[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

I wouldn't call it either. It isn't a tuned 330i and it also isn't "deserving" of an m badge. People need to understand the "m" badge on these cars is a marketing ploy by bmw.

bavarianride said it's between a 330i and an m3... sort of tongue in cheek... but that's exactly what it is. It shares its suspension with the 330i but the b58 is closer to the s58. It's more or less a progression of the f30 340i and nothing more. Don't be fooled by ///marketing.

just fyi - BMW has been producing M Performance cars that are not full ///M cars, but have some level of tweaking by the ///M Division, for more than 40 years. M### branding is nothing new.

The 1980 E12 M535 was the first car they branded with the M badge. It had a BMW Motorsport tuned chassis and an M-Technic suspension.

[JK479]

Originally Posted by Llarry

"Tuned 330i"? LOL. Had the M340i been available with manual transmission, that would have been my car. My G80 M3 is overkill for me in the horsepower department; 382 HP would've been perfect. The other things I appreciate in the M3 are the availability of full leather and the brakes. Still, I would've gone for a manual M340i in a heartbeat. Enjoy your car!

BMW knows a small select want manual and don’t care about HP. 382 hp with a manual would be a ton of fun. Most don’t use the m’s capability.

Back in the day I loved seeing a stripper i6, manual car that was attainable and wasn’t loaded to the brink of bankruptcy.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

just fyi - BMW has been producing M Performance cars that are not full ///M cars, but have some level of tweaking by the ///M Division for more than 40 years. M### branding is nothing new.

1980 M535 was the first car they branded with the M badge. It had a BMW Motorsport tuned chassis and an M-Technic suspension.

Agreed... not new and not exclusive to BMW. But never have we witnessed this level of performance badging. My only point is that there is obvious delineation, and the m340i is a progression of the f30 340i (which could also be had with "M" tuned goodies). It's not like some new product line offering that BMW created.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

Agreed... not new and not exclusive to BMW. But never have we witnessed this level of performance badging. My only point is that there is obvious delineation, and the m340i is a progression of the f30 340i (which could also be had with "M" tuned goodies). It's not like some new product line offering that BMW created.

If we read some of the posts when the F3x models were the current range, many wished BMW would have produced an F30 M340i. Similar to how we had the M Performance models like the M135i and M235i or M140i and M240i. Rather than have to spec up the 340i with M Performance optional parts, like suspension, engine and exhaust upgrades.

Now that BMW do just that with the G2x models, many question how BMW are 'marketing' the M badge.

I've come to the conclusion BMW can't please everyone.

Agree with comments on the nothing new with the use of "M Performance", being there from the E12 5-series. One of my colleagues had the M535i, while I had an E12 528. All ahead of the "full fat" M-car sedans.

BMW put a 535i alongside an M535i and M5, all in the same E28 5-series in the early 1980's. All different, taking their share of the sales.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

If we read some of the posts when the F3x models were the current range, many wished BMW would have produced an F30 M340i. Similar to how we had the M Performance models like the M135i and M235i or M140i and M240i. Rather than have to spec up the 340i with M Performance optional parts, like suspension, engine and exhaust upgrades.

Now that BMW do just that with the G2x models, many question how BMW are 'marketing' the M badge.

I've come to the conclusion BMW can't please everyone.

Agree with comments on the nothing new with the use of "M Performance", being there from the E12 5-series. One of my colleagues had the M535i, while I had an E12 528. All ahead of the "full fat" M-car sedans.

BMW put a 535i alongside an M535i and M5, all in the same E28 5-series in the early 1980's. All different, taking their share of the sales.

I don't have numbers to back this up, so this is pure speculation on my part - but I'm suspecting weakening interest in the mid-tier models across the BMW lineup called for this onslaught of "M performance" models. It was a way for them to rejuvenate the mid-tier line.

Not everyone will ever be happy - and this isn't exclusive to BMW. MB forums are having these very discussions regarding the C300 vs. C43 vs. C63.

Personally I've always preferred Audi's delineation - the RS models stand alone. There is no "RS Performance" line. It's base, S, RS. Sure you can option an A5 with the "s-line" package, but you won't find an S5 with any factory RS badging (unless they've changed things and I'm mistaken).

