[Rupes]

Originally Posted by Levi

I don't get the hate Americans have with 4 cylinder engines. What are they going to say when the Cayman S will get a turbocharged 2.4l Boxer 4?

The power delivery on a turbo 4 isn't as smooth as it is on a n/a inline 6 or a v8. Doesn't sound as good either. So for us Americans who still get gas relatively cheap, it feels like a step backwards. Maybe the M2 will correct some of these issues.

[MLife168]

Maybe I'm one of the very few, but I wasn't as impressed with 235 as I was the the 228. I test drove auto 235 and auto 228 sports line (no m sport to drive). The 228 packs a really nice punch for the engine. And does feel as fast as the 135 vert as specs show.

I drove both cars in sports mode. With the 235 I tried the tranny in both sport and manual. The 235 felt faster then the 228. But really not by much. Maybe cause the engine and trans is too smooth... But I wasn't wowed with the 235.

I thought driving the 235 after 228 I wouldn't like the 228 anymore. Instead for me, the 228 was a better buy being that I couldn't justify $4550 (loaded both models except hk sound and parking assist) for the slight increase in performance.

Don't get me wrong, the 235 is a great car and tons of fun to drive. I'm just more impressed with the 228, especially factoring in the price difference.

[bimmerjph]

I find the M235i's weight to be unacceptable. If I were going to buy a 2er (and honestly I'm not sure I want to) it would be a 228i.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by E92M3WestLA

Maybe I'm one of the very few, but I wasn't as impressed with 235 as I was the the 228. I test drove auto 235 and auto 228 sports line (no m sport to drive). The 228 packs a really nice punch for the engine. And does feel as fast as the 135 vert as specs show.

I drove both cars in sports mode. With the 235 I tried the tranny in both sport and manual. The 235 felt faster then the 228. But really not by much. Maybe cause the engine and trans is too smooth... But I wasn't wowed with the 235.

I thought driving the 235 after 228 I wouldn't like the 228 anymore. Instead for me, the 228 was a better buy being that I couldn't justify $4550 (loaded both models except hk sound and parking assist) for the slight increase in performance.

Don't get me wrong, the 235 is a great car and tons of fun to drive. I'm just more impressed with the 228, especially factoring in the price difference.

How did you find them compared to your M3?

[flyga3]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

It's the same gear ratio as 328, look it up. BMW website says 5.7 manual 328 and car magazines did better. Same gear ratio with less weight means faster times. Maybe 17" wheels are why but who is going with 17" wheels?

+1
I'm not convinced the 6.2s is correct either. Compared to the 328, the 228 is 100 lbs less, same engine output, and should be under 6s as the 328 is listed. Both specs show ALMOST similar 1-3 gear ratios and both are on 17" 50-aspect ratio tires. I can't imagine that the difference is from 225 width on the 328 versus 205 on the 228 making that difference. I assume this should only be a first to second gear pull to 60? But why make the 228 slower in manual form than a 328? Artificial de-tune to protect other lines? Not sure here.

The only other explanation could be the usual hot-shoe at BMW (the stig) who does all the spec testing was out sick, and a new guy had to do it who is not so good on the clutch!

[BMWDAD]

For handling on the 228i is it better to get the 1000.00 option: dynamic handling package

Dynamic Handling Package
$1,000
• Variable sport steering
• Adaptive M Suspension

or stick with the M sport suspension

thanks in advance

[Lucky13]

It looks like the upgraded tire for 328 (the one in most tests) is 225/40/18 and this is the same as the 18" upgrade for the 228 for sport and M Sport so the only difference should be the lighter weight of the 228. It's interesting to note that several reviews said the 328 is faster than a Caddy ATS because the Caddy required a shift to 3rd but the BMW does not. The information must be wrong on the 228 as it seems almost impossible to be that slow unless the test driver was in Colorado driving away from a pot store.

[Uridian]

I would guess it's also possible (however unlikely) that they lowered the rev limiter/redline. That would be a reason to need a 2-3 shift assuming the same gearing, engine, and wheel/tire circumference. Not that it really matters, just an exercise in deductive reasoning.

