[MikeG12]

rpm vs gearing for auto and manual tranny
auto vs manual gearing.pdf

[Uridian]

Nice.

That might explain the odd 0-60 times of the MT. With 60mph at 6641rpm, that's awfully close to the 7000rpm redline of the n20b20, and it also might be on a rapidly falling torque curve up there. Seems like signs point to a 2-3 shift, at least for the run that was documented in the specs pdf stickied up top.

[flyga3]

Are these official BMW calcs?
If so, then given these numbers are on M-sport tires, the 0-60 times listed on the F22 spec sheet (per the sticky) are with the standard 205/50R17 tires, which by my other post on circumference, and given your data, it would definitely require a shift to 3rd to 60 with a 6500 redline.
I was hoping the larger wheels/tires of the M-Sport would get it below 6s.

Question now is, are the numbers for the 328 manual bogus (5.7s 0-60 on 225/50R17s)? I know from last comparison the 328 manual ratios for 1-3 were off by a hundredth, hence this "new manual transmission borrowed from the M3/M4").

[jms644]

Thanks for the informative post! I'd be very interested to see this rpm vs gearing chart for the M235i as well.

[Lucky13]

All I know is several car magazines tested manual 328's with the optional 18" wheels and got 5.5-5.7. They always get Sport or M Sport to test when they test manuals so apples to apples times should be the same with Sport or M Sport option. Could be SOL with stock 17" wheels on the 228 but chances are if someone is ordering a manual they are an enthusiast and will want M Sport or Sport to get the larger wheel.
Motor Trend 5.5 Sport Pkg
Car and Driver 5.6 Sport Pkg
Road and Track 5.6 Sport Pkg

[MikeG12]

Originally Posted by flyga3

Are these official BMW calcs?
If so, then given these numbers are on M-sport tires, the 0-60 times listed on the F22 spec sheet (per the sticky) are with the standard 205/50R17 tires, which by my other post on circumference, and given your data, it would definitely require a shift to 3rd to 60 with a 6500 redline.
I was hoping the larger wheels/tires of the M-Sport would get it below 6s.

Question now is, are the numbers for the 328 manual bogus (5.7s 0-60 on 225/50R17s)? I know from last comparison the 328 manual ratios for 1-3 were off by a hundredth, hence this "new manual transmission borrowed from the M3/M4").

The 228 gear ratios are from BMW's configuration sheet. Unfortunately the 235 sheet does not list the final drive ratio for the manual, but another web site lists it as 3.08, same as the automatic. 235 spreadsheet attached. The manual ratios are all different, but the auto are all the same as the 228.

[flyga3]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

ordering a manual they are an enthusiast and will want M Sport or Sport to get the larger wheel.
Motor Trend 5.5 Sport Pkg
Car and Driver 5.6 Sport Pkg
Road and Track 5.6 Sport Pkg

Good, then I should have no worries hitting under 6s!

[2ForMe]

Originally Posted by Uridian

Nice.

That might explain the odd 0-60 times of the MT. With 60mph at 6641rpm, that's awfully close to the 7000rpm redline of the n20b20, and it also might be on a rapidly falling torque curve up there. Seems like signs point to a 2-3 shift, at least for the run that was documented in the specs pdf stickied up top.

Yeah it looks like the automatic also has to shift to 3rd before hitting 60 as well. Helps explain why the AT makes it there faster

[Mirage_3]

I sure hope thats the case. That would mean the car will feel just as fast accelerating when your foots on the gas with a manual or the auto. Who cares what it feels like when your shifting? If it feels fast, i value that 10 times more than a 0 to 60 time. Personally, the gas and money savings of the manual 228i msport vs the manual m235i is worth the slightly slower acceleration and worse engine sound. And a manual beats the best auto in the world for me when it comes to driving pleasure.

[aspensilver]

Originally Posted by Mirage_3

I sure hope thats the case. That would mean the car will feel just as fast accelerating when your foots on the gas with a manual or the auto. Who cares what it feels like when your shifting? If it feels fast, i value that 10 times more than a 0 to 60 time. Personally, the gas and money savings of the manual 228i msport vs the manual m235i is worth the slightly slower acceleration and better engine sound. And a manual beats the best auto in the world for me when it comes to driving pleasure.

Better engine sound?

[MikeG12]

Both sound good but 235 definitely sounds more like a 6 cylinder(better)

[JRMorgan]

For me I'm sick of the weight inflation on these cars. I'm usually a x35i buyer but this time at 250lbs lighter I'm seriously considering a 228i.

Is it final that the US 235i weighs 3550lbs? I can't find an official figure.

[MikeG12]

the BMW web site says 3505 for manual and 3535 for automatic M235. 3260 and 3300 for the 228. I guess that should be official?

[Greenkirby21]

thanks for the PDF!

its good that the manual M235i can hit 60 MPH in second gear.

A problem I have with my 128i automatic is that you hit about 57 in second gear.. so that is why it gets like 6.7 0-60.

[ska///235i]

Originally Posted by aspensilver

Better engine sound?

+1 i had to do a double take

[Meeni]

Originally Posted by Greenkirby21

thanks for the PDF!

its good that the manual M235i can hit 60 MPH in second gear.

A problem I have with my 128i automatic is that you hit about 57 in second gear.. so that is why it gets like 6.7 0-60.

Why do you care ? I mean, it's all arbitrary that we measure 0-60. We could measure 0-57 or 0-62 (actually, metric people measure exactly that, 0-100km/h which is 0-62). It is just an indication of the performance, but a bad result due to the shift happening 1mph before or after the post is the definition of a systemic error in the experimental protocol. The performance of the car is unchanged, yet you see wide variations in the measure.

[Mirage_3]

Originally Posted by MikeG12

Both sound good but 235 definitely sounds more like a 6 cylinder(better)

Yes, I apologize... this was a mis-type. I, of course, meant that the better mpg and price of the 228i was worth the slower acceleration and engine sound compared to the m235i.

[Mirage_3]

I corrected my previous post. It, of course, was a typo, as I didn't mean to claim the N20 sounds better than the N55 .

Also of note, I noticed today on my order guide through the Military Sales Program that it had a 0-60 time of 5.5 seconds listed for the 228i manual. This was obviously just a tenth slower than the 5.4 listed for the auto.

I have an email in to my sales representative asking where this number came from and I will let you know when I get a response.

[Greenkirby21]

Originally Posted by Meeni

Why do you care ? I mean, it's all arbitrary that we measure 0-60. We could measure 0-57 or 0-62 (actually, metric people measure exactly that, 0-100km/h which is 0-62). It is just an indication of the performance, but a bad result due to the shift happening 1mph before or after the post is the definition of a systemic error in the experimental protocol. The performance of the car is unchanged, yet you see wide variations in the measure.

I agree completely. It's very useless, but you know everyone likes to compare manufacturer times like a measuring dick contest

[Lucky13]

The reason for the discussion was how can an auto be 5.4 and manual 6.2 when it uses the same gear ratio and manual from the 328. It's pretty much explained now due to the tires on the base 228 vs tested 328's. It's important because there was no explanation how a car with the same engine, gears and lighter suddenly get so much slower. If the manual M235 was .8 seconds slower than the auto there would be 10 threads discussing why. On the M235 the manual is .1 second slower and on the 328 manual its .1 second faster so yes why wouldn't all the manual purchasers not want to know why. 0-60 is the benchmark for all reviews and the BMW website and specs so yes everyone relates to 0-60.

[edche]

The Canadian website is showing 5.9/5.7 for manual/auto.

Note that this is 0-100km/h which is about 0-62mph.