[scotlings8]

I just bought a new m340i, and my neighbor has a 22 M3. My car is no comparison to his. It really depends what you want. If you want a quick daily then the 340i is for you. If you enjoy true performance, not just speed, but handling braking and overall stability, then the m3 is for you. I learned the hard way that I'm a m3 guy. Choose wisely.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

I don't have numbers to back this up, so this is pure speculation on my part - but I'm suspecting weakening interest in the mid-tier models across the BMW lineup called for this onslaught of "M performance" models. It was a way for them to rejuvenate the mid-tier line.

Not sure how your market developed, but here in the UK we've had the à la carte way of ordering for generations, where we could add to the SE ranges, like sport suspension, sport seats and steering wheel.

When the M-sport 'package' came along it became the biggest selling model in a range. Many bought for the aero package and wheel choice. Performance was the same as SE models.

I had a 1998 E39 540i, pre Sport model. Came with sport seats, M-Technic steering wheel and M-Technic suspension. Was also dechromed. M-Tech(nic) parts were quite common back then.

The M-Sport package made it a lot easier to get all the M-Sport options in a 'standard' model range. I see BMW doing a similar thing with the M Performance options, upping the spec a bit from the M-Sport, sitting between M-Sport and the M-Cars.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by scotlings8

I just bought a new m340i, and my neighbor has a 22 M3. My car is no comparison to his. It really depends what you want. If you want a quick daily then the 340i is for you. If you enjoy true performance, not just speed, but handling braking and overall stability, then the m3 is for you. I learned the hard way that I'm a m3 guy. Choose wisely.

I don't understand how some compare the M340i and M3, as if they are almost interchangeable. Two different customer bases being served. Talk with any serious M3/4 user and there is no way we can compare the M340i to an M3. The M340i is definitely an M-Lite model, the design brief is different.

[quizly6]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

I don't understand how some compare the M340i and M3, as if they are almost interchangeable. Two different customer bases being served. Talk with any serious M3/4 user and there is no way we can compare the M340i to an M3. The M340i is definitely an M-Lite model, the design brief is different.

I drive both an m340i and also have a g82 m4, as well has had an f8x m4. The point of this post was to give my opinion on if an M340i deserved an m performance badge even though it's not a true M car. I don't think anyone here has said they are both the same tier of performance, my point was just that they are slowing bridging the gap. My e9x 335 was no where near half the car the e9x m3 was. However I could see similarities between my g20/g82.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by quizly6

I drive both an m340i and also have a g82 m4, as well has had an f8x m4. The point of this post was to give my opinion on if an M340i deserved an m performance badge even though it's not a true M car. I don't think anyone here has said they are both the same tier of performance, my point was just that they are slowing bridging the gap. My e9x 335 was no where near half the car the e9x m3 was. However I could see similarities between my g20/g82.

What you're describing has nothing to do with BMW. It's the law of diminishing returns and applies to all automakers. Each subsequent increase in performance will be less and less noticeable. There's only so much you can do within reason.

That being said I still feel a significant difference in handling and feel compared to my G20. Something as simple as a sharp turn in the G20, it's VERY easy to understeer as I feel the car is under-tired. The G80 on the other hand is remarkably composes in comparison.

[Giggler]

Originally Posted by JABCAT

From everything I can find (not that I'm looking very hard) the M340i & M3 seem pretty evenly matched from a performance standpoint, or close enough as to not justify the huge price jump to the M3 - unless of course I'm missing a bunch of info.

You’re not looking at all if you think they’re “pretty evenly matched”. If you’re talking about simple straight line performance, go on YouTube and look up 100-200kmh for the M3 vs M340i… once you get off the line and up to speed where traction isn’t limiting the M3 comp, the two are not even competing in the same ballpark. On the handling side of things, most reviewers have benchmarked the M3/M4 against the 911 Carrera S in terms of both driving feel and actual performance results. The M340i isn’t even a part of the conversation.

Where the M340 shines vs the M3 is around town and daily driving. The M340 is aggressively geared in 1st, 2nd, 3rd so it gets to ~70mph faster than its horsepower number would suggest. Also the M340’s B58 has a single twin-scroll turbo that makes near instant boost when you peg the throttle… making the M340i more responsive and better for daily driving situations where you need to do a sudden overtaking maneuver or hustle through a yellow light. In an M3, you would need to have the transmission downshifted and the twin turbo’s on spool full time to get the same behavior, which would result in terrible mpg’s. Also the M340’s chassis isn’t as aggressively braced and runs narrower tires so it’s more comfortable and economical.

