[Firaxis]

If the pupose is to wave our dongles about in terms of price / performance an M2 (which isn't far from price wise) and an M140i will wipe the floor with both of them. TBH until I tried both I didn't recon there would be much in it, but I was wrong...

We're kind of missing their purpose a little, the 335D is made to be a long hauler with ample performance to boot. The 340i is the lighter fun equivalent for those who don't need to wrack up miles. They both offer similar performance dependant on situation as their specs suggest.

[snipnoob86]

the 340i may well be the quicker standard car.

but I love riding that wave of torque!

ive been thinking of moving to petrol as my miles dropped but everytime I test drive a car ive felt underwhelmed. is it me or do modern petrols not feel the same as they used too?

[Darth Helmut]

Originally Posted by JoeBo

I can confirm that the 440i is quicker than a 335d from a standing start in the dry. This morning it just so happened that I pulled up at traffic lights alongside a 335d estate and when the lights turned green we both booted it (the road was a dual carriageway slip road to the motorway and it was quite early so no other traffic/all safe etc!

Initially the 335d was ahead (only just) and then I started to pull away once we got past about 40mph.

Probably not a fair test as it was the estate version but I was very pleased to see it off I think the guy was quite surprised that he wasn't pulling away from the car next to him, his face was a picture

335D was prob in EcoPro to make it fair on you

[sahajesh]

Originally Posted by Drew474

Strange BMW got their data so wrong for these..... Look just deal with it, in everyday situations the x35d is faster.

But the d sounds like shit. I can't compare to a 4 pot 20d, but my 30d doesn't sound much different to a tractor and when you put your foot down, it's just a loud noise.

[Drew474]

Originally Posted by sahajesh

But the d sounds like shit. I can't compare to a 4 pot 20d, but 30d doesn't sound much different to a tractor and when you put your foot down, it's a loud noise.

Didn't mention sound mate. I have no doubt the x40i sounds fantastic, and I would probably go for the petrol if they done an xdrive variant.

So why don't they do the 40i models with xdrive?

[225]

Slow 340 non xdrive herse...

[sahajesh]

Originally Posted by Drew474

Didn't mention sound mate. I have no doubt the x40i sounds fantastic, and I would probably go for the petrol if they done an xdrive variant.

So why don't they do the 40i models with xdrive?

They do but not in the UK.

[M3anLantern]

Originally Posted by 225

Slow 340 non xdrive herse...

What is that app what does it get the inputs from? The car or the phone's AGPS?

[dopper99]

Originally Posted by dk1894

What is that app what does it get the inputs from? The car or the phone's AGPS?

Laptimer app.... http://www.bmw.com/com/en/owners/bmw...mw_m_laptimer/

[willjames]

340i sounds sweet on the video when he boots it! Do we reckon that's standard exhaust?

[73henny]

The 340 has covered way more miles than the 335 which hasn't even been half way run in yet.
So a heavier estate with a tight engine vs a lighter saloon with a run-in engine.

[ClartVader]

What's the typical run-in mileage for the 335d?

[NISFAN]

All things being equal ...

First rule of cars is.....lighter cars are always quickest.

Second rule of cars is .......more powerful cars are always quickest.

The 340i happens to be lighter and more powerful, so why the notion that the 335d might be quicker?

[Firaxis]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

All things being equal ...

First rule of cars is.....lighter cars are always quickest.

Second rule of cars is .......more powerful cars are always quickest.

The 340i happens to be lighter and more powerful, so why the notion that the 335d might be quicker?

Traction / torque, there isn't enough weight and / or hp difference between the two to offset the rather large torque disparity **(1530KG / 326HP / 332lb) / (1710KG / 313HP / 465lb) . If the plan is top trumps in a straight line then weight isn't always a bad thing either (again in terms of traction) it just takes more power (torque) to get over the intial point of inertia.

Your first rule isn't quite right either because that would mean the M5 would be slower than a 340i. Which of course it isn't, I know you said "all things equal" but the 335D and 340i aren't equal.

The main disadvantage to the 335D is going to be drive train losses due to 4WD and with BMW being slightly under optimistic (and varied) about what the engine actually produces, the 340i / 335D would have to be tested on an RR. Although with the amount of torque it has, I bet the 0-60 time would jump up without the 4WD system..

