[Jason]

Tested: 2021 BMW M3 Competition Is a Quicker M3

BMW's top M3 sports sedan counters its lack of a manual transmission with a 3.5-second 60-mph time.

Article: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...y-the-numbers/

[ssabripo]

Geez that's quick for that weight

Well done BMW

[bimmermann88]

And that's not even AWD correct?!

[solstice]

124mph trap speed, that’s moving. Will be fun to see what the AWD manages.

[AndroidRobot]

No surprise on their times, people have done better though

[phoenixbmwlife]

This is most likely with 1 foot roll out. Still impressive but let's not get too carried away here. The XDrive version is the one to look at.

[MachinesWithSouls]

Did anyone else read this article? The fact that the Alfa won really bothered me.

When magazines test these things and choose the slower car because it "feels" better, it's a cop out they use to try and get some clicks.

The Alfa might not even start in the morning.

[mmckenzie]

Wow, they took some great photos.

[Musaabi]

The 2020 M340 had 0-60 in 3.8 and 30-50 in 2.4 and 1/4 mile at 12.3 seconds(half second slower) which is slightly off the M3. I was honestly expecting better out of the M3 esp considering it costs 10-30k more for the car. I def appreciate it for being more of a track car and I understand all that jazz but performance wise it's pretty identical to the 340 for significantly more money. I've been looking at the m3 and I'm having a hard time pulling the trigger in a lease payment that's almost double the current amount for a car that performers slightly better. Changing to coil overs ($1700) plus a tune (1200) and a upgraded high flow cat($800) is still less than 5k in upgrades and would get the performance on par with the m3. Unless I'm completely wrong..

[Delmoney335]

Originally Posted by Musaabi

The 2020 M340 had 0-60 in 3.8 and 30-50 in 2.4 and 1/4 mile at 12.3 seconds(half second slower) which is slightly off the M3. I was honestly expecting better out of the M3 esp considering it costs 10-30k more for the car. I def appreciate it for being more of a track car and I understand all that jazz but performance wise it's pretty identical to the 340 for significantly more money. I've been looking at the m3 and I'm having a hard time pulling the trigger in a lease payment that's almost double the current amount for a car that performers slightly better. Changing to coil overs ($1700) plus a tune (1200) and a upgraded high flow cat($800) is still less than 5k in upgrades and would get the performance on par with the m3. Unless I'm completely wrong..

If that's all that you're comparing. Keep your car is the easiest answer

[shoei]

Originally Posted by Musaabi

The 2020 M340 had 0-60 in 3.8 and 30-50 in 2.4 and 1/4 mile at 12.3 seconds(half second slower) which is slightly off the M3. I was honestly expecting better out of the M3 esp considering it costs 10-30k more for the car. I def appreciate it for being more of a track car and I understand all that jazz but performance wise it's pretty identical to the 340 for significantly more money. I've been looking at the m3 and I'm having a hard time pulling the trigger in a lease payment that's almost double the current amount for a car that performers slightly better. Changing to coil overs ($1700) plus a tune (1200) and a upgraded high flow cat($800) is still less than 5k in upgrades and would get the performance on par with the m3. Unless I'm completely wrong..

If you think coil overs, exhaust and tune are the only differences between a M car and non-M car then you are right. Don't waste your money.

[MNoob]

Originally Posted by Musaabi

Unless I'm completely wrong..

This ^

[Musaabi]

Originally Posted by shoei

If you think coil overs, exhaust and tune are the only differences between a M car and non-M car then you are right. Don't waste your money.