I love my M340i. It’s the first performance car I’ve ever owned for daily driving that I didn’t feel the urge to sell after 3 years… but I’m realistic about it’s limitations and understand the trade-offs to make a car better for daily driving vs better on a track.

[quizly6]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

What you're describing has nothing to do with BMW. It's the law of diminishing returns and applies to all automakers. Each subsequent increase in performance will be less and less noticeable. There's only so much you can do within reason.

That being said I still feel a significant difference in handling and feel compared to my G20. Something as simple as a sharp turn in the G20, it's VERY easy to understeer as I feel the car is under-tired. The G80 on the other hand is remarkably composes in comparison.

I respectfully disagree. I understand there is a law of diminishing returns, but the jump from an f30 340i to g20 m340i was a massive leap. The mid trim bmw was at 300-320 hp since about 2007-2019, and exhaust sounded like any other car on the road. I understand it's a progression of technology with everything becoming better, faster - however I believe more was put into this car to make it more "m" like than previous models. The g20 sounds like absolute gunshots on downshifts and feels much quicker than the claimed 384hp.

Still, we can both agree it is not an M car, and no where near g8x M performance. I needed a daily, as a rwd M4 comp in the snow can not hold up well. I just wanted to make a post about how it deserves to be an M "Lite" and absolutely love the car.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by quizly6

I respectfully disagree. I understand there is a law of diminishing returns, but the jump from an f30 340i to g20 m340i was a massive leap. The mid trim bmw was at 300-320 hp since about 2007-2019, and exhaust sounded like any other car on the road. I understand it's a progression of technology with everything becoming better, faster - however I believe more was put into this car to make it more "m" like than previous models. The g20 sounds like absolute gunshots on downshifts and feels much quicker than the claimed 384hp.

Still, we can both agree it is not an M car, and no where near g8x M performance. I needed a daily, as a rwd M4 comp in the snow can not hold up well. I just wanted to make a post about how it deserves to be an M "Lite" and absolutely love the car.

My diminishing returns was in regards to g20 vs g80. That "bridging of the gap" is what I meant by diminishing returns. In a straight line, the m340i is nearly supercar like through 60mph, which is where most street driving ends (at least legally). So from that angle, as these cars get faster, each incremental gain may seem smaller, irrespective of the leap from previous generation.

Where the G80 shines is handling and top end acceleration once you get past the limitations of traction. But if people (not you, speaking in general terms) only care about 0-60 times, then they won't truly appreciate what the G80 has to offer over the m340i.

[Burrcold]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

My diminishing returns was in regards to g20 vs g80. That "bridging of the gap" is what I meant by diminishing returns. In a straight line, the m340i is nearly supercar like through 60mph, which is where most street driving ends (at least legally). So from that angle, as these cars get faster, each incremental gain may seem smaller, irrespective of the leap from previous generation.

Where the G80 shines is handling and top end acceleration once you get past the limitations of traction. But if people (not you, speaking in general terms) only care about 0-60 times, then they won't truly appreciate what the G80 has to offer over the m340i.

Agreed. If all you care about is 0 to 60, you may as well go electric. There's so much more than straight line speed when it comes to "performance vehicles" these days...there has to be, otherwise we should all just get a Model 3 Performance

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by quizly6

I drive both an m340i and also have a g82 m4, as well has had an f8x m4. The point of this post was to give my opinion on if an M340i deserved an m performance badge even though it's not a true M car. I don't think anyone here has said they are both the same tier of performance, my point was just that they are slowing bridging the gap. My e9x 335 was no where near half the car the e9x m3 was. However I could see similarities between my g20/g82.

I'm on the same page as yourself. I see the steps in performance, no issue with M Performance model placement.

The discussion does include defining the performance difference and the $18,000 worth of price tag in the M3. Some drivers just won't see where the differences are, or may not measure them as worth the money.