Of course there are many advantages of a lighter petrol, handling being one of them. In a twisty course I'd expect the lighter car to win, also a 340i with a limited slip diff would be a more "ideal" comparison.

**I couldn't be bothered to check the owners manual, so these specs are from the web / off top of me head.

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by Firaxis

Traction / torque, there isn't enough weight and / or hp difference between the two to offset the rather large torque disparity **(1530KG / 326HP / 332lb) / (1710KG / 313HP / 465lb) . If the plan is top trumps in a straight line then weight isn't always a bad thing either (again in terms of traction) it just takes more power (torque) to get over the intial point of inertia.

You're first rule isn't quite right either because that would mean the M5 would be slower than a 340i. Which of course it isn't, I know you said "all things equal" but the 335D and 340i aren't equal.

The main disadvantage to the 335D is going to be drive train losses due to 4WD and with BMW being slightly under optimistic (and varied) about what the engine actually produces the, 340i / 335D would have to be tested on an RR. Although with the amount of torque it has, I bet the 0-60 time would jump up without the 4WD system..

Of course there are many advantages of a lighter petrol, handling being one of them. In a twisty course I'd expect the lighter car to win, also a 340i with a limited slip diff would be a more "ideal" comparison.

**I couldn't be bothered to check the owners manual, so these specs are fromt the web / off top of me head.

Ah, but engine torque is an almost meaningless figure. It is torque at the wheels that is the important figure, and that is largely a function of the gearbox (and other things like diff ratio and tyre circumference,etc).

The clue is in the rev range, although that doesn't tell the full story. An engine that redlines at 7000 instead of 5,500, can handle 20% extra torque multiplication in the gearbox to reach the same speed in whichever gear you wish to compare. Which I suspect is what you have in reality. The 40i ZF ratios are completely unique, but it's older sibling the 335i had the same ratios as the 335D, but a higher ratio final drive diff to give it more torque multiplication at the wheels.
By now you'd be telling me that the 335d has more than 20% torque difference than the 340i, which I would accept, but the other issue is that it makes peak torque at a low figure, and being Diesel, it drops like a stone. Meaning revving to 5,500 is not the fastest way to drive it. So you are always giving up gear multiplication in favour of maximising engine peak torque as you go through the gears.

If you want a practical demonstration of what I'm talking about, pit the M5 you mentioned (500lb.ft) against a remapped to 500ft.lb 335d. You think the 335d would stand any chance? It would get off the line faster, but then it would be all over before the M5 driver had to pull a paddle.

The 335d is an effortless car to drive though, so is more useable than the 40i in the real world, and plenty quick enough.

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by Firaxis

If the pupose is to wave our dongles about in terms of price / performance an M2 (which isn't far from price wise) and an M140i will wipe the floor with both of them. TBH until I tried both I didn't recon there would be much in it, but I was wrong...

We're kind of missing their purpose a little, the 335D is made to be a long hauler with ample performance to boot. The 340i is the lighter fun equivalent for those who don't need to wrack up miles. They both offer similar performance dependant on situation as their specs suggest.

To add and miles apart on economy.

[Firaxis]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

Ah, but engine torque is an almost meaningless figure. It is torque at the wheels that is the important figure, and that is largely a function of the gearbox (and other things like diff ratio and tyre circumference,etc).

The clue is in the rev range, although that doesn't tell the full story. An engine that redlines at 7000 instead of 5,500, can handle 20% extra torque multiplication in the gearbox to reach the same speed in whichever gear you wish to compare. Which I suspect is what you have in reality. The 40i ZF ratios are completely unique, but it's older sibling the 335i had the same ratios as the 335D, but a higher ratio final drive diff to give it more torque multiplication at the wheels.
By now you'd be telling me that the 335d has more than 20% torque difference than the 340i, which I would accept, but the other issue is that it makes peak torque at a low figure, and being Diesel, it drops like a stone. Meaning revving to 5,500 is not the fastest way to drive it. So you are always giving up gear multiplication in favour of maximising engine peak torque as you go through the gears.

