[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by deeldoo

Let's just call it what it is, the M340i is in a tier below the F8x gen cars and it will be in a way diff tier than the G gen cars.

Well, no. At least not for your reasons...

So even if someone agrees with all of your numbers, it means the F8x *BARELY* beats an M340i, and needs time, and not by much, and maybe not in some scenarios.

In your scenarios, with your numbers, that's the same performance tier!

May I humbly suggest you watch Ford vs Ferrari? What you'll notice is that, yes, power/chassis matters, but only if you can reliably count on it.

See, the F8x has seven coolers. Seven! (right? that still true?) All of its performance parts are custom designed to handle massive track stress all day long. It's oil sump is designed to resist g-forces. See where I'm going?

What puts the F8x car in a different tier is that it can run at a track (or in a canyon) at anger management speeds for 8 hours and then drive home no worse for wear. again and again. The M340i is not designed to handle that kind of stress.

So, what makes the F8x special, what defines the tier, is not the performance numbers in a 1-off test, but that the F8x is reliably trackable all day long, all year long.

[Big boi m5]

Originally Posted by Jason60051

I didn't buy my m3 for the 0-60 times...who cares. I bought it for the real feel of a drivers car. The 340 is nice but it's not on the level of the m3 both in terms of looks and vehicle dynamics. I don't care if the 340 did 0-60 in 2.9 seconds. It's irreverent to many who don't 'race' their cars on the public roadways. So yay you're the fastest one to the next red light.

0-60 is a useless metric on a track

[MD707]

Originally Posted by deeldoo

Literally this.

...high way on ramp, posted speed limit 30km/h.

I came in at around 85 and pushed into doing 102 before my exit, little M340i got lost.

...or maybe he didn't want to do 100KPH in a 30KPH

[deeldoo]

Originally Posted by G21-M340i

...or maybe he didn't want to do 100KPH in a 30KPH

He was fine doing 125 in a 60 though and trying to fornicate with my exhaust pipes? I am sure he could stretch a little.

[DenHaag3er]

We all know it’s not an M. As I see it it’s pretty much as fast as the outgoing M but massively more useable, modern, cheaper and a better daily driver. Also there is no M touring.

Say it’s not as special or doesn’t have the feel of an M car. Don’t try and play the speed game because there is fuck all in it.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by itsglen

objective fact: after six pages of responses the vast majority of people posting are M3/M4 owners sharing why in some regard their vehicle(s) is/are better than the M340 - I'm at a loss why anyone cares and why these people give a poop or feel compelled to explain (but I don't need your answer so please don't quote me)

Mind you I am neutral on the matter and find it silly - however there are waaaaaay more M3/4 owners trying to tell others what they don't have vs M340 owners telling others what they do have.

This is just what I have gathered over the last six pages and has nothing to do with my own personal opinion which I am not going to share because it doesn't matter.

The OP was simply sharing a 0-60 result and the fact is (according to this post) the M340 is quicker vs what it was up against in this test

The video was an acceleration test from 0-100 then 200 then 250kph. The M3 won 2 of three, the majority, and you interpreted it as a post showing the M340 was faster to 60? That's not only inaccurate, it's to 100kph, but it's incomplete, since it lost to 200 and 250. We shouldn't be cherry picking to come up with a conclusion.

[deeldoo]

Originally Posted by DenHaag3er

We all know it’s not an M. As I see it it’s pretty much as fast as the outgoing M but massively more useable, modern, cheaper and a better daily driver. Also there is no M touring.

Say it’s not as special or doesn’t have the feel of an M car. Don’t try and play the speed game because there is fuck all in it.

It is more special has better feel, is faster, quicker, and all those other adjectives.

There is something in the speed game between a high 11 quarter mile at 120mph trap vs a mid 12's at 113-115 if we want to play that game.

Also it's a generation ahead.

I am not sure where the claims came that the M340i is just as fast if not faster when they are all objectively incorrect for maybe the exception of the 0-60 which is largely debated as F8x's have been launched in the 3.7-4.0 region without much difficulty.

We sit here and compare a 4.3 second launch with just a speedometer reading, reminds me of a video recently i saw of the M340i doing 3.9 going downhill, we have 0 clue what elevation these cars are at.

All in all, as i said, the M340i is still in a tier below in flat out speed, it just is. It is a very fast car but a tier below.

[mcjohnsonsg]

Originally Posted by jmg

The video was an acceleration test from 0-100 then 200 then 250kph. The M3 won 2 of three, the majority, and you interpreted it as a post showing the M340 was faster to 60? That's not only inaccurate, it's to 100kph, but it's incomplete, since it lost to 200 and 250. We shouldn't be cherry picking to come up with a conclusion.

Not sure you are right that the majority read it the way you described. I see little evidence of that in the posts (although there are definitely some that did). Most people seem to acknowledge the M3 pulls on the M340 above 60mph.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by mcjohnsonsg

Not sure you are right that the majority read it the way you described. I see little evidence of that in the posts (although there are definitely some that did). Most people seem to acknowledge the M3 pulls on the M340 above 60mph.

I was addressing this post particularly.