I remember the UK discussions on the E9x 335i vs. M3. For many users, the 335i was the better daily driver, no doubt about it and saved some money in the decision. But all the reasons put forward in choosing the 335i never made the model a real alternative to what the M-car offered.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by quizly6

Still, we can both agree it is not an M car, and no where near g8x M performance. I needed a daily, as a rwd M4 comp in the snow can not hold up well. I just wanted to make a post about how it deserves to be an M "Lite" and absolutely love the car.

Many feel the same, and if chosen for what the M-Lite is, makes a superb package.

I remember trying an F82 M4 and to be honest, I'd have chosen the F32 340i, if that was my buying segment. Nothing to do with any failing of the M4, or 'bumping up' the 440i, but simply on how I'd have been using the vehicle.

I feel I understand what BMW are offering in the M Performance models. There are users who don't want or need the finely honed full M-Car performance. Having a choice is good for business and the customer.

[TheMaxXHD]

As always, I find myself somewhat disconnected between the thoughts and opinions made on here, and my own.

A very large portion of that is the fact that I’d never consider the M models to begin with. Because I couldn’t afford them even if I wanted to. The M340i was even a stretch for me, and only possible due to my unique living situation. Otherwise, a Subaru would have been my car of choice most likely.

In that respect, the M340i IS a great M car alternative. The difference between the two of them is smaller than the difference between the 330i and M3, which is also a lot smaller of a difference between a Honda civic and an M3.

It’s not just about the value between the m340i and m3, it’s also about that it doesn’t really matter how much better the m3 is, because most people can’t afford it and never will have it anyway. Which makes this thread pretty irrelevant to anyone other than people who have the money for an M3. Therefore the m340i is a great m3 alternative, because it’s cheaper and gets 90% of the way there, and that’s all that matters to people like me.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by TheMaxXHD

As always, I find myself somewhat disconnected between the thoughts and opinions made on here, and my own.

A very large portion of that is the fact that I’d never consider the M models to begin with. Because I couldn’t afford them even if I wanted to. The M340i was even a stretch for me, and only possible due to my unique living situation. Otherwise, a Subaru would have been my car of choice most likely.

In that respect, the M340i IS a great M car alternative. The difference between the two of them is smaller than the difference between the 330i and M3, which is also a lot smaller of a difference between a Honda civic and an M3.

It’s not just about the value between the m340i and m3, it’s also about that it doesn’t really matter how much better the m3 is, because most people can’t afford it and never will have it anyway. Which makes this thread pretty irrelevant to anyone other than people who have the money for an M3. Therefore the m340i is a great m3 alternative, because it’s cheaper and gets 90% of the way there, and that’s all that matters to people like me.

You put forward a very valid perspective, applicable to vehicle choice and echoed by many BMW users.

When I drove the M4, although I fully appreciated the 'performance' (and I don't mean just the 0 - 60mph) and the way the M-car delivered, it wouldn't be my choice, even with money available. Just doesn't tick all the boxes for a daily driver.

One of my neighbours used to run 5-series M-cars, he ran a couple of E39 M5s, then moved to the E60 M5. He didn't keep the E60 M5 for many months, wished he'd not parted with his last E39 M5.

Why, with that amazing V10? Simply put, it wasn't useable for this guy, as his daily driver. The E39 was a perfect blend, which rewarded where ever he drove it. The E60, neither drivetrain or chassis worked for him.

[JABCAT]

Originally Posted by Giggler

You’re not looking at all if you think they’re “pretty evenly matched”. If you’re talking about simple straight line performance, go on YouTube and look up 100-200kmh for the M3 vs M340i… once you get off the line and up to speed where traction isn’t limiting the M3 comp, the two are not even competing in the same ballpark. On the handling side of things, most reviewers have benchmarked the M3/M4 against the 911 Carrera S in terms of both driving feel and actual performance results. The M340i isn’t even a part of the conversation.

People keep using M3 & M3 Comp interchangeably when discussing performance, and they obviously perform differently. The base M3 is $18k more than a rwd M340i, or $16k more than a M340i xdrive. The M3 Comp is $22k or $26k more respective of trim level. I do find it interesting that more than once people have used the excuse of "traction limited". These cars are powerful but aren't that powerful, and they're heavy, so the traction issues must come down to driver & tires.

