[therealm3]

I recently drove both an M235 and the 228 and was really surprised at how good the 228 felt power wise. I saw the tech specs today for the first time and see that the 228 is almost 250 lbs lighter (MT) and am thinking that this may be the way to go for nimble fun car. Spec it with M sport, M sport brakes and 6MT and the cost savings is quite substantial over an M235. Leaves room for the LSD and a few other mods. hmmmm

What do you all think? is the weight savings enough to bring the car close to the 235?

Somewhat related, seeing this gives hope that the M2 may well be a 3200lb or less car if it has some of the weight reduction parts from the M3/4 and a 4 cyl motor as rumored.

Specs:
http://www.2addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=903957
http://www.bimmerpost.com/goodiesfor...oupe-specs.pdf

[ska///235i]

Well...its a full second behind the 235 0-60

The 80+ hp (228 vs 235) is a huge gap. Sure you could tune the n20 to get close but it'll not be the same. We can also say the same on 235 vs M2

But the 228 is a nice car in its class

[Detlev Bronk]

Originally Posted by ska325xi

Well...its a full second behind the 235 0-60

I thought it's 4.8s compared to 5.4s, but perhaps you're referring to real world numbers?

[ska///235i]

Originally Posted by Detlev Bronk

I thought it's 4.8s compared to 5.4s, but perhaps you're referring to real world numbers?

I saw full second some where...i could be wrong

Cant wait for the car mags to do a comparo

[buumer]

If its not a typo on the spec sheet, then it also rides on 205 tires. My lowly GTI for comparison, has 225s all around.

[flyga3]

I'm leaning towards the 228 as well. Enough power I think (given I've driven the 328 N20 engine at length) and I still can get 6MT and all the M goodies, why not save $6-7K! For me it will be a daily driver anyway not a track/drag beast.

[Lucky13]

Well the car magazines got a 5.2 in a 428 with auto so I doubt any M235 is going to do a 4.2 and if it does there's no need for an M2.

[Uridian]

My biggest concern about perceived power 0-60 times is the difference between 8AT and 6MT for the 228i. The discrepancy is *very* large.

228i 0-60
8AT - 5.4
6MT - 6.2
.8 seconds? Yikes.

M235i
8AT - 4.8
6MT - 4.9
.1 seconds? More like it.

The 8AT is the same between 228i and M235i, but the 6MT definitely is not.

**edit**
That didn't stop me from ordering one (6MT). The lighter weight 228i matches my E36 M3 almost exactly in weight, dimension and power. So, lump in the M Sport goodies and I'm confident I'll have a very fun daily driver.

[captpn]

Originally Posted by buumer

If its not a typo on the spec sheet, then it also rides on 205 tires. My lowly GTI for comparison, has 225s all around.

Thats the base 228i. Opt for the 228i MSport and get the same size as the 235i, but they are runflats.

[Lucky13]

Don't know where you got 6.2 seconds for a 228 with manual. The only time on the specs on BMW website is 5.4 for the auto. Look up the 328 on the BMW website specs and the 328 manual is 5.7 and auto is 5.8 and the 228 is lighter. I would think worst case is 5.5 for the manual.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Uridian

My biggest concern about perceived power 0-60 times is the difference between 8AT and 6MT for the 228i. The discrepancy is *very* large.

228i 0-60
8AT - 5.4
6MT - 6.2
.8 seconds? Yikes.

M235i
8AT - 4.8
6MT - 4.9
.1 seconds? More like it.

The 8AT is the same between 228i and M235i, but the 6MT definitely is not.

**edit**
That didn't stop me from ordering one (6MT). The lighter weight 228i matches my E36 M3 almost exactly in weight, dimension and power. So, lump in the M Sport goodies and I'm confident I'll have a very fun daily driver.

Without looking at the gearing, I'd have to guess the 228i manual requires an additional shift to hit 60. This is why the last WRX was quicker to 60 than the STI, even though the STI was faster in the quarter mile (and to 50 and 70).

[pz619]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Don't know where you got 6.2 seconds for a 228 with manual. The only time on the specs on BMW website is 5.4 for the auto. Look up the 328 on the BMW website specs and the 328 manual is 5.7 and auto is 5.8 and the 228 is lighter. I would think worst case is 5.5 for the manual.

