[M235ForNow]

Originally Posted by Stones1970

I'm new here; I posted the earlier thread about the C300 vs. 230i. I initially was looking into a 230i with M-Sport. I tried two M-Sport cars, one with THP and one with just the passive suspension. Passive suspension and sport chassis mode were both too bumpy on awful Bay Area roads for me. Then I tried a base suspension car, which felt good to me. However, as someone new to BMW, I am wondering whether there's something I'd be missing out on if I went with the base suspension that I just don't realize now because any 2 series variant is going to feel better than what I have. If my driving is 70% highway, 20% city streets, 10% backroads, I obviously don't "need" a sport suspension, but could people be any more specific about what "BMWness" I'm missing if I go with the base suspension?

Same Bay Area roads for me. I'm currently leaning toward getting the 230 with the base suspension. Saying the suspension is compromised is a bit (just a bit) misleading. 99 percent of suspensions made over the years are simple ... suspensions. No adjustability. So you have a fixed structure without cockpit driven adjustability. The good points are ruggedness, less to go wrong, easier to diagnose problems, cheaper and you know more easily what the suspensions going to do at all times. The good points of adjustable is you have 2 or more suspensions to play with from the cockpit and the bad points are simply the reverse of the base system's good points.

The key factor is how they feel to you. I drove the base setup and it was fine and dandy for me. As others have mentioned, tires make a BIG difference. Might seems stupid but you should check the tire inflation pressures before test driving. The differences in feel and response can be quite marked.

And runflat tires are getting better but they're still going to be harsher than good, old inflatable rubber balloons around your wheels.

[bryan_G01]

if your going to turn the 230 into a track car, get the regs suspension and throw on a set of clubsports. Can run a set of 17" with some meat to feel more comfy.

[BEM-S4]

I never researched it bc it wasn't for my car but Dinan makes a suspension tune. Not sure which suspension you're looking at that it applies to but worth 5 mins and a phone call to them to look into it.

[bryan_G01]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

I never researched it bc it wasn't for my car but Dinan makes a suspension tune. Not sure which suspension you're looking at that it applies to but worth 5 mins and a phone call to them to look into it.

Dinan shockware

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by M235ForNow

Same Bay Area roads for me. I'm currently leaning toward getting the 230 with the base suspension. Saying the suspension is compromised is a bit (just a bit) misleading. 99 percent of suspensions made over the years are simple ... suspensions. No adjustability. So you have a fixed structure without cockpit driven adjustability. The good points are ruggedness, less to go wrong, easier to diagnose problems, cheaper and you know more easily what the suspensions going to do at all times. The good points of adjustable is you have 2 or more suspensions to play with from the cockpit and the bad points are simply the reverse of the base system's good points.

I think there is a misunderstanding of what "compromise" means, as it is not misleading, but the factual and necessary outcome. When the chassis engineers have to work with one fixed calibration to satisfy a variety of buyers driving in a variety of conditions, it is inherently a compromise between the often competing objectives of ride and handling. Neither attribute is optimized; the balanced calibration between ride and handling is optimized within the feasible parameters. And, in fact, several posters here have supported that they think BMW reached that balanced compromise and are pleased with how the car performs for them.

With an adjustable suspension, there are not "two suspensions". There is still only one suspension, one set of components, but the adjustability allows the calibration to be modified so that one can choose to get closer to an optimized ride comfort with reduced handling capability, or choose an optimized handling setting with the acceptance that ride comfort is reduced...essentially two points on either side of the "mean" of the fixed suspension. Ideally, the SPORT calibration is chosen when good quality and entertainingly routed roads are present. Not much of a benefit on the Ohio Turnpike, for example. OTOH, I often choose COMFORT when my non-sporting wife is aboard or on several poor Michigan roads. For the extra price, one gets the luxury of choice.

[M235ForNow]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

I think there is a misunderstanding of what "compromise" means, as it is not misleading, but the factual and necessary outcome. When the chassis engineers have to work with one fixed calibration to satisfy a variety of buyers driving in a variety of conditions, it is inherently a compromise between the often competing objectives of ride and handling. Neither attribute is optimized; the balanced calibration between ride and handling is optimized within the feasible parameters. And, in fact, several posters here have supported that they think BMW reached that balanced compromise and are pleased with how the car performs for them.