Also, the 18" upgrade for the 228i M Sport is 225/40 and 245/35 if you get the staggered summers. A small detail, but a detail nonetheless.

[Red Bread]

The 428i has a different first gear, 3.5 compared to 3.7 in the 228i and the 328i has a 3.68 (could be the same as the 228i) and a 2.06 for second. The final drive for all three is listed as 3.91. Without RealOEM being updated, it's hard to confirm the actual differences though. I still suspect it's gearing (and marketing, wouldn't want the cheapest one being the quickest).

[flyga3]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

The information must be wrong on the 228 as it seems almost impossible to be that slow unless the test driver was in Colorado driving away from a pot store.

[DrFranknFurter]

Originally Posted by flyga3

+1
I'm not convinced the 6.2s is correct either. Compared to the 328, the 228 is 100 lbs less, same engine output, and should be under 6s as the 328 is listed. Both specs show ALMOST similar 1-3 gear ratios and both are on 17" 50-aspect ratio tires. I can't imagine that the difference is from 225 width on the 328 versus 205 on the 228 making that difference. I assume this should only be a first to second gear pull to 60? But why make the 228 slower in manual form than a 328? Artificial de-tune to protect other lines? Not sure here.

The only other explanation could be the usual hot-shoe at BMW (the stig) who does all the spec testing was out sick, and a new guy had to do it who is not so good on the clutch!

Small detail but if both tire profiles are 50 but different width then the rolling radias of the 205 tire/wheel is less than the 225 tire/wheel and that will affect acceleration especially if it neccessitates an aditional gear change.

[MLife168]

Originally Posted by chris719

How did you find them compared to your M3?

I'm guessing you want to know how they compare to the M3 in regards to performance and not interior appointments.

Steering: The 228 Sport Line and the M235 had a very similar steering feel. It's actually pretty good. I drove both cars in comfort and sport mode. So many have been complaining about electric power steering vs hydraulic in general. I was a little nervous on how the 2 series would feel since the last time I had a loaner it was a F30 328. The steering feel on that car was horrible. Too soft and very little feedback.

I took the 228 on a curvy canyon type road. The steering responded very well. Obviously I couldn't really push the car to the limits since I was on a test drive. The steering did what I wanted it to do.

However, the steering still feels a bit loose/soft compared to my 135 M Sport and M3. To give you an idea from stiff to soft I would rate: E88 135, E92 M3, F22, F30 328. The 135 takes a bit more effort to turn the steering wheel then the M3 even though the m3 has wider front tires... The F22 feels closer to the M3 then it does to the F30. F22 is noticeably softer then the M3 but not as bad as the F30 which to me fees like a luxury sedan Toyota or Lexus.

In terms of steering responsiveness(best to worst): E92 M3, E88 135, F22, F30. I don't think it's completely fair to compare the E92 M3 to the F22. There is a price difference and the M3 was built for more of a track purpose then the F22. So I would hope/expect the M3 to have the best steering response of this lot, and it does. Even though the M3 has a softer steering feel compared to the E88, it's smoother and more responsive. Where as the softness of the F30 just feels flimsy. The F22 is pretty darn close if not basically the same in terms of responsiveness compared to the E88. Just that the F22 has a softer steering feel.


Handling: Both the 228 and 235 handle quite well. The 228 had the M Sport Suspension and the 235 had the adaptive M sport suspension. I really didn't get enough seat time to feel the advantages of the adaptive suspension on the 235 over the regular m sport suspension on the 228. I also didn't really feel a difference between comfort and sport mode on the 235 in terms of suspension and handling(sport mode is suppose to stiffen up the dampening). Hopefully there is a noticeable difference and I just needed more seat time. On my M3 when I go from Comfort to Normal to Sport, I immediately feel the difference in shock absorbers, especially in sport mode. Nonetheless, I ordered the 228 M Sport without the adaptive suspension. I felt the M sport suspension was good enough for every day driving and even spirited driving.

