[Nick the Greek]

Today's Autocar full test on the BMW.

Interesting to compare the data with the Golf R tested a couple of weeks ago.
For those with delicate sensibilities, please note data for both cars recorded in streaming wet conditions. Also, Golf with DSG, BMW six speed manual -

0-60
Golf 4.8 seconds
M235i 6.3

0-100
Golf 12.0 seconds
M235i 14.7

30-70 through gears
Golf 4.3 seconds
M235i 5.7

Standing km
Golf 24.6 at 132.1 mph
M235i 26.4 at 131.7 mph

Track - please note all data recorded in very wet conditions -

'Dry' handling track -
Golf 1 min 17.4 sec
M235i 1 min 24.2 sec

Wet handling track
Golf 1 min 14 sec
M235i 1 min 20.4 sec

BMW was highly rated at 4.5 out of five stars.
BMW was ranked third after the Cayman and GT86.

[Killramos]

So basically car and driver can't work a manual car worth their life. 0-60 of the zf8 in the 235i is 4.8 too...

Sounds like these guys are idiots. And I don't know anything about humbling. From what I see the cars are basically the same once you get past the driver errors that are obviously apparent, they also cost the same amount of money.

There will always been some track benefits from the Awd system as well.

[dmboone25]

6.3 0-60 MPH? My ass...

They lost me there...there's no way...I drive this car, with a manual, everyday and that's more in line with what I would have gotten in my N52 328i...

[Delnari]

Golf R will give the new WRX STI a run. This is segment they are in. Not the 2 series BMW.

[Nick the Greek]

Killramos and dmboone25, you both totally miss the point.

My post said that conditions were wet. Its quite often wet in the UK. In that sort of weather the R drops the M235i comprehensively. The point is that in the UK, due to a relative lack of traction its often not possible to use all the M235is power. Whilst you can use all the Golfs power, all of the time.

I don't agree that the cars are not in the same class Delnari. Anyone who wants a performance car for circa 35 will have both on their lists to drive.

I know a number of F30 owners migrating to Golf Rs.

[darkerosxx]

Originally Posted by Nick the Greek

Killramos and dmboone25, you both totally miss the point.

My post said that conditions were wet. Its quite often wet in the UK. In that sort of weather the R drops the M235i comprehensively. The point is that in the UK, due to a relative lack of traction its often not possible to use all the M235is power. Whilst you can use all the Golfs power, all of the time.

I don't agree that the cars are not in the same class Delnari. Anyone who wants a performance car for circa 35 will have both on their lists to drive.

I know a number of F30 owners migrating to Golf Rs.

No offense, but I'm going to also have to call BS on that. The PSS are some of the best wet handling tires on the market.

Originally Posted by Car and Driver

The Michelin PSS finished with the second-quickest lap in both the wet and dry autocrosses, just 0.1 and 0.2 second behind the leaders, respectively. The PSS has the best balance of wet and dry performance we’ve ever experienced in testing.

[JustChris]

Innnnnnteresting. I looked at both and felt the Golf was not for me. Manual vs Auto is a likely source of time differencealong with the, not for me, 4WD. The 0-60 times look like botched gears to me, wet adding over a second to the BMW but not a lot to the R?

[Nick the Greek]

Well the figures are produced by some of the most respected testers in the business.
Botched gear changes? No!

I agree darkerosxx, the PSS are excellent tyres, in the dry, but in streaming wet conditions obviously not!

[darkerosxx]

Can you please source the information you posted in the original post? If not sourced, I'm calling troll, given the results of a "golf r humbles" google search.

Also, so you're claiming that Car & Driver's tests on the PSS are invalid in the wet?

[Nick the Greek]

Troll my ass!

This weeks Autocar fella, I have it in front of me!

[darkerosxx]

Originally Posted by Nick the Greek

Troll my ass!

This weeks Autocar fella, I have it in front of me!

So that info is only available via print media?

[Nick the Greek]

Guess so darkerosxx, but I haven't tried to find it online.
If you want any more performance numbers, I have full figures for both the M235i and Golf R.

However, please note, as stated in my first post, the conditions were very wet when both cars were figured.