With an adjustable suspension, there are not "two suspensions". There is still only one suspension, one set of components, but the adjustability allows the calibration to be modified so that one can choose to get closer to an optimized ride comfort with reduced handling capability, or choose an optimized handling setting with the acceptance that ride comfort is reduced...essentially two points on either side of the "mean" of the fixed suspension. Ideally, the SPORT calibration is chosen when good quality and entertainingly routed roads are present. Not much of a benefit on the Ohio Turnpike, for example. OTOH, I often choose COMFORT when my non-sporting wife is aboard or on several poor Michigan roads. For the extra price, one gets the luxury of choice.

There's zero misunderstanding - I'm an engineer and am fully apprised as to what engineering tradeoffs and compromises mean. I was speaking to the original poster who, from his question, likely isn't as on point technically as you. Common usage of "compromise" carries a negative connotation and that's what I was addressing. Hence the quotations. Being an educator as well as an engineer for decades, I've learned that although some words are "correct" they are also not necessarily the best for enhancing understanding. YMMV.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by bryan_f22

Dinan shockware

Yep, looks like $200 so definitely worth checking into.

[p912guy]

I'll second what others has said regarding differences in tires, especially tire sizes. When I switch from my summer 18" staggered setup with the MPSS to my winter 17" square setup with winter tires (softer compound), the ride is smoother and compliant. That said, I am also very aware of reduced cornering capabilities too. Wheel size, tire type and size and suspension geometry and adjustability is all a balancing act.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by p912guy

I'll second what others has said regarding differences in tires, especially tire sizes. When I switch from my summer 18" staggered setup with the MPSS to my winter 17" square setup with winter tires (softer compound), the ride is smoother and compliant. That said, I am also very aware of reduced cornering capabilities too. Wheel size, tire type and size and suspension geometry and adjustability is all a balancing act.

All true. But your winters corner better than bent summers

It's all about making an honest assessment of roads and how you plan to use the car. I still laugh and shake my head when I see RRs with huge wheels and low profile tires.

[3rdcoast228i]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

Hm that's new then. One of the tire experts would need to weigh in but are summer RFT even harder than all season RFT? Since they don't need to perform in the cold I could see that being the case. If they are harder than all season that would make OP issue even worse.

My 16 228i Msport also came with the Bridgestone Potenza S001 RFT

They have been good so far.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by M235ForNow

Common usage of "compromise" carries a negative connotation and that's what I was addressing.

That inaccurate connotation, which you are concerned exists for others, as we both apparently realize its falsehood, is part of a larger national problem than among folks talking cars or proper for this forum. I think the goal should be to improve understanding of true facts and meanings rather than to accept the detrioration of a range of human skills which I'm confident reviles an educator like you as much as one like I've been (albeit not as an engineer, and yes, I graded for spelling/grammar for business university students). Compromise is a solution to a range of problems, in this case, a lower cost and simpler way to suspend a vehicle satisfactorily for many people in many venues. However, and to no one else's detriment, the ability to choose a more sophisticated and personalized solution is more pleasing to some others. Neither a compromised calibration nor a choice of polarized settings is inherently positive or negative; they are simply the basis of different people having different personal experiences.

[3rdcoast228i]

Originally Posted by Stones1970

I'm new here; I posted the earlier thread about the C300 vs. 230i. I initially was looking into a 230i with M-Sport. I tried two M-Sport cars, one with THP and one with just the passive suspension. Passive suspension and sport chassis mode were both too bumpy on awful Bay Area roads for me. Then I tried a base suspension car, which felt good to me. However, as someone new to BMW, I am wondering whether there's something I'd be missing out on if I went with the base suspension that I just don't realize now because any 2 series variant is going to feel better than what I have. If my driving is 70% highway, 20% city streets, 10% backroads, I obviously don't "need" a sport suspension, but could people be any more specific about what "BMWness" I'm missing if I go with the base suspension?

As others have said, wheels and tires are going to make a difference. The hard part is not knowing, because you can't drive every combo to decide what you like best. For example, you like the Msport but the ride too harsh for you. But if you take the run flats off and put on regular tires it may be just fine?