If you want a practical demonstration of what I'm talking about, pit the M5 you mentioned (500lb.ft) against a remapped to 500ft.lb 335d. You think the 335d would stand any chance? It would get off the line faster, but then it would be all over before the M5 driver had to pull a paddle.

The 335d is an effortless car to drive though, so is more useable than the 40i in the real world, and plenty quick enough.

I do like these types of talks ..

I did mention drive train losses from 4WD, hence you'd have to measure power to wheel. I've not a clue what the actual gear ratio's on the Bimmers are, but mine upshifts before peak dropoff (or seems to).

Isn't one of the major points of the ZF8AT to maximise performance figures? Edit: ((0-60) 4.8 for 335D and 5.1 for 340i)..

I think the issue people talk about is how useable is the 340i compared to the 335D in the real world and it's logical to think that in quite a few scenario's the 335D would be quicker (due to everything stated).

As for the M5, no the 335D wouldn't stand a change and that's due to horsepower (not torque) (the M5 is near enough double the HP). Whereas the 13hp difference between the 340i and the 335D ain't going to matter.

[73henny]

Originally Posted by ClartVader

What's the typical run-in mileage for the 335d?

1200 miles if my memory serves me correct

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by Firaxis

I do like these types of talks ..

I did mention drive train losses from 4WD, hence you'd have to measure power to wheel. I've not a clue what the actual gear ratio's on the Bimmers are, but mine upshifts before peak dropoff (or seems to).

Isn't one of the major points of the ZF8AT to maximise performance figures? 335D has a quoted time of 4.8 seconds (0-60) and the 340i has a 0-60 of 4.6. So on paper at least the 340i is slightly quicker but BMW must of factored in things like power to wheel / ratio's etc. to make them somewhat comparable.

I think the issue people talk about is how useable is the 340i compared to the 335D in the real world and it's logical to think that in quite a few scenario's the 335D would be quicker (due to everything stated).

As for the M5, no the 335D wouldn't stand a change and that's due to horsepower (not torque) (the M5 is near enough double the HP). Whereas the 13hp difference between the 340i and the 335D ain't going to matter.

Yes the ZF8 is a great gearbox, and with 8 gears, maximises average torque at the wheels, more than its 6 speed predecessors could. The problem is, they both have ZF8 boxes in them

I know you mention that weight and power are near enough between the two to not matter too much, and in isolation don't, but when you pit one against the other, they certainly do. There is no way around the physics. The test shown is actually being kind to the AWD 335d. Do the same with a standard foot from brake to throttle start and the 340i would run away very convincingly (on dry tarmac). It is voodoo how the torque curve stays almost in check with wheel spin on the 340i. The same can't be said with a Diesel and RWD, which is probably why they never made an sDrive 335d.

In real every day use, there is not much that can top the effortless thrust that you get from a 335d. Whilst the 340i is actually pretty torquey for a petrol 3l, it does, for fuel consumptions sake, live in a gear which puts it in a very low rpm range. And it does need to be woken up to squirt into that motorway gap, whereas the 335d always seems to be 'ready'. 335d is definitely the better road cruiser.

[73henny]

Originally Posted by Firaxis

335D has a quoted time of 4.8 seconds (0-60) and the 340i has a 0-60 of 4.6.

I think the 340 has a time of 5.1?

[Ronstein]

Originally Posted by 73henny

I think the 340 has a time of 5.1?

Figures from the BMW UK Website for:
MSport Touring are:

340i - 5.1 sec
335D - 4.9 sec

MSport Saloon:

340i - 5.1 sec (manual 5.2 sec)
335D - 4.8 sec

[Firaxis]

Originally Posted by Ronstein

Figures from the BMW UK Website for:
MSport Touring are:

340i - 5.1 sec
335D - 4.9 sec

MSport Saloon:

340i - 5.1 sec (manual 5.2 sec)
335D - 4.8 sec

Cool, I was going on the Xdrive ZFAT 340i which I've seen anywhere from 4.6 to 4.9..

But anyway, this just further reinforces my point that the 130lb FT (ish) torque additional in the 335D w / Xdrive must be making the actual difference.