[RLL RACER]

Originally Posted by Sbu

M340i is an M car.
M3 is an M car.
There both have motorsport devision DNA/Design/Specifications.
Note I didn’t say full or baby. No. M car.

You all can picket outside of BMW corp in Jersey demanding that only M3-4,6 and 8 cars should have M badges. You will be removed as quick as you got there. In Europe etc all BMW 3 series as 1 example have m badges all around if you ordered the M sport packages.

As a side note the M badged Modified 3 series G20 i mentioned earlier will out perform in every scenario over any M3 on up. GUARANTEED! I was shocked and impressed. They really made it a looker as well Great Job guys at GR performance!

[TheStoic]

Originally Posted by Sbu

People be losing their minds because BMW put ‘M’ mirrors on an M340i. “These mirrors are for M car”
Lol. Its just a mass produced plastic shell. BMW can put it in any car they want and style it as they please. They are NOT for a specific car just like you see M branding.
Hence no such thing as real or true M car.

Some of the M3/4 guys are insecure and exclusivity matters A LOT to some of them. It’s very important that their car can beat your car on a racetrack. Have compassion for them.

[Sbu]

Originally Posted by oz555

Certainly not a M car by any means. Powerful 3 series but nothing more than that.

If I go on BMW website and click on M, the M135i shows up, the M235i shows up, the M240i shows up, the M2 shows up, the M3, M4 show up, the M5 shows up.. to name but a few M cars

Anyone who says these are not M cars can go fly a kite.
The above is all M cars. Not baby, not true. Just ///M

[Sbu]

Originally Posted by TheStoic

Some of the M3/4 guys are insecure and exclusivity matters A LOT to some of them. It’s very important that their car can beat your car on a racetrack. Have compassion for them.

I know, they throw their toys just coz fiber roof is included on the M340i shouting “This is only for the very true M models, not M lites”

They can beat my M240i by a few seconds for all I care.. heck I will slow down and hand him a full minute or 2 just to boost his ego …that’s if they are lucky to even find me on their stupid track

Isn’t the track reserved for full M cars anyway

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Sbu

The guys on here talk as it they decide what car deserves M. No. It’s BMW that decides. They can make another higher spec model if they want and call that the M and make the current M4 an M440i. So what! You all of a sudden drive a lesser car?

So many forget (or don't know) BMW's heritage. The use of the M on saloons/sedans came along before any of the M3, M4, M5 or M6 models.

The following is from "BMW 5 Series", The Complete Story, by James Taylor.

As I've posted before, this led to the E12 M535i sedan. As we say, the rest is history, the M-Sport, M-Performance and the M-Car models.

[HighlandPete]

If anyone really wants to see a special M designated car, take a look at this video.

This car was/is something to acknowledge in the use of the 'M'.

[Dairdevyld]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

Yeah m340i is definitely not a boat. It handles very well for what it is and is still pretty nimble. I do think it's under-tired however, and that lends to some severe cases of understeer when you suddenly take a sharp turn.

This would might also be heavily dependent on what wheel & tire package you pick from the factory. There are endless complaints about the run-flats and it seems a known fact that not opting for the non-run flat Performance wheels & brakes on the M340 is a mistake.

I would say there are a lot of options boxes that checked or unchecked for both the base M3 and M340 have a more serious implication on comparable or not. Fully optioned and not strictly track or leisure driven an M340 makes more sense than a base M3. To me it seems like it would be able to transition better from fun to daily-driven than a base M3.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by Dairdevyld

This would might also be heavily dependent on what wheel & tire package you pick from the factory. There are endless complaints about the run-flats and it seems a known fact that not opting for the non-run flat Performance wheels & brakes on the M340 is a mistake.

I would say there are a lot of options boxes that checked or unchecked for both the base M3 and M340 have a more serious implication on comparable or not. Fully optioned and not strictly track or leisure driven an M340 makes more sense than a base M3. To me it seems like it would be able to transition better from fun to daily-driven than a base M3.

In my case I replaced my runflats shortly after I got my car, and while the traction showed noticeable improvement, it's hard to get around a tire width of 225 when you have a nearly 4,000 lb car with nearly 400hp. So tire for tire, simply having massive 275 stock front tires on the M3 makes for a huge difference, before you even begin to get into the nuances of a more sophisticated suspension.