Both cars handled turns and corners very well. The cars are nimble but have a little bit of body roll compared to the M3. Which should be expected.

Acceleration: I accelerated both cars in comfort and sport mode. I had the tranny in auto and paddle shifters on the 235. As you probably already know, both cars accelerated faster in sport mode due to the tranny holding higher revs.

The 228 felt very similar to the E88 135 Vert. BMW lists both auto trannies at 5.4 0-60. The car pulled hard and accelerated very quickly and smoothly. It of course felt slower then the M3.

The 235 I could tell pulled harder then the 228, but not enough to excite my butt dyno. Spec wise BMW shows the auto 235 as 4.8 0-60. When the E9X M3 first came out BMW listed it at about 4.7/4.8. Later on I believe BMW dropped it down to about 4.5. Regardless the 235 is very close to the M3 for 0-60. The 235 is suppose to be just a little slower at accelerating then the M3, but the M3 still feels much faster. I think this may be due to the 235 being too smooth. Kind of like how going 150+ in an M3 doesn't even really feel like you're going that fast because the car is that smooth at high speeds. The M3 accelerates which such force and just feels so raw that it feels like it accelerates much faster then the 235. I just don't get as much of a rush gunning it in the 235 as I do in the M3. Perhaps to me feeling the acceleration is more then just speed, but an overall experience of how the car feeds back the acceleration to the driver.

Braking: Didn't try any hard braking so can't really speak to this. Brakes felt fine when I did use them. LOL.

Ride Comfort: The F22 is definitely more comfortable of a ride compared to the E92 M3 and E88 135 Vert. Even having my M3 dampening in comfort mode, the F22 seems to be more comfortable even in Sport mode. I just don't think ride comfort was as important to the engineers when designing the M3. Plus 19" vs 18" tires and wheels. But then I didn't buy the M3 for ride comfort hahaha. Even though both F22 and E88 have M tuned suspensions, the F22 is a more comfortable ride. I would have to say this has to do with the E88's lack of a B pillar. The E88 has always had kind of a choppy ride imo.

Hope this helps. Maybe a little more info then you were looking for.

[chris719]

No, that's great, thanks!

[therealm3]

Does the 235 suspension adjust with the switch on the console? I thought that was just for drivetrain?

[Wheelwright]

Originally Posted by therealm3

Does the 235 suspension adjust with the switch on the console? I thought that was just for drivetrain?

BMW driving modes control 2 things:

Chassis consisting of:
1) steering weight
2) suspension hardness if equipped with adaptive suspension

Drivetrain consisting of:
1) throttle response
2) transmission shift-points and shift-speed if equipped with automatic transmission

In Normal Mode
- Chassis is soft
- Drivetrain response is sluggish

In Sport Mode
- Chassis is weighty/hard
- Drivetrain responds quickly only if programmed to do so via iDrive controller

In Sport+ Mode
- Chassis is weighty/hard
- Drivetrain responds quickly
- DTC is turned on (ie. traction control off)

The car doesn't remember Sport or Sport+ modes, as a tribute to Toyota Corolla drivers it always defaults to Normal Mode at startup.

[flyga3]

Originally Posted by DrFranknFurter

Small detail but if both tire profiles are 50 but different width then the rolling radias of the 205 tire/wheel is less than the 225 tire/wheel and that will affect acceleration especially if it neccessitates an aditional gear change.

On that point agreed, the circumference changes and the section height delta between them is 10mm for those 2 tires sixes. You get more forward distance traveled on a larger circumference tire given the same input force. I stand corrected.

