[225]

On first look you think what have Kia done pricing it at 40k!?!?
It attracts the high tax AND goes head to head with premium German makes.

However we now have a Kia in a load of group test with mercs, Audi and bmw where as before they would not have been. Plus they are not bad reviews of a reasonable car.

Now as for who would pay 40k for a Kia then no one but who would pay 40k for a bmw? It's all spin as we know and you can get 20% off a bmw list with out trying so if Kia can do the same with some great pcp deals they may even sell a few.

Good little loss leader that raises the brand if you ask me and a great second hand bargin!

[JustChris]

Originally Posted by moff

So many missing the point.

The Adaptive suspension is the shortcoming of the 440i that they tested. Too soft in Comfort and too stiff in Sport.

A non-adaptive 440i is a better and more round proposition. I drove both and felt the same as PH with the Adaptive.

Obviously this isn't great from BMW, but you get what you pay for. I can't remember exactly how much, but the Adaptive on the 6 series is £4K+ and an altogether better setup.

Passive in the M2 is pretty great set up too. I generally find Sport too harsh in adaptive and won't be ticking the box many more times.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by JustChris

Passive in the M2 is pretty great set up too. I generally find Sport too harsh in adaptive and won't be ticking the box many more times.

I have a feeling the Birds B3 suspension is passive (think they ditch the adaptive dampers if your car has them?) and being honest I don't really see the need for adaptive if a passive set-up is well sorted and well engineered. I don't doubt some of the more sophisticated adaptive systems are very good but they also strike me as a recipe for expensive repairs as the car gets older!

For what it's worth, the best chassis in any BMW I've had was without doubt the passive set-up on my E46 M3 CS.....

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by JNW1

...and being honest I don't really see the need for adaptive if a passive set-up is well sorted and well engineered. I don't doubt some of the more sophisticated adaptive systems are very good but they also strike me as a recipe for expensive repairs as the car gets older!.

Suspension durability is certainly an issue, hence why I run with the extended warranty, while running the complexities of our latest cars.

Even well engineered suspensions still require the right wheel/tyre combinations to work at their best.

BMW shot themselves in the foot with fitting run-flats, restricted (and compromised) one of the vital tuning tools. Particularly when tyres are viewed as the number-one ride control component.

[TodmordenLad]

Originally Posted by moff

Couldn't disagree more. My car is on 20"s too.

Not only does my LCI 440 drive better than my 640d on 20"s it's a million times better than our previous E92 335d on 19"s which is easily the worst car for ride quality that I've driven - 3 cracked alloys too.

The negatives for BMW's latest generation of cars are similar to negatives for MB, Audi and others eg efficiencies have forced electronic steering, regulation has forced safety making cars heavier.

At the end of the day, its down to personal preference, Moff. My ideal set up seems to be 19" run flats (goodyear eagle f1's) on adaptive - which is probably very similar to 19" non run flats on passive, in fact
The test drive cars I've driven recently have been on run flats of course, which is a pain, as you can only compare adaptive vs passive on RFTs - if you can find the cars, that is. I ended up going all over the place

[Mr Whippy]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I - and I suspect many other buyers of M-Sport X-Drives - were anticipating the traction benefits of 4WD but still in a car that handled in the way you'd expect from a BMW. To use Audi as a comparison, I was thinking the chassis on an F31 335d X-Drive would be more akin to an S4 Avant than an All Road!

Can't you just buy and fit and align f31 330d msport bits?

Weight is as good as equal and you get what you want.

[Mr Whippy]

Originally Posted by TodmordenLad

At the end of the day, its down to personal preference, Moff. My ideal set up seems to be 19" run flats (goodyear eagle f1's) on adaptive - which is probably very similar to 19" non run flats on passive, in fact
The test drive cars I've driven recently have been on run flats of course, which is a pain, as you can only compare adaptive vs passive on RFTs - if you can find the cars, that is. I ended up going all over the place

Have you tried F1 rft and non-rft?

I'm curious when the time to swap comes if F1 rft really are that much better than other rft, or if just normal tyres are the way to go if you want decent ride/feel.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

Can't you just buy and fit and align f31 330d msport bits?

Weight is as good as equal and you get what you want.

Yes, spending money on after-market parts to correct something which (IMO) should have been right from the factory is obviously an option (as many on this forum have proved!). Should you really need to be doing that on a £40k car though?

In fairness BMW seem to have improved things with the LCI models but with a bit more care and attention they could have produced a car that handled much better (thereby satisfying the keener drivers) without any significant adverse affect on ride quality (thereby keeping their other buyers happy as well). Probably wouldn't have cost them any extra to do it either....

[Gripen]

One very obvious Kia's advantage - it has limited slip differential

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by Gripen

One very obvious Kia's advantage - it has limited slip differential

You see people always talk about LSDs in that way, but my old 911 didn't have one and was the best handling car I've ever had and would run rings round any of my 5 M cars for balance and traction under power, all of which had an LSD.

The problem with modern BMWs is that they just aren't that sporty to drive anymore unless you start swapping out the springs and dampers.

[JustChris]

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/i...it-handle-heat

[moff]

Originally Posted by Gripen

One very obvious Kia's advantage - it has limited slip differential

On a track yes, on the road it's hard to exploit the benefits of an LSD.

[Isow]

The Kia Stinger is more the size of a BMW 5 than a 3 !

[TodmordenLad]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

It was in the paper magazine and not on their website yet, I guess they leave a few days before web publishing.

Had a read of this CAR article today. Not a bad article which, as you say, has the BMW as the best driver's car - best engine and chassis/steering. Car's tested were Audi S5, BMW 440i GC and the Kia Stinger GT-S. For a truer comparison, they should have used a 440i with the MPPSK, which would have matched the others for power, not that it mattered.
The article didn't mention whether the car was on adaptive or passive suspension. Given that it looks like it was a BMW UK supplied test car, I'd hazard a guess that it was on adaptive as it would have been fully optioned.