IMO the "transition" argument held true more so in the F30 vs. F80 generation. The G80 in contrast is a much more refined car with proper road manners. So that transition purely from a drivability perspective I don't think makes a big difference going into an m340i vs. an M3 for the current generation. Granted I have yet to daily a G80 (I'm picking mine up next month), but the handful of times I've driven it in comparison to my m340i, I didn't think I'd be trading anything in comfort and daily drivability (except maybe gas mileage and a sunroof - albeit I could have optioned a sunroof had I wanted). If anything with the more compliant and sophisticated suspension along with the softer and more luxurious merino leather - I found the G80 to be more comfortable than my m340i in comfort mode.

[Montaver]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

In my case I replaced my runflats shortly after I got my car, and while the traction showed noticeable improvement, it's hard to get around a tire width of 225 when you have a nearly 4,000 lb car with nearly 400hp. So tire for tire, simply having massive 275 stock front tires on the M3 makes for a huge difference, before you even begin to get into the nuances of a more sophisticated suspension.

IMO the "transition" argument held true more so in the F30 vs. F80 generation. The G80 in contrast is a much more refined car with proper road manners. So that transition purely from a drivability perspective I don't think makes a big difference going into an m340i vs. an M3 for the current generation. Granted I have yet to daily a G80 (I'm picking mine up next month), but the handful of times I've driven it in comparison to my m340i, I didn't think I'd be trading anything in comfort and daily drivability (except maybe gas mileage and a sunroof - albeit I could have optioned a sunroof had I wanted). If anything with the more compliant and sophisticated suspension along with the softer and more luxurious merino leather - I found the G80 to be more comfortable than my m340i in comfort mode.

There will be a significant difference in road noise if that matters to you.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by Montaver

There will be a significant difference in road noise if that matters to you.

Eh.. I have an X7... my m340i already sounds loud AF

But I get what you're saying. I didn't notice significantly more road noise when I drove the G80, but let's see when I pick it up.

[Dairdevyld]

What's TOLERABLE for daily drivability is VERY subjective. Road conditions, MPG, passengers, traffic, road and general car noise are all more tolerable in an M340. I don't think saying that is subjective. I would venture to say the G20 is more in line with what the e36 and e46 M3's offered, which is to say a high-performing road car. I would love to drive an M3 but you are sacrificing drivability with one in most traditional day-to-day driving scenarios.

That said, I think the 3 series line has shifted somewhat up-market. In 2003 Car and Driver tested the M3 against a Saab 9-3 Viggen, a C43 sedan, and an S4. In 2014 they tested an M4 against a 911. Looking back at that 2003 test, it'd be laughable with those badged vehicles today, mostly because the M3 has moved out of the segment. The M340 moved up to replace that hole and disparity in the market. The C43 and S4 still exist in that same place but BMW essentially moved their competitor too far upmarket to be a reasonable alternative. The M340 in that respect is a true competitor (ha!) to these vehicles so in some respects it is an "M" replacement.

Do they bicker about whether S or AMG badged vehicles are reasonable representations of Audi or Merc's halo performance label?

The modern G80 is more car than previous M iterations were and the M340 is filling that gap. Maybe we should stop asking if the M340 is a true M car and start asking if it accomplishes what BMW wants from it in its segment...

[Dairdevyld]

What really differentiates the M340 from the M3 is use. You can do anything you want with most vehicles but I still think the M340 is a better road car.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by Dairdevyld

What's TOLERABLE for daily drivability is VERY subjective. Road conditions, MPG, passengers, traffic, road and general car noise are all more tolerable in an M340. I don't think saying that is subjective. I would venture to say the G20 is more in line with what the e36 and e46 M3's offered, which is to say a high-performing road car. I would love to drive an M3 but you are sacrificing drivability with one in most traditional day-to-day driving scenarios.

That said, I think the 3 series line has shifted somewhat up-market. In 2003 Car and Driver tested the M3 against a Saab 9-3 Viggen, a C43 sedan, and an S4. In 2014 they tested an M4 against a 911. Looking back at that 2003 test, it'd be laughable with those badged vehicles today, mostly because the M3 has moved out of the segment. The M340 moved up to replace that hole and disparity in the market. The C43 and S4 still exist in that same place but BMW essentially moved their competitor too far upmarket to be a reasonable alternative. The M340 in that respect is a true competitor (ha!) to these vehicles so in some respects it is an "M" replacement.

