Can someone explain the logic here?

Originally Posted by chrisk03

If you're ever driving Rt 1 and Alexander Rd, honk, I'll look for "the best looking of the F30's" and wave.

I may drive down there tomorrow just to add to the accolades.

BJ

BJ,
After taking delivery of my estoril blue beauty, I've officially decided that the Msport line is the front end and rear bumper that all F30s should have.

Originally Posted by boltjaM3s

I'm 48 and grew up in an upper-middle class BMW-driving family so, no, didn't impregnate my 17 year old girlfriend and thus no grandchildren. My oldest is 14, so I'm 15 years away from that at least.

The Luxury line is the best looking of the F30's. That cannot be argued. That's why I drive it.

BJ

Originally Posted by woodswatchco

BJ,
After taking delivery of my estoril blue beauty, I've officially decided that the Msport line is the front end and rear bumper that all F30s should have.

You are where I was with the E90 a few years back. The E90 had a feminine front end and needed that M-Sport toughness to make the car look aggressive.

Flash forward to today, different story.

The F30 has a new, mean, low-slung, menacing look. The F30 M-Sport looks like the E90 LCI with it's swoopy-jaw that runs from under the headlights and down to the lower air intake. Additionally, the F30 M-Sport is a near-clone of the E90 M-Sport especially by the lower fascia with identical intakes and lower grill, the same open-mouth-smile face too. Take a look at the top left and bottom right images, jump back and forth, you'll see what I mean.

- The F30 M-Sport isn't necessary because the F30 looks aggressive enough already, solves the problem that the feminine E90 had.

- The F30 M-Sport looks so close to a mix of the E90 LCI and the E90 M-Sport that it doesn't look like a new car; it looks like the old car.

BJ

I had to tease BJ a little. I agree. All the F30 front ends are awesome. The M sport front end is new to me. This is my first BMW. It funny. a lot of people say they don't like how the grill sticks out and the front hood line. That is what I like best! I liked it so much, I left Audi for my F30. That and the extra horsepower. Also, the amazing 8sp auto transmission. Even though I ended up getting the manual. It pissed me off that if I did want an automatic transmission in an A4, I'd have to get the "prestige trim" to get the Audi 8 speed auto. About $48k? What a joke. Especially for a car that still has 205hp.

Originally Posted by boltjaM3s

You are where I was with the E90 a few years back. The E90 had a feminine front end and needed that M-Sport toughness to make the car look aggressive.

Flash forward to today, different story.

The F30 has a new, mean, low-slung, menacing look. The F30 M-Sport looks like the E90 LCI with it's swoopy-jaw that runs from under the headlights and down to the lower air intake. Additionally, the F30 M-Sport is a near-clone of the E90 M-Sport especially by the lower fascia with identical intakes and lower grill, the same open-mouth-smile face too. Take a look at the top left and bottom right images, jump back and forth, you'll see what I mean.

- The F30 M-Sport isn't necessary because the F30 looks aggressive enough already, solves the problem that the feminine E90 had.

- The F30 M-Sport looks so close to a mix of the E90 LCI and the E90 M-Sport that it doesn't look like a new car; it looks like the old car.

BJ

Originally Posted by woodswatchco

BJ,
After taking delivery of my estoril blue beauty, I've officially decided that the Msport line is the front end and rear bumper that all F30s should have.

I am not sure about the rear, but I agree the F30 M sport front is a must.

Originally Posted by dtc100

I am not sure about the rear, but I agree the F30 M sport front is a must.

Nah. The M Sport front is kind of wasted on the F30.

However, I will add the M steering wheel at some point.

Originally Posted by woodswatchco

I liked it so much, I left Audi for my F30. That and the extra horsepower. Also, the amazing 8sp auto transmission. Even though I ended up getting the manual. It pissed me off that if I did want an automatic transmission in an A4, I'd have to get the "prestige trim" to get the Audi 8 speed auto. About $48k? What a joke. Especially for a car that still has 205hp.

Uh, whoever said you need to order the prestige trim to get the 8-sp auto in the Audi was lying to you. It's available in every trim, including their lowest level(Premium) for $35k.