Like I mentioned originally, when deciding how much money I want to spend, I want to know what I'm getting for that money. From the responses, it appears that for non-track use, I would have to spend for the Comp version to get any noticeable performance gains over the M340i. The standard M3 does give more exterior color & interior options. Some people just want the most powerful version (I fall into that category sometimes), but I don't know if that's worth $18k - $26k for me.

Thanks for all the feedback & discussion.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by JABCAT

People keep using M3 & M3 Comp interchangeably when discussing performance, and they obviously perform differently. The base M3 is $18k more than a rwd M340i, or $16k more than a M340i xdrive. The M3 Comp is $22k or $26k more respective of trim level. I do find it interesting that more than once people have used the excuse of "traction limited". These cars are powerful but aren't that powerful, and they're heavy, so the traction issues must come down to driver & tires.

Like I mentioned originally, when deciding how much money I want to spend, I want to know what I'm getting for that money. From the responses, it appears that for non-track use, I would have to spend for the Comp version to get any noticeable performance gains over the M340i. The standard M3 does give more exterior color & interior options. Some people just want the most powerful version (I fall into that category sometimes), but I don't know if that's worth $18k - $26k for me.

Thanks for all the feedback & discussion.

You have to realize for comparison sake you need to look at apples to apples. Standard M3 can only be had in RWD and with a manual transmission. The m340i can not be had with a manual transmission. The M3 Comp can only be had with an automatic transmission.

So for this discussion it doesn't make sense to compare the base M3 to any of the m340i trims. Your comparison point is: m340i compared to M3 comp.... m340i xdrive compared to M3 Comp xdrive. The base M3 doesn't have a place in this conversation, and as I mentioned previously, you typically go for the base M3 if you're set on getting a manual transmission.

M3 base 6mt rwd
M340i rwd -> M3 Comp rwd
M340i xdrive -> M3 Comp xdrive

[TheMaxXHD]

If this entire thread is a question of M340i vs M3 Comp, especially if we are talking the xDrive variants, then the only people who would legitimately say the M340i is nothing like an M car are the people who can actually afford an M3 Comp.

The point of this thread isn't that the M3 is a better car than the M340i, it absolutely is a better car than the M340i, specs don't lie.

The point of this thread is that the M340i is shockingly good value, arguably better value than the M3, for MOST people, while still able to retain many elements of an M car.

My argument has always been, on a track, the M3 is the better car. On the road, I think it draws with the M340i. It loses some and wins some. They trade blows, in terms of comfort, efficiency, driving dynamics, and practicality, but for 15k or more (depending on trim and options) less than an M3, that is basically a win for the M340i.

I cannot afford an M3. And even if I could, unless I was a track user, the value proposition of an M3 is really hard to justify. Even the value proposition of an M340i begins to become shaky when you can buy a Subaru WRX for nearly 30k less (which btw, people track just fine)

Most people can't afford even an M340i. A 330i is pushing it for many as well. Be mindful of that before everyone gets all up in arms for what is, relative to price and the car market, a smaller gap between the M340i and an M3, than I think we'd all like to admit.

[JABCAT]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

You have to realize for comparison sake you need to look at apples to apples. Standard M3 can only be had in RWD and with a manual transmission. The m340i can not be had with a manual transmission. The M3 Comp can only be had with an automatic transmission.

So for this discussion it doesn't make sense to compare the base M3 to any of the m340i trims. Your comparison point is: m340i compared to M3 comp.... m340i xdrive compared to M3 Comp xdrive. The base M3 doesn't have a place in this conversation, and as I mentioned previously, you typically go for the base M3 if you're set on getting a manual transmission.

M3 base 6mt rwd
M340i rwd -> M3 Comp rwd
M340i xdrive -> M3 Comp xdrive

I think the transmission option is irrelevant to this discussion. That would be saying I can't compare a 6MT Corvette to an Auto Corvette (Corvettes have been my other performance vehicles, & similar comparisons).
Minus the 0.1 or 0.2 0-60 difference, they're the same.

But if we throw the base M3 out of the discussion are you saying it's not worth the $18k over an M340i? If that's the case, then one would need to spend even more ($24-26k) to get a noticeable performance increase?

This isn't unique to BMW, the new Z06 has a base price $45k more than the Stingray for 170 more hp, but very marginal performance increases. The same argument is waged on those forums of "on the track is where it'll really shine & blow away the base...".