OK, so maybe this is all a moot point, if a 228 with the M-Package which has a somewhat similar front/rear wheels/tires (i.e. circumferences) as the 328 manual.
Given the gearing is ALMOST the same and holding that constant, here are my calcs:

328 6MT
Front: 225x50R17
225 * 0.5 + 431.8 (wheel) = 544.3 * pi = 1709.1mm circumference

Rear: 225x50R17
225 * 0.5 + 431.8 (wheel) = 544.3 * pi = 1709.1mm circumference

228 6MT w/M-Line
Front: 225x40R18
225 * 0.4 + 457.2 (wheel) = 547.2 * pi = 1718.2mm circumference

Rear: 245x35R18
245 * 0.35 + 457.2 (wheel) = 542.95 * pi = 1704.8mm circumference

So MAYBE better acceleration number then? Course then we have not included surface area friction, weight, etc, etc.
Jeeeez, the engineer in me has come out! I'm not sure where I'm going anymore…..
I just need to bite it, get the 6MT and enjoy the slower ride but the joy of shifting!

[FunRevn]

Originally Posted by E92M3WestLA

The 235 I could tell pulled harder then the 228, but not enough to excite my butt dyno. Spec wise BMW shows the auto 235 as 4.8 0-60. When the E9X M3 first came out BMW listed it at about 4.7/4.8. Later on I believe BMW dropped it down to about 4.5. Regardless the 235 is very close to the M3 for 0-60. The 235 is suppose to be just a little slower at accelerating then the M3, but the M3 still feels much faster. I think this may be due to the 235 being too smooth. Kind of like how going 150+ in an M3 doesn't even really feel like you're going that fast because the car is that smooth at high speeds. The M3 accelerates which such force and just feels so raw that it feels like it accelerates much faster then the 235. I just don't get as much of a rush gunning it in the 235 as I do in the M3. Perhaps to me feeling the acceleration is more then just speed, but an overall experience of how the car feeds back the acceleration to the driver.

One thing I would like to ask... Mostly a clarification. Regarding how you got into Sport Settings. My understanding is: Setting the button that is next to the shifter to sport mode does not change all the settings on the car.

Leaning the shift lever to the left changes the transmission and the throttle.

In a sense there are 2 settings that need to be implemented when trying to achieve FULL Sport mode. You must lean the shift lever to the left and change the chassis to Sport or Sport + (the name of the switch is escaping me at the moment) to get the most out of the car. Additionally, I noticed on the cars I drove, that since they had such low miles that the system hadn't woken up or adapted to the aggressive driving and settings. After about 5 miles or 10min driving and several full throttle redline shifts by the transmission, the car all of a sudden woke up and started to kick some @$$. Also short shifting the 8AT on this beast make a big difference in perceived feel.

The rest of your observation was spot on.

[Lucky13]

Originally Posted by flyga3

On that point agreed, the circumference changes and the section height delta between them is 10mm for those 2 tires sixes. You get more forward distance traveled on a larger circumference tire given the same input force. I stand corrected.

OK, so maybe this is all a moot point, if a 228 with the M-Package which has a somewhat similar front/rear wheels/tires (i.e. circumferences) as the 328 manual.
Given the gearing is ALMOST the same and holding that constant, here are my calcs:

328 6MT
Front: 225x50R17
225 * 0.5 + 431.8 (wheel) = 544.3 * pi = 1709.1mm circumference

Rear: 225x50R17
225 * 0.5 + 431.8 (wheel) = 544.3 * pi = 1709.1mm circumference

228 6MT w/M-Line
Front: 225x40R18
225 * 0.4 + 457.2 (wheel) = 547.2 * pi = 1718.2mm circumference

Rear: 245x35R18
245 * 0.35 + 457.2 (wheel) = 542.95 * pi = 1704.8mm circumference

So MAYBE better acceleration number then? Course then we have not included surface area friction, weight, etc, etc.
Jeeeez, the engineer in me has come out! I'm not sure where I'm going anymore…..
I just need to bite it, get the 6MT and enjoy the slower ride but the joy of shifting!

Thank God an engineer finally answered as the rest of us were guessing. But what do your numbers showing circumference mean? I assume since the M Sport 228 tires circumference is about the same you are saying times should be the same with all other things being equal. I noticed they list the peak rpm on the 228 as 6500 vs 6000 on the 328. The peak torque rpm numbers might have been slightly different as well.