[darkerosxx]

Of course they were, that's the way they run their tests. They're all like that. I'm not worried about who beat who, I could care less, I just find the M235i times to be very far off, especially given the Autocar M135i test had much much better times than the posted M235i times. Curiously enough, both the M135i and the M235i posts say "Golf R humbles X", replacing X with both models, but nowhere in the world can you find a real source for this information.

[Nick the Greek]

All the data is in Autocar magazine darkerosxx. I have the three tests you refer to.

Difference between M135i and M235i was firstly the 135 was an auto, the 235 a manual. Second the test of the 135 was in perfect dry conditions and the 235i on a very wet track.

The manual 235 does not have launch control, so you've lost half a second there.
The rest is down to the fact that 2WD car is going to get wasted by 4wd car, away from standstill, when it's wet.

[Delnari]

Geez, hard for some to take this article. Glad it wasn't something more interesting like the limited edition concept I read about yesterday, http://www.gizmag.com/volkswagen-gol...concept/31732/

Couldn't resists posting, kinda puts things in perspective...

[Nick the Greek]

^^^

Hmmmmmmmmm.
Seems to be a long way short of 400bhp. Seemed pretty slow!

[schumy]

I am reading some article says R400 has manual shift, other says DSG, which one is true?

[darkerosxx]

Originally Posted by Nick the Greek

All the data is in Autocar magazine darkerosxx. I have the three tests you refer to.

Difference between M135i and M235i was firstly the 135 was an auto, the 235 a manual. Second the test of the 135 was in perfect dry conditions and the 235i on a very wet track.

The manual 235 does not have launch control, so you've lost half a second there.
The rest is down to the fact that 2WD car is going to get wasted by 4wd car, away from standstill, when it's wet.

And there we have it... the M235i is faster than the M135i in automatic and since the M135i test was done in Autocar and all their tests are done the same, if the M235i was driven in automatic, it would have been far different. Everyone else's tests done in manual have a much lower delta from the auto times than Autocar does. It's tough admitting when people can't drive stick.

Also, let's be sure and note this information also thrown in, which negates all blaming it on wet traction:

'Dry' handling track -
Golf 1 min 17.4 sec
M235i 1 min 24.2 sec

As I said before, I don't have a problem admitting when one car is better, but this information is clearly not evidence of that. The Golf R "may" be better in the tests mentioned, but the way the data has been displayed just seems faulty. Maybe I've spent too much time running experiments and look too closely for faults in data presentation.

[Nick the Greek]

Again darkerosxx, you miss the point.
I refer you to my original post.
On the day the tracks were streaming wet.
Even the track used to test dry handling.
Manual changes are the norm in the UK, so if there is any difficulty in driving stick shifts you will find it is US not UK drivers.

I said above the manual has no launch control, so it will loose half a second out of the box to the DSG.

Other than that the data is merely illustrative of the fact than when its wet, 2WD will get wasted by4WD. End of.

In the UK where there is often rain, this is a consideration, for people who want to use all of their cars performance most of the time.

I fully understand that if you have ordered a M235i, you may be a little sore that its humbled by a Golf in the wet.

In which case, you may wish to consider BMWs x drive?

[darkerosxx]

I'm not missing your point, I fully understand what you're trying to say. The point I'm trying to make is this

M235i
Manual in BMW dry tests 0-60 5.0
Manual in Autocar wet test 0-60 6.2

Being wet adds a whole 1.2 seconds, an increase of 24%? I just find this surprising, given how incredibly grippy the PSS tires are in wet conditions... they're literally some of the best wet tires available in the market.

Oh, I see... someone else talking about this same report noted that the PSS tires on the M235i were extremely worn... that explains it. We're done here! Let's go have a beer!

[Nick the Greek]

I'm a couple of beers ahead of you........

[TouringPleb]

What the article also says is "fate had it in for the M235i on the day we figured it... The proving ground was saturated with rain and BMW sent us a test car with a manual gearbox, no limited-slip diff and A WORN SET OF TYRES. In light of those things cracking 60mph in 6.3sec and 100mph in 14.7 sec was no mean feat. WE CAN WELL BELIEVE THE CAR WOULD PROBABLY BE QUICKER THAN BMW'S 5.0 SEC 0-62MPH CLAIM IN PERFECT CIRCUMSTANCES... ONCE OUR TEST CAR FOUND TRACTION IT TOOK OFF AT GENUINE SPORTS CAR PACE."