose or barely keep up. Either way, that sucks for you, because he can demonstrate his claim any time, while you can't.

You should bet him the cost of track entry fee and tires. That should put it to bed.

Or switch up to a big turbo 997.1TT or something else with so much firepower the issue is moot

[Tacoma]

Originally Posted by BluM4

Definitely true for the G80.

The V8 in the E90/E92 was the real differentiator compared to the regular 3 series, including the newer F30. BMW should keep the V8 (similar to the C63) for the F80/F82.

Like this commercial, the E9x is old, 2 generations old now. The V8 was heavy and consumes gas like Joey Chestnut consumes hot dogs. We have better more efficient engines now, time to move on.

[instarand]

Originally Posted by nicknaz

Put it another way, you claim your 997 is better in the canyons and at the track and since neither of you want to drive hard enough in the canyons or invest in track time, your claim will be hypothetical.

Whereas when you pull up to a light and floor it, you might lose or barely keep up. Either way, that sucks for you, because he can demonstrate his claim any time, while you can't.

You should bet him the cost of track entry fee and tires. That should put it to bed.

Or switch up to a big turbo 997.1TT or something else with so much firepower the issue is moot

Lol yep, right on. That's a good idea with the track cost bet! I like it.

But you're right on. Every day driving, and real world debates can really only be tested by slamming the gas.

And yes manufacturers are very smart. 0-60 marketing all day and it works.

[bringbacklsb]

Originally Posted by minn19

I get what you are saying, but 0-60 times and even the ‘Ring times (any lap time for that matter) are two of the most meaningless stats for a fun drivers car. It is pure marketing and means nothing to 99.5% of the buyers out there. I guess 0-60 is the most useful stat as people like to just mash the pedal and go without thinking about other attributes of the car.

You said 0-60 is pure marketing and means nothing to 99.5% of buyers, yet marketing is done with the specific purpose of influencing buyers, and the truth is that they use this stat because the mass market pays close attention to 0-60 times. Very few drivers look at cars as technically as people on this forum, and 0-60 has been a long time stat that buyers turn to in order to judge performance. To the average guy buying a car, a lower 0-60 time means faster and more powerful, therefore better. That is why this statistic is publicized most even though to a very small enthusiast audience who looks beyond 0-60, it is the worst statistic to judge the overall performance of a vehicle. Car companies target the mass audience, as they should, since they make up most of their sales, not 1,000 people on a BMW forum.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by bringbacklsb

You said 0-60 is pure marketing and means nothing to 99.5% of buyers, yet marketing is done with the specific purpose of influencing buyers, and the truth is that they use this stat because the mass market pays close attention to 0-60 times. Very few drivers look at cars as technically as people on this forum, and 0-60 has been a long time stat that buyers turn to in order to judge performance. To the average guy buying a car, a lower 0-60 time means faster and more powerful, therefore better. That is why this statistic is publicized most even though to a very small enthusiast audience who looks beyond 0-60, it is the worst statistic to judge the overall performance of a vehicle. Car companies target the mass audience, as they should, since they make up most of their sales, not 1,000 people on a BMW forum.

Agreed, but so what. It’s just like bad marketing about AWD etc, it doesn’t make it right.

‘Ring times are great, except for the fact that maybe only 2-3 people on this forum could even come close to the advertised times. Assuming the manufacturer isn’t fudging something or hiding the fact they juiced the test car a little here and there.

This topic has come up a lot on here. If all you want is a great 0-60 car there are and have been better choices than the current M3/4. A lot of times much cheaper as well, especially if you like to mod.

Edit: I also said a 0-60 time is a useless stat when it comes to determining how fun a car is to drive.

[JamesGames]

in the last 20 something years, it's the same thing that's been going on. M cars will be M cars and if you don't feel M cars are worth their premium, buy the cheaper, newer non M and pass on the M cars.

E30M or E36 328is?
E36M or E46 330i?
E46M or E92 335i?
E9XM or F32 335 / 340?
F8XM or G20 M340i?

5/5 of those choices I'll take the older M car anyday.

The new M340i would crush every single M car under the F8X in a straight line acceleration.. end of the day it isn't an M car to / for me though, and nothing wrong with that.