Hopefully you can analyze the input given here along with your test drives to make the choice best for you. No matter what setup you get it think you will be happy, it's a fantastic car. Plus there are modifications if needed

[mdputnam]

I would echo most everyone's opinion get the base suspension if that is what you want. I would add once you have a car with the base suspension, never ever ever go to BMW's Performance Driving School.

Wait better yet, take the BMW two day driving class then decide. You'll be a much better driver and can make an informed decision. Plus, you can't have more fun sitting down, guaranteed!

[Stones1970]

Originally Posted by M235ForNow

Same Bay Area roads for me. I'm currently leaning toward getting the 230 with the base suspension. Saying the suspension is compromised is a bit (just a bit) misleading. 99 percent of suspensions made over the years are simple ... suspensions. No adjustability. So you have a fixed structure without cockpit driven adjustability. The good points are ruggedness, less to go wrong, easier to diagnose problems, cheaper and you know more easily what the suspensions going to do at all times. The good points of adjustable is you have 2 or more suspensions to play with from the cockpit and the bad points are simply the reverse of the base system's good points.

The key factor is how they feel to you. I drove the base setup and it was fine and dandy for me. As others have mentioned, tires make a BIG difference. Might seems stupid but you should check the tire inflation pressures before test driving. The differences in feel and response can be quite marked.

And runflat tires are getting better but they're still going to be harsher than good, old inflatable rubber balloons around your wheels.

Really helpful post for me, thank you. Since I plan to keep the car 7-8 years, having a simpler, passive suspension is appealing to me--even if I'm under warranty, it's one less thing to go wrong. There's also something old school about me that like just having one suspension that's going to be have the same way, all the time, especially on a simple/honest car like a small personal coupe. Same reason why the VSS kinda bothered when I tried it (even though I'm sure you adjust to it); I like the steering to be predictable and consistent at all speeds.

The base suspension did everything I'd need it to do in ordinary driving. I would still like to try an M Sport with non-runflats, if I can, because such a car could probably do those things better. I doubt I'd notice a huge difference in terms of cornering ability staying with 17"s, especially on a smaller car. There just seem like there are too many opportunities to bend a rim on the roads I drive. I'm on 16"s in my current car.

[BEM-S4]

Just to make sure you're clear (I think you are) 17 will be a handling downgrade vs 18 but that's in ideal circumstances. The benefits - cheaper tires, better ride, more rubber under you for less risk of wheel and tire damage, are real in all cases and possibly needed in yours.

To focus just on bending rims you've got an extra 1/2 inch of cushion before getting to metal.

Also not sure if mentioned here yet but the stock 18 are made by Ronal and honestly pretty shitty quality. So even 18 to 18 there are better options out there for you if bending rims is a concern, which it sounds like it probably should be.

[Stones1970]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

Just to make sure you're clear (I think you are) 17 will be a handling downgrade vs 18 but that's in ideal circumstances. The benefits - cheaper tires, better ride, more rubber under you for less risk of wheel and tire damage, are real in all cases and possibly needed in yours.

To focus just on bending rims you've got an extra 1/2 inch of cushion before getting to metal.

Also not sure if mentioned here yet but the stock 18 are made by Ronal and honestly pretty shitty quality. So even 18 to 18 there are better options out there for you if bending rims is a concern, which it sounds like it probably should be.

Thanks. Yeah, that all makes sense. I think the answer is to wait until the 2018s come in, try to test an M-Sport with MPSS to see if that helps, and then make a final call. It seems like base on 17"s or M Sport on 17"s is a better compromise if the M-Sport with MPSS 18"s doesn't hit the mark but feels like a step in the right direction.

Anyone who's driven a base E46, which 2-variant would be the closest counterpart in terms of handling/ride?

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by Stones1970

Thanks. Yeah, that all makes sense. I think the answer is to wait until the 2018s come in, try to test an M-Sport with MPSS to see if that helps, and then make a final call. It seems like base on 17"s or M Sport on 17"s is a better compromise if the M-Sport with MPSS 18"s doesn't hit the mark but feels like a step in the right direction.

Anyone who's driven a base E46, which 2-variant would be the closest counterpart in terms of handling/ride?

Hmmm... 2-series vs E46... wonder if anyone has both to compare...