Do they bicker about whether S or AMG badged vehicles are reasonable representations of Audi or Merc's halo performance label?

The modern G80 is more car than previous M iterations were and the M340 is filling that gap. Maybe we should stop asking if the M340 is a true M car and start asking if it accomplishes what BMW wants from it in its segment...

Respectfully, I disagree.

For one I'm not really sure what you mean by "road conditions", "passengers", and "traffic" as being more tolerable in an m340i. You can option the same assistant driving pro package in the M3 as you can in the m340i, so not sure what impact traffic has. Passenger comfort? You have the same amount of space, and the seats are more comfortable along with higher quality leather in the m3 - not to mention a more sophisticated and compliant suspension in comfort mode. Road conditions - again I'm not sure what you mean here. M3 can be optioned with AWD as well. So I really don't understand what people mean when they say you're sacrificing drivability. Unless your two largest criteria are fuel economy and road noise (which again, I don't find to be significantly more in the G80 compared to the G20).

As far as the m340i offering what the E36 and E46 offered - that's not specific to the m340i - that's natural progression of cars in general. The m340i isn't BMWs attempt to fill some hole left by old M cars - they're simply progressing the 340i to remain competitive and - reclaim its position as the benchmark in its class. Yes, an m340i may outperform M cars from old.... but you can say that for any modern BMW compared to the higher trim 2 generations removed.

Do they bicker about AMG badged vehicles? absolutely - C43 vs. C63... which is the "real" amg? Not too sure about Audi - but Audi does have better delineation of their various classes - A vs. S vs. RS. You won't see any RS badges on an S5 and thus less chance for confusion.

All this is to say - the m340i is an absolutely exceptional car and has been for me over the past 3+ years. But i think there's some major misconceptions of what it is in comparison to the G80, based largely not on what the G80 is, but on what the F80 was.

[Dairdevyld]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

Respectfully, I disagree.

For one I'm not really sure what you mean by "road conditions", "passengers", and "traffic" as being more tolerable in an m340i. You can option the same assistant driving pro package in the M3 as you can in the m340i, so not sure what impact traffic has. Passenger comfort? You have the same amount of space, and the seats are more comfortable along with higher quality leather in the m3 - not to mention a more sophisticated and compliant suspension in comfort mode. Road conditions - again I'm not sure what you mean here. M3 can be optioned with AWD as well. So I really don't understand what people mean when they say you're sacrificing drivability. Unless your two largest criteria are fuel economy and road noise (which again, I don't find to be significantly more in the G80 compared to the G20).

As far as the m340i offering what the E36 and E46 offered - that's not specific to the m340i - that's natural progression of cars in general. The m340i isn't BMWs attempt to fill some hole left by old M cars - they're simply progressing the 340i to remain competitive and - reclaim its position as the benchmark in its class. Yes, an m340i may outperform M cars from old.... but you can say that for any modern BMW compared to the higher trim 2 generations removed.

Do they bicker about AMG badged vehicles? absolutely - C43 vs. C63... which is the "real" amg? Not too sure about Audi - but Audi does have better delineation of their various classes - A vs. S vs. RS. You won't see any RS badges on an S5 and thus less chance for confusion.

All this is to say - the m340i is an absolutely exceptional car and has been for me over the past 3+ years. But i think there's some major misconceptions of what it is in comparison to the G80, based largely not on what the G80 is, but on what the F80 was.

I've ridden in the G80 and it's just not as tolerable for everyday driving as an M340 (not I didn't say it's isn't tolerable I'm saying the M340 is more tolerable). I think M3 seats are more bolstered and have a more assuring and snug fit but on a long ride I'm not sure you'd feel the seats were as comfortable. The suspension is not the same as has been stated exhaustively throughout this post. There is more road feel which makes road imperfections more noticeable. That is great for feedback but in terms of comfort it's a trade-off. That's why the 7 series is quiet and compliant on all road surfaces. Driving a stick (base M3) is a PITA in traffic. Period.

...and forgive me, I very much bristle at the idea that full on performance cars don't have trade-offs. Things people can tolerate in day to day driving, yes, but the trade-offs are real.

