[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by carlfan

I'm impressed that the new Honda Accord V6, which is cheaper, more reliable, and overall a great car, can do better 0-60 numbers than these cars. Supposedly the V6 accords can hit mid 5 seconds in 0 to 60 dash. The braking is just about equal as well to these cars.

As noted above, the numbers in this test should only be compared with cars within the test.

Do not take numbers from this test and compare it to cars from other sources.

Just look at the Acurae TL in this test which does o-60 in 5.4-5.6 in magazine tests. That is still faster than the Accord.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by WJGreer

Apparently, you are right.

Lol, beat me to it

[drob23]

Originally Posted by WJGreer

Apparently, you are right.

I think that the post is a joke...

[carlfan]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

As noted above, the numbers in this test should only be compared with cars within the test.

Do not take numbers from this test and compare it to cars from other sources.

Just look at the Acurae TL in this test which does o-60 in 5.4-5.6 in magazine tests. That is still faster than the Accord.

Got it. Good answer. I'll do some more research. I haven't really seen what those cars can do according to other magazines.

[carlfan]

Originally Posted by drob23

I think that the post is a joke...

What's so funny about mentioning an Accord? Are Honda's not great cars? The V6 gets even better MPG's than all the ones tested here.

[drob23]

Originally Posted by carlfan

What's so funny about mentioning an Accord? Are Honda's not great cars? The V6 gets even better MPG's than all the ones tested here.

Wow...I'm amazed

Look one post directly before your original one about the accord

(nothing wrong with the accord for the record)

[carlfan]

Originally Posted by drob23

Wow...I'm amazed

Look one post directly before your original one about the accord

(nothing wrong with the accord for the record)

I see it now (only 2 minutes earlier than my initial post). Fair enough.

[drob23]

Originally Posted by carlfan

I see it now (only 2 minutes earlier than my initial post). Fair enough.

Yea, I just couldn't believe it was a coincidence...I'm laughing at how improbable the two events are given how closely spaced...almost as ridiculous as the goose that was fighting his reflection against my office window today.

[carlfan]

Originally Posted by drob23

Yea, I just couldn't believe it was a coincidence...I'm laughing at how improbable the two events are given how closely spaced...almost as ridiculous as the goose that was fighting his reflection against my office window today.

Funny.

[BMWinGE]

It seems a few of you are trying really hard to discredit this review but some of the comments from the review being used for justification are from the family testers, not the reviewers from cars.com, motorweek or usatoday.

Additionally, BMW was not the most expensive car in the test and really a $7K spread from top to bottom is not out of line with most any other reviews, especially when it really just came down to how they were equipped. Its not like it was the lowest model of one manufacture vs the highest from another. Plus, for most reviews its the manufacture who decides on the options on the car that they provide, not the testers.

Finally, BMW was not the only car with a sport option, actually all of them except for the Volvo had some variance of a sport/performance option.

Just not understanding where some of you are coming from...

Originally Posted by drob23

The point is: BMW is only car that gets "sport" trim option. This affects suspension, looks and interior. I don't care about whether or not leather is preferable, point is that this article presupposes one car is more "luxury" than another when in actuality it is simply based on what they have optioned.

The analogy would be, here's $10: who will find a better tasting lunch. I go to Panera while you go to taco bell, you buy 2 super ____ buritos for $6 while I get a sandwich for $7. Who wins? I have no idea because the comparison is retarded given the constraints....

Originally Posted by WJGreer

The more I consider it, the more preposterous this "comparison" is. It's not a $46,000 shootout at all, it's a test of a $46,000 3 series against 5 other cars that cost trivially to substantially less.

As several have said, some of the dings on the other cars were about options that they did not have, yet could have had and still cost less (a lot, maybe) than the BMW.

In a couple of cases, notably the S60, a completely different level of car is available (the T6) at or below the price of the 328. The score was so close that T6 S60 would obviously have won the day had it been in the comparison.

I'm as big a BMW fan as anyone here - this comparison, however, was either poorly conceived or loaded in favor of BMW.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by carlfan

Got it. Good answer. I'll do some more research. I haven't really seen what those cars can do according to other magazines.

Fastest automatic mag time is 5.4 to 60 and 13.9 at 99.5mph, most other sources are about 5.6/14.2 at 98.5

Manual is about in the same range, 5.4-5.6 14.0-14.2 but tend to trap a bit higher.

The cool thing is the base 3 series is now often as fast or faster than a lot of the competitions upper level engine.

[drob23]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

Fastest automatic mag time is 5.4 to 60 and 13.9 at 99.5mph, most other sources are about 5.6/14.2 at 98.5

Manual is about in the same range, 5.4-5.6 14.0-14.2 but tend to trap a bit higher.

The cool thing is the base 3 series is now often as fast or faster than a lot of the competitions upper level engine.

I'll admit that I'm somewhat surprised that an AT can out drag a MT, obviously a DCT would, but a torque converter should give up some performance. Especially since you aren't exactly rowing through tons of gears.

Have you ever taken your car to a drag strip? You aren't stock, but can you switch the tune off?

[WilliCO]

Originally Posted by 328inGE

Additionally, BMW was not the most expensive car in the test and really a $7K spread from top to bottom is not out of line with most any other reviews, especially when it really just came down to how they were equipped. Its not like it was the lowest model of one manufacture vs the highest from another. Plus, for most reviews its the manufacture who decides on the options on the car that they provide, not the testers.