Not exactly able to answer your question though, it's a 235 vs a 330ci M Sport (or whatever they called it back then)

[M235ForNow]

Originally Posted by Stones1970

Really helpful post for me, thank you. Since I plan to keep the car 7-8 years, having a simpler, passive suspension is appealing to me--even if I'm under warranty, it's one less thing to go wrong. There's also something old school about me that like just having one suspension that's going to be have the same way, all the time, especially on a simple/honest car like a small personal coupe. Same reason why the VSS kinda bothered when I tried it (even though I'm sure you adjust to it); I like the steering to be predictable and consistent at all speeds.

The base suspension did everything I'd need it to do in ordinary driving. I would still like to try an M Sport with non-runflats, if I can, because such a car could probably do those things better. I doubt I'd notice a huge difference in terms of cornering ability staying with 17"s, especially on a smaller car. There just seem like there are too many opportunities to bend a rim on the roads I drive. I'm on 16"s in my current car.

Oh gosh yes. I've had my share of damaged rims on our third world infrastructure roads. Big rims, why do I kinda hate thee? First of all - scraped rims on the curb. One can be hyper-vigilant and yet ... they appear. Was is me? My wife? My kids? A rim scratch demon visiting in the night? Who knows? But if there was rubber there - no problem.

Although there are exceptions, and sometimes availability issues, in general the smaller tires are significantly cheaper. But the Tire Rack sometimes has non-intuitive great pricing so ... not always the case.

A basic problem with runflats (which BMW adores) is that they largely negate the benefits that made Sir Dunlop a millionaire. Tires filled with air act as springs. Springs are good for isolation. Removing the springiness (runflats) is good for imitating a Conestoga wagon. Not so comfy. First thing I did with my Z4 was remove all 4 runflats and replaced with a nice set of Michelins. Such a great change. And when lease was up, back went the runflats.

It's easy to get caught up with what works better on the track. But if you're just enjoying the surroundings, including fun twisty roads, much of the benefits of larger tires/bigger brakes become somewhat non-relevant.

What I'm looking for is a recreation of my old E36 328. Small, nimble, simple (relatively). The base 230 seems to do that very, very well.

[englishguy84]

Originally Posted by M235ForNow

Oh gosh yes. I've had my share of damaged rims on our third world infrastructure roads. Big rims, why do I kinda hate thee? First of all - scraped rims on the curb. One can be hyper-vigilant and yet ... they appear. Was is me? My wife? My kids? A rim scratch demon visiting in the night? Who knows? But if there was rubber there - no problem.

Although there are exceptions, and sometimes availability issues, in general the smaller tires are significantly cheaper. But the Tire Rack sometimes has non-intuitive great pricing so ... not always the case.

A basic problem with runflats (which BMW adores) is that they largely negate the benefits that made Sir Dunlop a millionaire. Tires filled with air act as springs. Springs are good for isolation. Removing the springiness (runflats) is good for imitating a Conestoga wagon. Not so comfy. First thing I did with my Z4 was remove all 4 runflats and replaced with a nice set of Michelins. Such a great change. And when lease was up, back went the runflats.

It's easy to get caught up with what works better on the track. But if you're just enjoying the surroundings, including fun twisty roads, much of the benefits of larger tires/bigger brakes become somewhat non-relevant.

What I'm looking for is a recreation of my old E36 328. Small, nimble, simple (relatively). The base 230 seems to do that very, very well.

Sounds like we have really similar approaches to what we want out of a car. I'm never going to take my car to a track; I am going to take it up 101 and into the city. I'm looking for the chassis/wheels setup that's going to bring me the most pleasure in daily driving and on beautiful two-lane backroads--but in those cases, I'm enjoying the experience of driving a balanced, nimble, dancer-like RWD smaller, simple car, not pushing everything to the limit. It's easy to get caught up in the magazine reviews which test the car in situations I'll just never be in; likewise forums posts by members who ask far more of their cars.

What tires do you recommend for 17"s around here?

[M235ForNow]

Originally Posted by englishguy84

Sounds like we have really similar approaches to what we want out of a car. I'm never going to take my car to a track; I am going to take it up 101 and into the city. I'm looking for the chassis/wheels setup that's going to bring me the most pleasure in daily driving and on beautiful two-lane backroads--but in those cases, I'm enjoying the experience of driving a balanced, nimble, dancer-like RWD smaller, simple car, not pushing everything to the limit. It's easy to get caught up in the magazine reviews which test the car in situations I'll just never be in; likewise forums posts by members who ask far more of their cars.