My point about where the M340 lives in comparison to other vehicles on the market is the fact that IT IS filling a hole. in 2003 you would be cross-hopping C43's and S4's with an M3. That just isn't the case today. An M340 has moved up to replace that hole. (Similarly Audi and Merc added the RS and C63 to compete with the increased performance of the modern-day M3).

I get it. People who own or will someday own an M3 want to downplay the role the M340 plays in the lineup and dismiss its relevance as an "M" vehicle somewhat because they think it threatens or devalues the status of the top model, but it doesn't to me. It does what BMW had relied on the old M vehicles to do and there's more traceable lineage (to me) between the M340 and the old M3's than the new M3. Not bad, the M family is just bigger and more diverse within the 3 series.

I think you prefer (as would I in anything but a daily driving scenario where I live) the M3, but I think it's unrealistic to say the only tradeoff is mpg's.

From a performance standpoint the M3 wins hands down. Let that be enough to hang your hat on.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by Dairdevyld

I've ridden in the G80 and it's just not as tolerable for everyday driving as an M340 (not I didn't say it's isn't tolerable I'm saying the M340 is more tolerable). I think M3 seats are more bolstered and have a more assuring and snug fit but on a long ride I'm not sure you'd feel the seats were as comfortable. The suspension is not the same as has been stated exhaustively throughout this post. There is more road feel which makes road imperfections more noticeable. That is great for feedback but in terms of comfort it's a trade-off. That's why the 7 series is quiet and compliant on all road surfaces.

I've owned an m340i for over 3 years and have driven an M3 numerous times both on track and on the road. I disagree about the suspension when it comes to comfort mode. I'm not sure if you were riding in it in sport mode or if there was placebo going on, but in comfort mode I've always felt the G80 to be more compliant than the G20 with m-sport suspension. As for the seats, I do hope you realize you can adjust the bolstering. Regardless, I'm about to take an 800 mile trip in my G80 when I pick it up next month. I'll be sure to report back but I'm quite confident it'll be more comfortable than the uncomfortable seats in my G20.

Originally Posted by Dairdevyld

Driving a stick (base M3) is a PITA in traffic. Period.

This would be a relevant comment if the m340i came in a 6spd manual to compare to....

Originally Posted by Dairdevyld

...and forgive me, I very much bristle at the idea that full on performance cars don't have trade-offs. Things people can tolerate in day to day driving, yes, but the trade-offs are real.

Like I mentioned before - many people base their M3 perception on what the F80 was, not what the G80 is. The G80 has significantly increased the luxury aspect (to many enthusiasts' dissent).

Originally Posted by Dairdevyld

My point about where the M340 lives in comparison to other vehicles on the market is the fact that IT IS filling a hole. in 2003 you would be cross-hopping C43's and S4's with an M3. That just isn't the case today. An M340 has moved up to replace that hole. (Similarly Audi and Merc added the RS and C63 to compete with the increased performance of the modern-day M3).

The M340i isn't filling any hole that the 340i prior to it didn't already filled. And that's my entire point. It's nothing more than a progression of the F30 340i. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but that's what it is.

Originally Posted by Dairdevyld

I get it. People who own or will someday own an M3 want to downplay the role the M340 plays in the lineup and dismiss its relevance as an "M" vehicle somewhat because they think it threatens or devalues the status of the top model, but it doesn't to me. It does what BMW had relied on the old M vehicles to do and there's more traceable lineage (to me) between the M340 and the old M3's than the new M3. Not bad, the M family is just bigger and more diverse within the 3 series.

I in no way have ever downplayed the m340i. My only real criticism of it has been that it's under-tired - and that's irrespective of the M3. I think a nearly 4k lb vehicle with nearly 400 hp should have larger tires than the m340i does - period. As I mentioned before, I've owned mine for over 3 years and I've absolutely loved it and it's been an excellent car. But I've maintained all along, even before I had intention to purchase an M3, I've acknowledge its strengths and limitations.

I don't agree that the m340i traces any of its lineage to the old M3s - It has the identical suspension setup to the 330i with m-sport suspension, with just the addition of the differential. It's the same across all m-performance models. Their suspensions are identical to their lower tier models. Again - the m340i is natural progression of the f30 340i. You can't say the suspension setup of the E46 M3 was identical to that of the 325.

