Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

BMW M3 vs BMW 135i vs BMW 335i

Old 05-11-2008, 10:20 AM
  #1  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Gripenfelter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 3,652
BMW M3 vs BMW 135i vs BMW 335i

Gripenfelter is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 04:15 PM
  #2  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,003
Interesting. Too bad it wasn't a new M3 in the test, which I am sure would have been more than a match for the 135i or 335i even though it would be a bit more expensive.
HAZ-Matt is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 04:24 PM
  #3  
Registered User
 
Threxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Memphis
Posts: 4,381
I'm not really sure about the validity of that test.

It's pretty apples to oranges to compare a used M3 to a new 135i and 335i. Yeah the M3 is cheaper but did they consider increased maintenance and repair costs?

They admitted that it was slower in acceleration and pretty much on par on the road course, plus rode worse, yet they preferred it for some very subjective difficult to convey factor.

The 135i is obviously the better choice if performance for the dollar is your measurement... it's cheaper and 200 pounds lighter. Of course that comes at the price of less interior room a few missing amenities and a slightly less luxurious ride.

I'd probably take the 135i of the bunch, all things considered.

I got my 335i because the 135i was not out.

But I still think it's kind of silly to say some of the things they did short of just admitting a personal preference and priority toward performance per up front cost.
Threxx is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 05:47 PM
  #4  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Modesto, CA
Posts: 509
Magazine comparos are always going to be silly. No one buys a car to write an article about what it can and cant do, so people need to go to the lots and compare for themselves. I cant even read magazines about cars anymore, it just bores me.
MarineReconZ28 is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 08:52 AM
  #5  
Registered User
 
96_Camaro_B4C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,653
When Car and Driver first tested the new Solstice GXP, they had a little sidebar "comparison" of the car to one of the editor's used base Porsche Boxster. Of course, the Pontiac dusted the Porsche in performance, but the Porsche was nicer / more polished and more practical, too, and something to think about for anyone considering spending $30k on a Solstice. I couldn't believe what I was reading.

Car and Driver almost exclusively tests new production vehicles, with the occasional test of new tuner cars (Lingenfelter, Hennessee, etc.), and the odd side story. They aren't a specialty magazine like Hot Rod or Car Craft. Why they chose, out of the blue, to bring along a used Porsche to dampen their test of the hot new GXP... maybe the editor just got the thing and wanted to show off, and this was a way to incorporate it.

If they want to compare a mix of new and used cars at the used price of a (ridiculously overpriced to begin with) Boxster, like the Solstice, Sky, and Miata, why not throw a Corvette in the mix? My dad's C5 convertible was under $30k, and it will lay absolute waste to a Boxster (base or S) and still be more practical. A Solstice isn't even on the map. But who cares?

That isn't the point of mags like Car and Driver. Or at least, it hasn't been the point.

96_Camaro_B4C is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 09:50 AM
  #6  
Registered User
 
Z284ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,181
Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt View Post
Interesting. Too bad it wasn't a new M3 in the test, which I am sure would have been more than a match for the 135i or 335i even though it would be a bit more expensive.

It would have been.

I've drivn all three, the 335i at 10/10ths on a closed course. The 135 and 335 are simply awesome cars. No other way to put it. Two fantastic automobiles which are great fun to drive.

The new M3 however, is a whole 'nother level. Beieve me. https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...=597579&page=4 (post 51)
Z284ever is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 09:20 PM
  #7  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Houston TX (Chicago/Evanston IL)
Posts: 782
Why do these cars (335i) seem to be faster than there power ratings. They seem to be runing LS1 SS Camaro times (MT, RT & CD mag times 13.4 ish) I know they are underated but to move a 3500-3600 pound sedan to a 4.8/13.4-13.6 should take more than 300-330 HP.

