[drdunkyn]

Coming from a life of MT, then switching to an AT 335i 2013, now a 240i AT, I will say that when I tried the MT 240i I was disappointed. It may very well have been that I'd lost some shifting skills with my knee arthritis, but after taking delivery of the 240, it is unreal. The shifting is nearly undetectable, and the acceleration is phenomenal. I thought I was awesome with my clutch skills, but have never looked back after my more "mature" transition to AT. I would definitely recommend trying before writing off the upgrade in series...

[MegaMatt3]

Originally Posted by fugluten23

What ^^ Said. Sports + makes it a different animal.

Why Sport+? No difference in power between Sport+ and regular Sport, right?

[MegaMatt3]

I have a MT '16 235 that is noticeably slower than a friend's MT '16 235. More throttle lag, some hesitation, and not as much pull at lower RPM's. I had an SIB applied which helped with some of the hesitation, but it still has some hesitation and not as much pull. We've been working to diagnose it, but nothing yet. The SIB mentioned a number of additional culprits like mass air flow, engine electrical, and software. Apparently any '16 235 manufactured prior to 11/2015 is vulnerable.

Point being, things go wrong with cars, like mine. He probably just picked a slow 240. A different one would probably be faster.

[p912guy]

Originally Posted by MegaMatt3

I have a MT '16 235 that is noticeably slower than a friend's MT '16 235. More throttle lag, some hesitation, and not as much pull at lower RPM's. I had an SIB applied which helped with some of the hesitation, but it still has some hesitation and not as much pull. We've been working to diagnose it, but nothing yet. The SIB mentioned a number of additional culprits like mass air flow, engine electrical, and software. Apparently any '16 235 manufactured prior to 11/2015 is vulnerable.

Point being, things go wrong with cars, like mine. He probably just picked a slow 240. A different one would probably be faster.

SIB? Sorry, that's an acronym I don't recognize. I'd be interested to learn more of this you speak. My 235 was manufactured 08/2015. I don't have a base of reference in driving another 235, especially MT, for comparison. What might I be on the lookout for if this is an issue I might have? I only have 500 miles so I am haven't been over 3500 rpm and haven't used anything much beyond half throttle yet. I see and use my 235 as a top-down GT and likely will never track it, but I do enjoy very spirited driving when the conditions and location allow and naturally I want my N55 to perform to it's full potential.

[doccyber]

Same question. What is a SIB?

[fugluten23]

Originally Posted by MegaMatt3

Why Sport+? No difference in power between Sport+ and regular Sport, right?

To me, the feel between Comfort and Sport + is drastic. The feel between sport and sport + is similar with Sport + having a slightly increased throttle response.

[PChem]

SIB = Service Information Bulletin

My understanding SIBs are generally not searchable by the public and are inter-company sort of communications for sharing technical information.

[Kolyan2k]

Originally Posted by MegaMatt3

Why Sport+? No difference in power between Sport+ and regular Sport, right?

Probably right, at least no difference on 235i. But you should be able to launch harder with Sport+ and even better with all traction disabled (if you have LSD)

[BMWZ4]

Originally Posted by PChem

SIB = Service Information Bulletin

My understanding SIBs are generally not searchable by the public and are inter-company sort of communications for sharing technical information.

AKA TSB.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by e34m5

Always amused at how people make assumptions. I in fact do know how to drive a manual. In the garage there is an E46M3 (MT), a 2013 SHELBY GT (MT), wife's 135 (AT) and son's S2000.

Trust me I know. Furthermore, the next BMW will be number 15. First one was 1972.

The car in question had 4500 miles. I asked the sales person if I could press it. We had it in sport.

Sounds more like most responders do not have the proper perspective of performance cars. And I have driven an M4.

Oh well. There is always a risk that the car has been abused and not properly broken in. Alas, that is what I was able to drive.