On another note, the M-sport front bumper is 1000% better than the standard one. I cannot stand the flat section under the kidney grills in the regular front bumper. It looks so unfinished. If I ordered a 320i, I would swap front ends with the M-sport right away.

Back to the original point of this thread, I am someone who is now looking at BMWs because of the 320i introduction. After attending the Detroit Auto Show, it is at the top of my next car list.

I currently drive a G37 6MT sedan, and I was greatly disappointed to find out the 2014 Q50 replacement will not be available with a 6MT at launch, nor will it offer a turbo 4 cylinder.

As I get older, I am less focused on horsepower and am willing to trade off handling, refinement, and fuel economy. I am the border of Gen X/Gen Y, so I guess I am the target demographic. Once this thing hits the lot I am all over it.

Just a thought. All the 3 series offer a great, balanced package. If you are driving a 330 horsepower G37 right now, I'd seriously consider a 328i. Think of it as an upgraded 320i that has much more horsepower and standard features. I suppose the same could be said for the 335i compared to the 328i. For me, the happy medium was a 328i. You will not miss the crushing speed of your G37 in one. You may in the 320i.

Originally Posted by Itgb

On another note, the M-sport front bumper is 1000% better than the standard one. I cannot stand the flat section under the kidney grills in the regular front bumper. It looks so unfinished. If I ordered a 320i, I would swap front ends with the M-sport right away.

BMW might have tried to remedy it by adding a license bracket initially, but it made it look worse so they dropped it. Maybe a better designed license bracket will help.

Originally Posted by volnedan

Back to the original point of this thread, I am someone who is now looking at BMWs because of the 320i introduction. After attending the Detroit Auto Show, it is at the top of my next car list.

I currently drive a G37 6MT sedan, and I was greatly disappointed to find out the 2014 Q50 replacement will not be available with a 6MT at launch, nor will it offer a turbo 4 cylinder.

As I get older, I am less focused on horsepower and am willing to trade off handling, refinement, and fuel economy. I am the border of Gen X/Gen Y, so I guess I am the target demographic. Once this thing hits the lot I am all over it.

First off, welcome aboard.

It's a great car, and the fact that BMW is opening it up to those who want to do exactly as you say is a good thing.

Trade off the horses for the goodies, get into a BMW for the price of an Acura TL, it's all good.

BJ

Originally Posted by woodswatchco

Just a thought. All the 3 series offer a great, balanced package. If you are driving a 330 horsepower G37 right now, I'd seriously consider a 328i. Think of it as an upgraded 320i that has much more horsepower and standard features. I suppose the same could be said for the 335i compared to the 328i. For me, the happy medium was a 328i. You will not miss the crushing speed of your G37 in one. You may in the 320i.

I almost got into an A4 a few years ago, and I really didn't miss the horsepower drop from the G37. I am looking for refinement and fuel economy, so I am expecting the tradeoff.

The 328 is also in my sights, but the MF on BMW leases are a bit high to justify the extra $100 for monthly payment. Every time I lease a new vehicle, I always compare the usual suspects (G37, 3 series, A4) and Infiniti always had the best lease rates for similar MSRP.

Honestly, I'm sure the 320 will have same engine output as the A4, which is OK by me.

I thought the purpose of the 320 was to generate threads on Bimmerfest about how the 320 is almost as fast as the 328i and a better deal and and more appropriate for the car and...etc. (Feel free to replace 320 references with 328i and 328i with 335i). Threads will begin shortly...stay tuned.

Originally Posted by volnedan

Honestly, I'm sure the 320 will have same engine output as the A4, which is OK by me.

It will perform like the previous generation A4, not the current one. I think it is a lousy value. If I were to pass up the 328i, I'd rather get an A4 instead of the 320 with a crippled engine. If the 320 had a smaller more efficient engine providing significantly better mpgs, then it would have been a different story. You can get that kind of power/torque from a 1.7-1.8L engine, but with much better efficiency, i.e. 40+mpg on the highway.

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

It will perform like the previous generation A4, not the current one. I think it is a lousy value. If I were to pass up the 328i, I'd rather get an A4 instead of the 320 with a crippled engine. If the 320 had a smaller more efficient engine providing significantly better mpgs, then it would have been a different story. You can get that kind of power/torque from a 1.7-1.8L engine, but with much better efficiency, i.e. 40+mpg on the highway.

