If you like performance coupes enough, and specifically the 2 series enough, to be posting on a 2 series forum, I'd argue the M240i's power and default suspension is worth the 20-25% difference. 335hp is still well within the very usable range.
However, there is a strong argument for "slow car fast" and more balanced purism, as pointed out in these articles. (228i vs. M235i)
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...mparison-test/
https://jalopnik.com/the-bmw-228i-is...buy-1662847106
Quote:
Originally Posted by babaikram
In fact I get 42mpg in m240i in EcoPro mode when driving long distances on motorways.
|
Jibes decently well with the reports of 35mpg from other members, if that's 42mpg Imperial.
I'm getting much closer to EPA numbers (28mpg hwy) with the 6 speed, generally no cruise control. If I set it to 60MPH with cruise I'd see in the low to mid 30s on flat ground. I wonder if ECO PRO helps if cruise control is on, I'd doubt it since it only seems to mute throttle response.
I think the main reason for the short 6th gear when they could easily put a taller one in with all the 369lb-ft @ 1600rpm, is that BMW only has a certain number of manual gearboxes, and this particular one has the same ratios as the M2 and M4. (4.11 / 2.32 / 1.54 / 1.18 / 1.00 / 0.85). The M2 and M4 have a high enough top speed that you need to grab 6th to get it (174mph with the package). The CAFE MPG hit they'd take is miniscule if only 5% of drivers chose the M240i manual. You could easily put a 6th gear at 0.81 or 0.79 but it would feel more awkward and possibly hurt top speed in the M2/M4 (but really, is anyone keeping track?)
For those complaining about turbo lag, keep in mind an N/A I-6 or V-6 making 335hp would have about a LOT less torque than at 1600rpm than 369 lb-ft. The only case where'd you'd get tons of grunt down low are with the American V-8 muscle cars, and those are generally geared pretty tall as well.