Let's think about this for a moment and your experience with manuals and you're automatic 135. The M3 and Stang are naturally aspirated thus no lag and both have stellar throttle response. The 135 is an automatic. Turbos and automatics go hand and in hand. The automatic (especially a torque converter based auto) can build boost on launch and even from a slower 1st gear or 2nd gear roll (due to high load against the torque converter). Then on shifts, no boost is really lost because the shift speed is so much quicker than what a human can do in a manual.

A turbo manual BMW does most certainly suffer from more lag than a planetary auto or DCT. That's just the way it is. Also, the longer gears on the 6MT do not make the car "feel" as frenzied as something like the 8AT or a 7 speed DCT (I don't know about the older 6AT cars). The 6MT feel longer legged. With that said, there's no replacing the fun factor of a manual in these cars even if they're .2-.3 second a 1-2mph slower in the 1/4 mile.

Lastly, the B58's powerband in a bit interesting and can fool your mind into thinking that the car isn't that fast (though it really is). The B58's power is linear to around 5300rpms and then basically flat lines from 5,400rpms to nearly 7,000rpms. It's power is robust, but the powerband shape takes away from that building of power sensation felt in the N55 M235. The prior N55 has a powerband more shaped like an NA motor where it builds in a linear fashion and peaks around 6300rpms and then drops fairly hard after 6600rpms. Once you tune the N55 through, this linearity is somewhat wrecked because the tunes crank up the power in the low and mid range.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by MegaMatt3

I have a MT '16 235 that is noticeably slower than a friend's MT '16 235. More throttle lag, some hesitation, and not as much pull at lower RPM's. I had an SIB applied which helped with some of the hesitation, but it still has some hesitation and not as much pull. We've been working to diagnose it, but nothing yet. The SIB mentioned a number of additional culprits like mass air flow, engine electrical, and software. Apparently any '16 235 manufactured prior to 11/2015 is vulnerable.

Point being, things go wrong with cars, like mine. He probably just picked a slow 240. A different one would probably be faster.

How exactly are gauging this power difference between the cars? Seat of the pants? Racing? Dynos?

Do either cars have mods?

What are the tire and wheel setups on both cars (size and brand)?

What driving mode are you testing in?

What grade fuel do both cars use?


Just trying to help you out here.

[megacondenser]

Originally Posted by e34m5

Sounds more like most responders do not have the proper perspective of performance cars.

This. For sure wait and get something better/more powerful/that you enjoy driving. These 2-series are modestly quick for cars in general, but they're really just not that fast. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you find the M2 a bit underwhelming too. A lot of hype here. Hold out.

[Tpeterson]

Originally Posted by megacondenser

This. For sure wait and get something better/more powerful/that you enjoy driving. These 2-series are modestly quick for cars in general, but they're really just not that fast. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you find the M2 a bit underwhelming too. A lot of hype here. Hold out.

I guess if I drove a Carerra 4S with 420HP and a curb weight a couple of hundred pound less than a 240i, I would think that the BMW is only modestly fast ,too. This begs the question, how much power is enough? The difference in the price of the two cars also brings to mind the racing aphorism: speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by Tpeterson

I guess if I drove a Carerra 4S with 420HP and a curb weight a couple of hundred pound less than a 240i, I would think that the BMW is only modestly fast ,too. This begs the question, how much power is enough? The difference in the price of the two cars also brings to mind the racing aphorism: speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?

Good to know folks are in that much of a rush to get to work, or maybe to the mall?

[RotorOver]

Originally Posted by fugluten23

To me, the feel between Comfort and Sport + is drastic. The feel between sport and sport + is similar with Sport + having a slightly increased throttle response.

In Sport+ the shift points are higher in rpm as well (in AT).

[megacondenser]

No disputing any of that. The OP simply observed he/she was disappointed in the performance of the car, and later suggested that ideas of what constitutes a performance car on this forum might be different than OPs. I agreed. I was also initially quite disappointed in my original 235i coupe, and not just in the engine, and know how OP feels. It's just not a particularly fast or spectacularly performing car, but obviously perfect for some; a look at this forum will confirm its many fans. But others were/are disappointed. I have a variant of it and it's fun to drive, but not because it's fast.

OP didn't mention cost being a consideration.