It's the stickied thread on the top of the forum. The PDF with the technical specs list the 228i at 6.2 with the manual.

[ska///235i]

So for $11k more (235) i gets a .6 fastet 0-60...lol

So this mean a tuned 228 will beat a M1 around the ring ahahaha

[Uridian]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Don't know where you got 6.2 seconds for a 228 with manual. The only time on the specs on BMW website is 5.4 for the auto. Look up the 328 on the BMW website specs and the 328 manual is 5.7 and auto is 5.8 and the 228 is lighter. I would think worst case is 5.5 for the manual.

Pulled the number from this document: http://www.bimmerpost.com/goodiesfor...oupe-specs.pdf

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Without looking at the gearing, I'd have to guess the 228i manual requires an additional shift to hit 60. This is why the last WRX was quicker to 60 than the STI, even though the STI was faster in the quarter mile (and to 50 and 70).

That's a very good point. That 6.2 must assume you have the standard 17" 205/50, so I guess someone could do the math to see where 2nd and 3rd end. (info also found in at the link above)

*edit*
When I was cross shopping the BR-Z, that seemed to be a big reason for the high 0-60 times. You could see on dyno graph floating around where the shifts happened, and 2-3 was at something like 58.5mph. If it was just geared a smidge better it would have taken off a good chunk of the 0-60 time.

[buumer]

The m235i has been posting 4.5-4.6 run times, so even an optimistic 5.2 for the 228i is noticeably slower. Im sure that a 228i is going to be a fantastically well balanced car, but that 4 banger motor, as good as it is, is too soft for a this car IMO.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Uridian

That's a very good point. That 6.2 must assume you have the standard 17" 205/50, so I guess someone could do the math to see where 2nd and 3rd end. (info also found in at the link above)

*edit*
When I was cross shopping the BR-Z, that seemed to be a big reason for the high 0-60 times. You could see on dyno graph floating around where the shifts happened, and 2-3 was at something like 58.5mph. If it was just geared a smidge better it would have taken off a good chunk of the 0-60 time.

In the real world, it's a non issue. If you live in a magazine, it's a big deal.

Even with one wheel drive, I don't think the 205's are likely to limit traction in a straight line. However this hasn't stopped me from imagining what an F80 with the i3's 155 tires on it would be like.

I think the BRZ is also effected by the horrible mid range torque drop, which seems to be right where each shift drops the revs into. That car would be great with a different engine (and without the 1985 Corolla digital clock).

[numbersguy]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

In the real world, it's a non issue. If you live in a magazine, it's a big deal.

It's all about the feel. If the 228 with manual feels strong and agile compared with the 235 and its extra torque and weight the 228 will be a big seller to enthusiast type drivers. If it feels squishy and underpowered compared to the 335 these customers will look elsewhere.

[therealm3]

Originally Posted by Uridian

That didn't stop me from ordering one (6MT). The lighter weight 228i matches my E36 M3 almost exactly in weight, dimension and power. So, lump in the M Sport goodies and I'm confident I'll have a very fun daily driver.

this was my thinking as well. 228 m sport would drive like a modern e36 m3. Maybe. the lack of a LSD and run flats will hurt the 228. I wish there was a way to option in the PSS's when you get m sport on a 228. the tires are the exact same size so I don't see why this would be difficult at all.

---

interesting points about the gearing. the 228 I test drove was the AT (like the 235) so I cant' really say how a manual will drive. maybe in a few months when more of them show up I can drive a MT and see how it is.

[BMW269]

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?

[therealm3]

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?

I think its a lifelong barrage of marketing in most aspects of life that bigger is better. And a lot of it in the automotive world is carry over from the days where you were finally somebody if you had a car with a V8 in it.

I personally don't subscribe to it and am excited at the idea of a 300+ bmw 4cyl in an M2.

[grant]

Originally Posted by therealm3

I personally don't subscribe to it and am excited at the idea of a 300+ bmw 4cyl in an M2.

Me too, but don't float those low numbers out to BMW. How about saying "a 375hp+ 4-cyl in the M2" instead

I currently daily drive a 425hp/435 ft-lbs 4-cyl car and it's plenty of fun!

[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?