What tires do you recommend for 17"s around here?

I'm sure a lot of different brands/types work very well but personally I'm fond of Michelin PS2's. I'm in the East Bay and so summer performance works well for me.

[moldcad]

I have the adaptive dampers on my M235i, and if I were configuring it again, I'd definiely pass on them and choose the non-adaptive shocks. The reason?

- the Comfort is not comfortable enough
- the Sport/Sport+ is not sporty enough
- more things to break

So, why pay more? Also, a British tuning company http://www.birdsauto.com/product-inf...-bmw-f22-m235i confirms my findings when they say:

"On the damping side, the more expensive adaptive dampers are designed to give the driver the option of how stiffly damped he wants the car to be at any given time. The Comfort mode gives soft damping all the way from slow speeds upwards. Most drivers are fishing for the “Sport button” just as soon as speeds increase beyond 60mph. Unfortunately, this immediately re-engages the traction control, so those cars not blessed with a mechanical limited-slip differential are immediately robbed of the additional control over the rear end and power delivery that these essential devices allow.

Even so, at higher speeds, the dampers run out of talent, and the car starts to get floaty, generating a loss of confidence of the driver. You will find your right foot being automatically pulled away from the throttle…

Oddly, we believe that the standard dampers give a better account of themselves, especially al low and medium speeds, but they are cheaply made, and like the Adaptive Dampers have pretty much linear damping force curves measured against damper speed."

Piotr

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by moldcad

I have the adaptive dampers on my M235i, and if I were configuring it again, I'd definiely pass on them and choose the non-adaptive shocks. The reason?

- the Comfort is not comfortable enough
- the Sport/Sport+ is not sporty enough
- more things to break

So, why pay more? Also, a British tuning company http://www.birdsauto.com/product-inf...-bmw-f22-m235i confirms my findings when they say:

"On the damping side, the more expensive adaptive dampers are designed to give the driver the option of how stiffly damped he wants the car to be at any given time. The Comfort mode gives soft damping all the way from slow speeds upwards. Most drivers are fishing for the “Sport button” just as soon as speeds increase beyond 60mph. Unfortunately, this immediately re-engages the traction control, so those cars not blessed with a mechanical limited-slip differential are immediately robbed of the additional control over the rear end and power delivery that these essential devices allow.

Even so, at higher speeds, the dampers run out of talent, and the car starts to get floaty, generating a loss of confidence of the driver. You will find your right foot being automatically pulled away from the throttle…

Oddly, we believe that the standard dampers give a better account of themselves, especially al low and medium speeds, but they are cheaply made, and like the Adaptive Dampers have pretty much linear damping force curves measured against damper speed."

Piotr

As folks decide their own preferences, one more semantic topic remains. I think it is quite clear that BMW Marketing did quite a disservice by misleadingly naming the content, "Track Handling Package". My car has never seen, nor will see, a track, and as noted, actual track drivers don't want variable steering.

However, unlike your quoted reviewers, I would not re-order without it. My usage pattern is different from what they hypothesize. I reach for the switch at start up, and it fully depends on whether I am alone in the car or if I have a passenger, and who that is. Friends who enjoy the experience are greeted with SPORT, while my wife always benefits from me routinely selecting COMFORT. When the car was new, the distinction became quite clear to her, and COMFORT is very pleasing. This has nothing to do with being above/below 60mph. In fact, when highway cruising for extended periods, I return from SPORT to COMFORT. But, in the suburban driving in the midwest, with frequent on/off cloverleaf ramps on local interstates and 3 and 4 lanes streets at 45-55 mph, SPORT makes the daily drive quite entertaining with no need to seek higher speeds to experience the g forces of curves/turns. The range of damper variation is very noticeable and I think very much on target, although those who run a tuning company may wish for even more extreme reach. I may be an outlier on this, but I took the steering a step further by swapping the lower control arms from the M2, so that the car anticipates the mere thought of turning with much quicker off-center response, even on the 17s I downsized to from the OE 18s. The difference versus stock was significantly noticeable when the change was first made, but is now second nature. I can't imagine going back to anything less responsive. For me, this is the daily fun of this great car. For several reasons pertaining to owning a German car, I have a 7 year warranty, so the fear of failure is not a major concern.