[DF]

Originally Posted by megacondenser

No disputing any of that. The OP simply observed he/she was disappointed in the performance of the car, and later suggested that ideas of what constitutes a performance car on this forum might be different than OPs. I agreed. I was also initially quite disappointed in my original 235i coupe, and not just in the engine, and know how OP feels. It's just not a particularly fast or spectacularly performing car by global, but obviously perfect for some; a look at this forum will confirm its many fans. But others were/are disappointed. I have a variant of it and it's fun to drive, but not because it's fast.

OP didn't mention cost being a consideration.

As you said it's all relative. For most it's ideal for their day to day but for propel, with deep pockets and have the money for toys it's not a good choice at all. I'm surprised it would even be shopped

[Viffermike]

I find fascinating how one person's definition of 'fast' can differ from another's. That said, it's plain to me that there's a generation-gap differentiator at play: younger folk with little experience with older cars don't consider certain cars 'fast' that older folk do consider 'fast'.

Consider this:
(per Road & Track)
1992 Lamborghini Diablo
Price as tested (in 1993 dollars, remember): $273,000
0-60: 4.4 Sec
Quarter mile: 12.6 sec @ 119 mph
Skidpad, 300ft diameter: .95 G

(per Car & Driver)
2017 BMW M240i
Price as tested: $51,000
0-60: 4.3 sec
Quarter mile: 12.7 sec @ 111 mph
Skidpad, 300ft diameter: .94 G

Ummm ... the M240 is fast. And DAMNED cheaper.

Context, people. Context.

[DF]

I'm not sure it's generational vs financial. Most street cars that are affordable are in the mid 4's 0-60. Then you get to 4 or below you are in rarer air. I think people who can afford a 911 turbo would view a mustang gt as slow.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by DF

I'm not sure it's generational vs financial. Most street cars that are affordable are in the mid 4's 0-60. Then you get to 4 or below you are in rarer air. I think people who can afford a 911 turbo would view a mustang gt as slow.

No, it's not all generational; that's why I said it's 'a' differentiator, not 'the' differentiator ... and why I ended my post with the 'context' quip.

Thing is, the entire 2 Series line is, dollar for dollar, among the fastest cars you can buy. The only other cars that are better 'fast' bargains are the Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, and Nissan 370z -- and an argument can be made for some hot hatches, too, depending on what your personal definition of 'fast' is.

To call the M240 'not fast' is like calling Margot Robbie 'not hot' -- but considering Jennifer Lawrence hot because the latter costs so much more to have in your movie. Please.

[p912guy]

It's all context and perspective. I'd agree, if like me, you spent a good portion of your life when the fastest Mustang, Camaro or Corvette available from a new car dealership may have had <300 hp, and much less in the 70's and 80's and had a 0-60 time >6 seconds, any 2 Series is a fast and relatively high performance car. The other perspective I find interesting is those of us who own a new or newer BMW, Audi or Lexus, etc. consider them affordable, when to 75-80% of Americans, a $50K car is anything but "affordable". Let's face it, we are more than a bit blessed to be able to own/lease and enjoy wonderful cars like the ones we debate.

[mmmpassion]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

I find fascinating how one person's definition of 'fast' can differ from another's. That said, it's plain to me that there's a generation-gap differentiator at play: younger folk with little experience with older cars don't consider certain cars 'fast' that older folk do consider 'fast'.

Consider this:
(per Road & Track)
1992 Lamborghini Diablo
Price as tested (in 1993 dollars, remember): $273,000
0-60: 4.4 Sec
Quarter mile: 12.6 sec @ 119 mph
Skidpad, 300ft diameter: .95 G

(per Car & Driver)
2017 BMW M240i
Price as tested: $51,000
0-60: 4.3 sec
Quarter mile: 12.7 sec @ 111 mph
Skidpad, 300ft diameter: .94 G

Ummm ... the M240 is fast. And DAMNED cheaper.

Context, people. Context.

It's the sensation of power that counts and not the pure performance. Even an M2 feels considerably faster than a M240i but performance is basically the same.