A basic A4 Quattro is a pretty boring car whereas even a stripped 320i will be fun to drive. It is lighter and more nimble.

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

A basic A4 Quattro is a pretty boring car whereas even a stripped 320i will be fun to drive. It is lighter and more nimble.

What would a non-basic quattro be then? To change the driving experience, you have two options: 18" wheel for $800, or Premium Plus and Sport for a lot more. A non-sport A4 shod with 18" seems to out-handle the non-sport 3 with 18" wheels in pretty much every slalom type test I have seen.

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

What would a non-basic quattro be then? To change the driving experience, you have two options: 18" wheel for $800, or Premium Plus and Sport for a lot more. A non-sport A4 shod with 18" seems to out-handle the non-sport 3 with 18" wheels in pretty much every slalom type test I have seen.

Slalom speed is not necessarily an indication of how well a car handles which can be more subjective. For example, the Car and Driver comparo with the 328i said (I'm paraphrasing) the A4 with Sport tracked well in turns but is not particularly entertaining. The 328i was better balanced and more neutral. I'd guess this a result of the weight distribution and the polar moment of inertia (in this case the longitudinal engine placement in the Audi verses the front mid-engine placement in the BMW.

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

Slalom speed is not necessarily an indication of how well a car handles which can be more subjective. For example, the Car and Driver comparo with the 328i said (I'm paraphrasing) the A4 with Sport tracked well in turns but is not particularly entertaining. The 328i was better balanced and more neutral. I'd guess this a result of the weight distribution and the polar moment of inertia (in this case the longitudinal engine placement in the Audi verses the front mid-engine placement in the BMW.

Mid-engine placement in the BMW? I assume you just mean it is placed slightly more behind the front axle than with the Audi.

Btwy, while journalists like to talk about the perfect weight distribution, it is worth noting that doesn't translate in ideal polar moment of inertia. One involves integrating lengths while the other requires integrating squares of lengths. All these cars are still inherently more prone to understeer, although obviously some more than others.

What you are referring to is indeed rather subjective and a strong function of what one is used to. Most traditional racers always prefer RWD over AWD, because that is what they are used to and because it is easier to loosen and control the rear end. There was a video on this forum a long time ago about a pro racer driving an AWD 911 and the 2WD counterpart on a tight indoor course. The AWD went faster, but he preferred the feel of the RWD. My guess is that it had a lot to do with what he was used to. It is a very subjective thing. But I do know what you are talking about.

Btwy, I don't see in the C&D review the paraphrase you are referring to. And it is worth noting that although Audi suck some summer tires on that car, it is not a sport pack A4 (steering has four spokes).

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

Mid-engine placement in the BMW? I assume you just mean it is placed slightly more behind the front axle than with the Audi.

Btwy, while journalists like to talk about the perfect weight distribution, it is worth noting that doesn't translate in ideal polar moment of inertia. One involves integrating lengths while the other requires integrating squares of lengths. All these cars are still inherently more prone to understeer, although obviously some more than others.

What you are referring to is indeed rather subjective and a strong function of what one is used to. Most traditional racers always prefer RWD over AWD, because that is what they are used to and because it is easier to loosen and control the rear end. There was a video on this forum a long time ago about a pro racer driving an AWD 911 and the 2WD counterpart on a tight indoor course. The AWD went faster, but he preferred the feel of the RWD. My guess is that it had a lot to do with what he was used to. It is a very subjective thing. But I do know what you are talking about.

Btwy, I don't see in the C&D review the paraphrase you are referring to. And it is worth noting that although Audi suck some summer tires on that car, it is not a sport pack A4 (steering has four spokes).

I said "front mid engine" indicating the bulk of the engine is behind the centerline of the front axle. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding polar moment but the general idea that car magazines talk about is having most the of weight between the wheelbase rather than at the end of the car. Audi's engine placement is a negative in this regard compared to BMW.

Here is the phrase from the CD omparo: "Throw the A4 into a corner, and the front end plows delicately and predictably. It’s not the most joyous way around a bend, but it is repeatable and secure and requires very *little skill."