Last edited by Evil Turbo SS; 06-10-2008 at 12:36 AM.
Evil Turbo SS is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:28 PM
  #8  
Registered User
 
Threxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Memphis
Posts: 4,381
Originally Posted by Evil Turbo SS View Post
Why do these cars (335i) seem to be faster than there power ratings. They sem to be runing LS1 SS Camaro times (MT, RT & CD mag times 13.4 ish) I know they are underated but to moves a 3500-3600 pound sedan to a 4.8/13.4-13.6 should take more than 300-330 HP.
They make about 330hp on average (10% under rated) sometimes a tad more. They also have a very very nice flat torque curve with 95% of their peak torque available from 1800 rpm up to almost red line. They're really not much heavier than an LS1 SS, with around 10 horsepower less, a better torque curve, and they run times 2-4 tenths and 3-4 mph slower... it all adds up to me.
Threxx is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 12:40 AM
  #9  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Houston TX (Chicago/Evanston IL)
Posts: 782
The 135i is 200 pounds lighter than the 335i. They should be able to keep up with a LS1 camaro. If my memory serves me, my 01 SS had a sticker of 33k or 34K. What does that translate to in 08 dollars? I just didnt think BMW would have a afordable RWD coupe that has some muscle. The sky must be falling.
Evil Turbo SS is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 01:22 AM
  #10  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,465
That's very odd to use a used M3 against new 1 and 335i's and then give it the nod because of a lower price paid. It's almost like the new M3 wasn't available. It should have used the sticker prices for all 3.

Either way very predictable results. The 135i makes use of it's smaller and ligher package with the same TT I6 should easily take down the 335i. They have both advanced far from a 2002 M3 and I think the turbos are put the power down in a more linear way than the N/A I6.

To me I'd expect the 135i to run even better in the hands of the general public. My 02 Z ran the same 13.3 @104 but I'd bet Edmunds would have placed it at 13.5-6. I could see some 135i's with great weather cracking the 12 sec barrier stock. Where is Evan Smith and a chilly fall day at Atco...
99SilverSS is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:40 AM
  #11  
Registered User
 
Threxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Memphis
Posts: 4,381
Originally Posted by Evil Turbo SS View Post
The 135i is 200 pounds lighter than the 335i. They should be able to keep up with a LS1 camaro. If my memory serves me, my 01 SS had a sticker of 33k or 34K. What does that translate to in 08 dollars? I just didnt think BMW would have a afordable RWD coupe that has some muscle. The sky must be falling.
Yeah it is a pretty impressive bargain for a car that starts nicely equipped at 35k and is an 800 dollar programmer away from putting out 400hp with gobs of torque to boot.

Then again, on the flip side, for 10k more you can get a Vette with 430 warrantied horsepower from the factory and a significantly lower curb weight.
Threxx is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 11:19 AM
  #12  
Registered User
 
muckz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 2,402
Originally Posted by Evil Turbo SS View Post
Why do these cars (335i) seem to be faster than there power ratings. They seem to be runing LS1 SS Camaro times (MT, RT & CD mag times 13.4 ish) I know they are underated but to move a 3500-3600 pound sedan to a 4.8/13.4-13.6 should take more than 300-330 HP.
Turbo delivers most of the torque (90% - 100%) from very low RPM, hence it maximizes the RPM range where acceleration is at its maximum.
muckz is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 05:01 PM
  #13  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,137
Originally Posted by muckz View Post
Turbo delivers most of the torque (90% - 100%) from very low RPM, hence it maximizes the RPM range where acceleration is at its maximum.
Also called "power under the curve"
teal98 is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:42 PM
  #14  
Registered User
 
Threxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Memphis
Posts: 4,381
Originally Posted by teal98 View Post
Also called "power under the curve"
That saying has never made sense to me. Wouldn't it be "power behind (to the left of) the peak of the curve"?

Or maybe they're referring to the area underneath the entire curve being larger with a broader curve? Still doesn't really make sense to me.
Threxx is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:41 PM
  #15  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,137
Originally Posted by Threxx View Post
That saying has never made sense to me. Wouldn't it be "power behind (to the left of) the peak of the curve"?

Or maybe they're referring to the area underneath the entire curve being larger with a broader curve? Still doesn't really make sense to me.
The sum of power over time, as the engine proceeds through the gears. I.e. the average power while accelerating.
teal98 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: BMW M3 vs BMW 135i vs BMW 335i


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.