Likewise however, I think many people in the m340i camp try to downplay the M3 by saying that the M3 is really only better on the track while the m340i is a better road car. It's a very popular opinion. I just happen to disagree with it having experienced the M3 on the road on numerous occasions, both as a driver and as a passenger.

Originally Posted by Dairdevyld

I think you prefer (as would I in anything but a daily driving scenario where I live) the M3, but I think it's unrealistic to say the only tradeoff is mpg's.

From a performance standpoint the M3 wins hands down. Let that be enough to hang your hat on.

I'll never look down on an m340i. In my mind the m340i is an excellent mid-tier car and one that I've been proud to have owned. But I have always, and will continue to, recognize what it is and what it isn't. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[Hofmeister Kink]

M3. A dynamic masterpiece but IMO with a face only a mother could love. Wished they had kept that grill just for the 4 series.

[BobTX10]

I just recently got the m340i, it’s been such a fantastic car all around and understand the m-lite nickname. But if it wasn’t for that front end of the m3, I would have chosen that over the m340i with better creature comforts like merino leather and individual color option. The nostril is just so bad looking and if you have DAPP it makes it even worse with that random dimple on one side. Just horrible. The CF package makes the front end a little more bearable with the open air inlets but you gotta spend almost 5k. But like others have said, truly the m340i is all the power and handling 99% of people will ever need.

[james1138]

Originally Posted by Sbu

M340i is an M car.
M3 is an M car.
There both have motorsport devision DNA/Design/Specifications.
Note I didn’t say full or baby. No. M car.

This, despite the typographical errors, is what I believe to be the truth.

This has been a great thread to read and I’ve learned a lot. I will be a new owner of an M340 and I couldn’t be more excited based on what I read about this car. I love the M3 too. Both are awesome cars.

[Teutonic]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

To answer your question regarding the engine:

The S58 (M3) uses twin turbos as opposed to the single twin-scroll turbo in the B58 (m340i). S58 is also slightly smaller displacement (not quite 3.0L), a higher 7,200rpm redline, increased bore, decreased stroke, and larger valves.

Also, I figured this was interesting to look at. I ordered some all-season tires for my M3, and decided to compare them to the m340i tires. My m340i tire in front, M3 tires in the rear. Trust me.... you feel the difference on the road during spirited driving. Where the m340i begins to understeer, the M3 feels like it's on rails.
Attachment 3063478

Dws is an axcellent tire. i just hope that is not made in USA as they really suck. Got three sets from Europe which were stunning. My last made in USA set sucks as it gets flat over night and is like a square tire in the morning. They gave me another set and is the same. Wanted to order some Made in Portugals tires yet they dont bring them anymore because US makes them now… suckers

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by Teutonic

Dws is an axcellent tire. i just hope that is not made in USA as they really suck. Got three sets from Europe which were stunning. My last made in USA set sucks as it gets flat over night and is like a square tire in the morning. They gave me another set and is the same. Wanted to order some Made in Portugals tires yet they dont bring them anymore because US makes them now… suckers

Interesting... I guess I'll find out how they do. I'm considering using them for early spring and late fall... for winter I'll probably buy a 3rd car. Then maybe just stick with summer tires for the warmer months.

[Dairdevyld]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

I've owned an m340i for over 3 years and have driven an M3 numerous times both on track and on the road. I disagree about the suspension when it comes to comfort mode. I'm not sure if you were riding in it in sport mode or if there was placebo going on, but in comfort mode I've always felt the G80 to be more compliant than the G20 with m-sport suspension. As for the seats, I do hope you realize you can adjust the bolstering. Regardless, I'm about to take an 800 mile trip in my G80 when I pick it up next month. I'll be sure to report back but I'm quite confident it'll be more comfortable than the uncomfortable seats in my G20.



This would be a relevant comment if the m340i came in a 6spd manual to compare to....



Like I mentioned before - many people base their M3 perception on what the F80 was, not what the G80 is. The G80 has significantly increased the luxury aspect (to many enthusiasts' dissent).




The M340i isn't filling any hole that the 340i prior to it didn't already filled. And that's my entire point. It's nothing more than a progression of the F30 340i. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but that's what it is.