[italia]

Originally Posted by flyga3

On that point agreed, the circumference changes and the section height delta between them is 10mm for those 2 tires sixes. You get more forward distance traveled on a larger circumference tire given the same input force. I stand corrected.

OK, so maybe this is all a moot point, if a 228 with the M-Package which has a somewhat similar front/rear wheels/tires (i.e. circumferences) as the 328 manual.
Given the gearing is ALMOST the same and holding that constant, here are my calcs:

328 6MT
Front: 225x50R17
225 * 0.5 + 431.8 (wheel) = 544.3 * pi = 1709.1mm circumference

Rear: 225x50R17
225 * 0.5 + 431.8 (wheel) = 544.3 * pi = 1709.1mm circumference

228 6MT w/M-Line
Front: 225x40R18
225 * 0.4 + 457.2 (wheel) = 547.2 * pi = 1718.2mm circumference

Rear: 245x35R18
245 * 0.35 + 457.2 (wheel) = 542.95 * pi = 1704.8mm circumference

So MAYBE better acceleration number then? Course then we have not included surface area friction, weight, etc, etc.
Jeeeez, the engineer in me has come out! I'm not sure where I'm going anymore…..
I just need to bite it, get the 6MT and enjoy the slower ride but the joy of shifting!

I didn't major in math but 1704.8mm is 99.748% of 1709.1mm. So the difference is about 0.25%. I would guess that tire pressure makes a greater difference in circumference than 0.25%. Just guessing though.

And once you wear a 32nd or two of tread off the tire as it wears - well somebody else can do that math.

[flyga3]

Originally Posted by italia

I didn't major in math but 1704.8mm is 99.748% of 1709.1mm. So the difference is about 0.25%. I would guess that tire pressure makes a greater difference in circumference than 0.25%. Just guessing though.

And once you wear a 32nd or two of tread off the tire as it wears - well somebody else can do that math.

I assume you are saying they are pretty close? And that's the point as they should have relatively closer 0-60 times and not be that off, given the 228 is lighter then said 328 by 100 lbs.
And agreed that tire pressure effects section height of the tire, but not noticeable enough at drivable pressures. Course then other variables could be if the tire pressures were set the same, how much suspension squat occurred to impact tire section height, driver style, clutch usage, shift speed, etc, etc….I digress.

What you don't see is (which is a larger impact) the calc for the 228 standard tires which makes up the 0-60 spec shown, which is based on a 205/50R17 tire. This then gives it a circumference of 1677.7mm, given the same math above. Now the delta is 31mm or 97.5% of the 328's circumference. So that is a larger difference that MAY explain the slower 0-60 times as published (smaller circumference equals less distance traveled given same input force). This is why I did the 228 M-Package wheels/tires comparison to hopefully (and give myself some confirmation that the 0-60 acceleration capability is comparable as spec'd, and BMW's published numbers are actually better with different wheels/tires.
We are comparing the 328 manual and 228 manual because the engine, gearing (1-3), final drive ratios (3.91), and tire circumference are basically the same, thus one would deduce that the 0-60 times should be the same if not 0.1-2s quicker then the 328 due to weight difference. But they are not, hence all this crazy calcs and I'm spending way too long on this…...

[flyga3]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Thank God an engineer finally answered as the rest of us were guessing. But what do your numbers showing circumference mean? I assume since the M Sport 228 tires circumference is about the same you are saying times should be the same with all other things being equal. I noticed they list the peak rpm on the 228 as 6500 vs 6000 on the 328. The peak torque rpm numbers might have been slightly different as well.

Good catch on the RPMs! Wonder why that's different but I would think this would be an advantage to the 228 given the extra few tenths of a second to allow time to redline; the 328 would have to shift sooner.
My point on circumference is listed above. Looks like with standard 205 tires it would be slower, but with matched tires all should be well….MAYBE.

[italia]

Originally Posted by flyga3

...hence all this crazy calcs and I'm spending way too long on this...

Exactly. I'm sure. Wait ... what were we talking about? Havin' a wee dram of an 18 year old single malt. So, yeah ... your math looks good.