[mcjohnsonsg]

Originally Posted by jmg

I was addressing this post particularly.

Apologies - misread your use of "majority".

[deeldoo]

Originally Posted by NewM3driver

Ive owned THREE M3's the last being a '17 competition package car. I can honestly say this M340 is better in all the ways that matter. It is smoother, faster, more comfortable and much better to live with on a day to day basis.

If you are going to the track, get the M. If you are dropping the kids at school and then continuing on to the office, get the M340.

Your M3's were slower than your M340i?

You sure your M3's weren't broken or you forgot the other half of your gas pedal?

[NewM3driver]

Originally Posted by deeldoo

Your M3's were slower than your M340i?

You sure your M3's weren't broken or you forgot the other half of your gas pedal?

Absolutely positive. I'm sure they will make the new M faster, but if you are driving a current model M and an M340 pulls along side of you.... well, you might just get embarrassed.

[DenHaag3er]

That’s it settled then. Enjoy your older m3s and stop being bitter that the m340i can beat it in the real world.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by NewM3driver

Absolutely positive. I'm sure they will make the new M faster, but if you are driving a current model M and an M340 pulls along side of you.... well, you might just get embarrassed.

Originally Posted by DenHaag3er

That's it settled then. Enjoy your older m3s and stop being bitter that the m340i can beat it in the real world.

Did you guys watch the entire video?

[SabineBimmer]

The better comparison is the gauge clusters! Give me the traditional dials any day.

[rallybull]

Originally Posted by IB M

Who cares - a Tesla smokes them both in a straight line. Which one would you rather drive down a twisty mountain road?

Depends on whether I drive in twisty mountains more often or straight lines.
Btw the Tesla is no slouch when it comes to cornering (mainly due to its C of G being so low)

[jmg]

Originally Posted by rallybull

Depends on whether I drive in twisty mountains more often or straight lines.
Btw the Tesla is no slouch when it comes to cornering (mainly due to its C of G being so low)

The M3 CS and M4 CS are sub 4 sec 0-60 cars. So the M340i slower to 60mph, slower to 200kmh and slower to 250kmh. It only beats the regular M3/4 to 200kmh by tenths of a second from a dig. So if you like racing soccer moms from stoplight to stoplight where the only one that cares is an audience of none then get a M340i.

OR you can get the M340i for what it's really good for:

Cheaper, slightly more practical, newer tech, AWD, and size. I'm not sure why so many people are requiring it to be faster than an M car be considered a good car. It's simply not the same league as an M car because it's not designed to be. If it were designed to be more of a performance car, it wouldn't weigh as much as it does and it would have a wider stance to accommodate a wider track.

[deeldoo]

Originally Posted by jmg

The M3 CS and M4 CS are sub 4 sec 0-60 cars. So the M340i slower to 60mph, slower to 200kmh and slower to 250kmh. It only beats the regular M3/4 to 200kmh by tenths of a second from a dig. So if you like racing soccer moms from stoplight to stoplight where the only one that cares is an audience of none then get a M340i.

OR you can get the M340i for what it's really good for:

Cheaper, slightly more practical, newer tech, AWD, and size. I'm not sure why so many people are requiring it to be faster than an M car be considered a good car. It's simply not the same league as an M car because it's not designed to be. If it were designed to be more of a performance car, it wouldn't weigh as much as it does and it would have a wider stance to accommodate a wider track.

It doesn't beat it to 200, it sports a slower quarter mile at a lower trap speed, when the M3/M4 hits 191 km/h it is about 10-11 km/h faster and ahead by a few tenths.

M340i is not faster, i don't get it, the cs traps at around 122 mph which is different from the 118-120 of regular m4 which is different from the 113-115 of m340i.

The M4 civic, M4 comp pack, M4 cs all sport very similiar times, the variation happens in the consistency of those times and the 1-2 mph quarter mile trap difference and 0.1-0.2 second quarter mile time, the real difference is the cs and comp consistently launch sub 4.0 which would beat out the 340i while the civic is hit and miss, sometimes sub 4.0 as low as 3.7 other times up to 4.3-4.5

[Gdiddy23]

I take it as a compliment it's even getting compared to the F80 gen.

I don't see the big deal. You'd think M owners want the base 3 series to be solid performers. Just means the G80's will be even better even if they're guise is highly controversial

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Gdiddy23

I take it as a compliment it's even getting compared to the F80 gen.

I don't see the big deal. You'd think M owners want the base 3 series to be solid performers. Just means the G80's will be even better even if they're guise is highly controversial

You should and we are, but facts are facts.

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by WAHF80M3

.3 of a second difference.

So 4 flat to 100kmh.

F80 vs F80 Comp is not 0.3s 0-60 difference...

[deeldoo]

Originally Posted by drF80

F80 vs F80 Comp is not 0.3s 0-60 difference...

Ya not even close, all 3, f8x cs, f8x zcp, and f8x civic all have anywhere from 3.7-4.1 0-60 times because they all launch inconsistently.

The stock and zcp run mostly 3.9+ while the cs goes down to about 3.7 more consistently.

The 4.3 launch in this video is trash can tier, probably done in snow ahahahaha or on bald all seasons