I didn't notice the first time that the ATS was $30 more...so you're right there.

But the cars weren't comparably equipped, and a few of the critical comments related directly to that point. They could have been comparably equipped within the price limitation. Absolutely, shame on the manufacturer for providing a stripper in cases where they did. I do think that Cars.com should have used a T6 Volvo for the test.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by drob23

I'll admit that I'm somewhat surprised that an AT can out drag a MT, obviously a DCT would, but a torque converter should give up some performance. Especially since you aren't exactly rowing through tons of gears.

Have you ever taken your car to a drag strip? You aren't stock, but can you switch the tune off?

The MT in most sources has the better 0-60 and trap speeds.

But Car and Driver has this unicorn time of 5.4 and 13.9 in an 8spd auto. But most sources have the MT a tick ahead in most measurements.

[drob23]

Originally Posted by WJGreer

I didn't notice the first time that the ATS was $30 more...so you're right there.

But the cars weren't comparably equipped, and a few of the critical comments related directly to that point. They could have been comparably equipped within the price limitation. Absolutely, shame on the manufacturer for providing a stripper in cases where they did. I do think that Cars.com should have used a T6 Volvo for the test.

I view it as cars.com not really caring a whole lot about taking the time to find cars comparably optioned, which I'm not overly against. I understand this, not even sure what cars they use for these tests. It's not like they're buying them or even renting, probably reserving them far in advance from the OEM.

The issue is then biasing your ratings on data that you simply didn't even *attempt* to explain. I think the 328i drives much better than the A4, but to ding the A4 because it doesn't come with a backup camera "and other options that is should at this price" is ridiculous when it's 40k instead of 46k. The BMW is pretty much a performance stripper in my book, no nav, no backup camera, no heated seats etc. That's not a bad thing, fine, but a journalist should at least say the same thing about the M-sport.

It just comes off like they already decided the outcome before even testing things.

[carlfan]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

Fastest automatic mag time is 5.4 to 60 and 13.9 at 99.5mph, most other sources are about 5.6/14.2 at 98.5

Manual is about in the same range, 5.4-5.6 14.0-14.2 but tend to trap a bit higher.

The cool thing is the base 3 series is now often as fast or faster than a lot of the competitions upper level engine.

Originally Posted by drob23

Yea, I just couldn't believe it was a coincidence...I'm laughing at how improbable the two events are given how closely spaced...almost as ridiculous as the goose that was fighting his reflection against my office window today.

Thanks for the info. Impressive. That's really good for a 4 cylinder family sedan.

More coincidences... I actually had a chance to drive the car today.
A family member paid me a visit with an F30 328 loaner.
After driving it, I have to say it feels really strong. Just as fast as my E36 M3. Would be interesting to see how they compare. I know the E36 times used to be mid 5's as well. Can't remember the 1/4 mile.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by carlfan

Thanks for the info. Impressive. That's really good for a 4 cylinder family sedan.

More coincidences... I actually had a chance to drive the car today.
A family member paid me a visit with an F30 328 loaner.
After driving it, I have to say it feels really strong. Just as fast as my E36 M3. Would be interesting to see how they compare. I know the E36 times used to be mid 5's as well. Can't remember the 1/4 mile.

It's about dead nuts even with an e36 M3.

I have the same drivetrain as an E36 in my E36/7. Before boost and with headers, pullies, intake and catback, I put down 220whp/213tq on a Mustang dyno. My F30 with just a catback did the same 220whp but 260tq. The car weights about 3400lbs, an E36 sedan was about 3200. The missing ingredient is an LSD for the F30.

[ToyotaBMW]

Well the F30 bettter win this comparison or BMW would be in trouble.
The C-Class, A4 and TL are due for a new platform while the F30 is on a new platform. ATS is first gen so give it a gen or two and it too will be able to compete in this segment.

[drob23]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

It's about dead nuts even with an e36 M3.

I have the same drivetrain as an E36 in my E36/7. Before boost and with headers, pullies, intake and catback, I put down 220whp/213tq on a Mustang dyno. My F30 with just a catback did the same 220whp but 260tq. The car weights about 3400lbs, an E36 sedan was about 3200. The missing ingredient is an LSD for the F30.

I would also think the E36 has a much smaller wheelbase and probably stiffer/lower suspension. So the E36 *should* out handle an F30, but maybe with some upgraded suspension components the F30 could make it closer.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by drob23

I would also think the E36 has a much smaller wheelbase and probably stiffer/lower suspension. So the E36 *should* out handle an F30, but maybe with some upgraded suspension components the F30 could make it closer.

The e36 communicates everything sharper. It definitely rides firmer. F30sports with summer tires put up higher g's and what not, but that's likely tires blurring the cars abilities.

I would like to see the same driver in both cars with the same tires. I think it would be a toss up. The F30 is hurting without an LSD. The 328 didn't have this much torque before.

[MikeyV]

Originally Posted by drob23

An m-sport is just such a better looking car than anything Volvo sells. Also, not a fan of the interior, but to each their own.

I don't agree this (V60 R Design) is easily as good looking as the same again F30

[drob23]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

I don't agree this (V60 R Design) is easily as good looking as the same again F30

Fair enough, to each their own I guess. BTW, isn't that a wagon?