Here's what they say about the 328i handling: "The brand’s obsession with even weight distribution pays handling dividends. Front and rear tires seem to work equally hard. The new 3 most closely resembles the previous car in its balanced feel and nearly neutral handling."

Well, it will all come down to a back to back test drive of the 320 to the A4. The butt dyno never lies. If the 320 feels fast enough for me compared to the A4, then I'm sold.

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

Here is the phrase from the CD omparo: "Throw the A4 into a corner, and the front end plows delicately and predictably. It’s not the most joyous way around a bend, but it is repeatable and secure and requires very *little skill."

Is the implication that it takes more skill to do the same in a 3? That doesn't sound like and advantage to me.

Btwy, most sports cars have a weight distribution that is closer to 40-45%F and 55-60%R. What does that say about "ideal" 50%/50% weight distribution?

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

What would a non-basic quattro be then? To change the driving experience, you have two options: 18" wheel for $800, or Premium Plus and Sport for a lot more. A non-sport A4 shod with 18" seems to out-handle the non-sport 3 with 18" wheels in pretty much every slalom type test I have seen.

I owned a 2010 quattro a4 sport premium plus. It probably does out handle a base 320i but it was no fun

Its predictable. You know exactly how long it'll grip and exactly when it will start plowing on a corner. It is easy to drive to its max but no fun and in a corner it is setup to plow and understeer since that is what people are used to coming from cheaper cars.

Best I can say about Audi is its stable and feels really solid in rain. My 328i loses grip in the dry sometimes even but at least I'm having fun in it. Its a totally different type of car. Much more for people who want super balanced handling on a corner. Might be scary for some but I'll take it every day. BMW not only loves rwd but they make it neutral unlike say a Mercedes or a Lexus and I applaud that.

Maybe having awd or fwd could get you a faster slalom time .... civic sis get great slalom times after all. But you don't drive slalom time. You drive a car. A gtr probably destroys a 911 gt2 on most courses but I'd take the 911 because its more fun.

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

Is the implication that it takes more skill to do the same in a 3? That doesn't sound like and advantage to me.

Btwy, most sports cars have a weight distribution that is closer to 40-45%F and 55-60%R. What does that say about "ideal" 50%/50% weight distribution?

You just love to be contrary just for the hell of it. The key phrase Car and Driver used was "It's not the most joyous way around a bend". What's wrong with taking some skill to drive properly. I thought we were on an enthusiast site with people who want to take their cars near the limit and have fun doing so.

Regarding weight distribution, it all depends on engine location. Of course a mid-engine sports car is going to have a slight rearward bias. However, there is absolutely no doubt that in spirited driving of a sport sedan, it's better to have more weight toward the center of the car than at each end.

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

Is the implication that it takes more skill to do the same in a 3? That doesn't sound like and advantage to me.

Btwy, most sports cars have a weight distribution that is closer to 40-45%F and 55-60%R. What does that say about "ideal" 50%/50% weight distribution?

It DOES take more skill to "repair" overblown corner entry with RWD than FWD, regardless of weight distribution, generally speaking. Instinctive throttle lift in "Oh, s**t!" moment will straighten the things up by itself, usually without any further input from the "expert" at the wheel of the FWD vehicle. Not so simple with RWD where generally speaking you are better off goosing the throttle and correcting with opposite lock.

Most sports cars have more wight at the rear because it is EXPECTED to have some skill to drive them. It has something to do with pendulum-like forces that are very favorable to driving through corners until you reach snap-oversteer in which all of us here (no exceptions, yourself included) are basically deer in the headlights.

That's why 50-50 is very favorable for a sporty car to be used in everyday driving by everyday drivers.

Happy?

I've been cross-shopping the 328i sedan with an X-1 Sdrive28. While they are vastly different vehicles, the X-1 retains traditional BMW characteristics with a roughly $7K price differential as similarly equipped.

Along comes the 320i to pique my interest for the 15 minutes spent configuring. BMW successfully mitigated downmarket poaching from the 328i for the aficionado. No interior color options save for black/tan, and the derated engine has no offset MPG gain. Pass!

Their target audience is abundantly clear, time will reveal whether it was a successful gambit.