I in no way have ever downplayed the m340i. My only real criticism of it has been that it's under-tired - and that's irrespective of the M3. I think a nearly 4k lb vehicle with nearly 400 hp should have larger tires than the m340i does - period. As I mentioned before, I've owned mine for over 3 years and I've absolutely loved it and it's been an excellent car. But I've maintained all along, even before I had intention to purchase an M3, I've acknowledge its strengths and limitations.

I don't agree that the m340i traces any of its lineage to the old M3s - It has the identical suspension setup to the 330i with m-sport suspension, with just the addition of the differential. It's the same across all m-performance models. Their suspensions are identical to their lower tier models. Again - the m340i is natural progression of the f30 340i. You can't say the suspension setup of the E46 M3 was identical to that of the 325.

Likewise however, I think many people in the m340i camp try to downplay the M3 by saying that the M3 is really only better on the track while the m340i is a better road car. It's a very popular opinion. I just happen to disagree with it having experienced the M3 on the road on numerous occasions, both as a driver and as a passenger.




I'll never look down on an m340i. In my mind the m340i is an excellent mid-tier car and one that I've been proud to have owned. But I have always, and will continue to, recognize what it is and what it isn't. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

That's interesting that you find the G80 seats more comfortable. I'm curious to see how they feel over 800 miles haha. I haven't ridden in either for anything close to that so curious what your experience is.

I absolutely get the quality of interior materials argument but I still feel like the M340 offers comfort and daily ease of use in ways the M3 can't beyond the MPG's. I've heard and read a lot of compliments on the M340's daily composure, and while I haven't heard negative things from anyone on the M3 as a daily driver, I do hear/read the caveated compliments "it's great for daily driving given what it is". My SA (who I've known for many years) has owned the previous gen F series 340, a 335, and G80. His note to me was that the M3 was too harsh for him as a daily driver and the current M340 filled the sweet spot. Riding in both that was my initial impression as well.

I think you can absolutely drive an M3 as a daily (yes, I think they've added more amenities to make it more livable than the F series), I'm just of the impression that the M340 is a lot of M DNA thrown into a more unassuming vehicle.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by Dairdevyld

That's interesting that you find the G80 seats more comfortable. I'm curious to see how they feel over 800 miles haha. I haven't ridden in either for anything close to that so curious what your experience is.

I absolutely get the quality of interior materials argument but I still feel like the M340 offers comfort and daily ease of use in ways the M3 can't beyond the MPG's. I've heard and read a lot of compliments on the M340's daily composure, and while I haven't heard negative things from anyone on the M3 as a daily driver, I do hear/read the caveated compliments "it's great for daily driving given what it is". My SA (who I've known for many years) has owned the previous gen F series 340, a 335, and G80. His note to me was that the M3 was too harsh for him as a daily driver and the current M340 filled the sweet spot. Riding in both that was my initial impression as well.

I think you can absolutely drive an M3 as a daily (yes, I think they've added more amenities to make it more livable than the F series), I'm just of the impression that the M340 is a lot of M DNA thrown into a more unassuming vehicle.

I'll have a much better idea once I take delivery of the G80 next month. I'm relatively new to BMW ownership, but I understand in generations past the M cars have been significantly more "raw" than their non-M counterparts - both from comments as well as the few experiences I've had driving them. I didn't get that impression at all with the G80 the several times I've driven it. So in my mind it's very possible that there's some residual feeling from the F80 - because that absolutely was a harsh car - and people's perception of how the G80 should be based on previous M cars.

The whole comfort and usability argument stems from the fact that you can option an M3 to the exact spec of an M340i (i.e. driving assistance/traffic assistant, parking assistance, etc). So spec for spec (automatic M3 AWD compared to automatic m340i AWD), they should be identical in terms of usability and driving ease.

So really it comes down to seat comfort and suspension harshness. I'll report back after my 800 mile road trip how it comes to my m340i. But it's not simply higher quality materials - merino leather is inherently softer and smoother compared to vernasca, which is a hard and grainy leather. There's a reason the high end leather option in cars like the X7 is merino leather. And that's one of the reasons why IMO the seats are more comfortable (once you adjust the bolstering to your liking) in the M3 vs. the hard vernasca seats in the m340i.