I'm not saying that's the only difference and at high end the m3 performs way better. But how many m3 drivers are actually tracking the car religiously to the point that it justifies the extra 20k? All I'm saying is for 20k I expect significantly better numbers. Yes the m3 is wider and can handle better and is designed to be a track car with better control and better feel. It's not a crazy concept to ask for better performance numbers. Like I said, there's really only a handful of reasons to get the m3, you're planning on tracking and need the stiffness, wider body, extra turbo, improved engine, etc. even the weight savings aren't even substantial enough to make it THAT much better, the m340 is just slightly heavier I think 9 pounds. Some ppl just want to own an M, which is great as well and more power to you. Others just wanna be like "WeLl If YoU cAnT tElL tHe DifFeReNcE, ThEn KeEp YoUr CaR 😭" don't get y'all panties in a bunch, not like you guys designed these cars that you're taking it so personal 😂

[shoei]

Originally Posted by Musaabi

I'm not saying that's the only difference and at high end the m3 performs way better. But how many m3 drivers are actually tracking the car religiously to the point that it justifies the extra 20k? All I'm saying is for 20k I expect significantly better numbers. Yes the m3 is wider and can handle better and is designed to be a track car with better control and better feel. It's not a crazy concept to ask for better performance numbers. Like I said, there's really only a handful of reasons to get the m3, you're planning on tracking and need the stiffness, wider body, extra turbo, improved engine, etc. even the weight savings aren't even substantial enough to make it THAT much better, the m340 is just slightly heavier I think 9 pounds. Some ppl just want to own an M, which is great as well and more power to you. Others just wanna be like "WeLl If YoU cAnT tElL tHe DifFeReNcE, ThEn KeEp YoUr CaR 😭" don't get y'all panties in a bunch, not like you guys designed these cars that you're taking it so personal 😂

It's because it's a pointless argument. Do you think you come close to maximizing the potential in a 340? Hate to break it to you, even if you track it, you aren't Vettel or Hamilton. 98% of us the forums won't even come close to reaching the driving potential of a Kia on a track.

So why the 340? Why not the 330? I mean, isn't the only difference springs, exhaust and more power? Why the extra 15-20k in price? Surely y'all trippin' and should just get a 330.

Without having owned one for you to come in here and suggest it's overpriced and waste of money because the differences are just that. Even now you suggest wider and body panels. You still don't get the car. It's not for you and it's okay. In your scenario you're right, save your money. If you don't appreciate it why spend the money?

[Delmoney335]

No one here is saying the m340 isn't capable or a good car. You asked a question and we answer with our opinions. If you can't justify the difference in price , or care to own an M. Then keep your car, that's all I think people are saying.

What performance were you expecting , wait for the x-drive if you are concerned about 0-60.

[Musaabi]

Originally Posted by MNoob

This ^

Im open to being wrong, I don't mind it, there's always things we can learn and new ideas that can help drive our opinions. The average M3 driver who wants a quick fun car can get that same level from the m3. The average M driver isn't sitting there timing their 0-60 to really be able to tell a .3 second difference in or the .8 seconds in a quarter mile. Let's be realistic here, these are bragging numbers that change depending on so many variables. The 330 to the 340 we see almost 2 second improvement in 0-60 and quarter mile. That's a significant number that you're able to actually feel and tell the difference for the 15k difference between the 330 and m340. But for m3 to m340 for 15-30k more I'm having a hard time justifying that costs for fractions of a second. Like I said feel and build and are different for sure and certain performance characteristics drive up the cost but is it that much different?

[Vic55]

Originally Posted by shoei

It's because it's a pointless argument. Do you think you come close to maximizing the potential in a 340? Hate to break it to you, even if you track it, you are Vettel or Hamilton. 98% of us the forums won't even come close to reaching the driving potential of a Kia on a track.

So why the 340? Why not the 330? I mean, isn't the only difference springs, exhaust and more power? Why the extra 15-20k in price? Surely y'all trippin' and should just get a 330.

Without having owned one for you to come in here and suggest it's overpriced and waste of money because the differences are just that. Even now you suggest wider and body panels. You still don't get the car. It's not for you and it's okay. In your scenario you're right, save your money. If you don't appreciate it why spend the money?

Stop making sense--- this thread was just getting funny.

[shoei]

Originally Posted by Vic55

Stop making sense--- this thread was just getting funny.

My bad. You right.

bUt MuH fReEdOmS.

Oh wrong thread.

[JTO24]

I found C&D's instrumented test of the M340i and it did the 1/4 mile in 12.3 @ 114 mph... the M3 comp does it in 11.6 @ 124 mph, so more than a half a second quicker and 10 mph faster. The M340i is more than just "slightly off" the M3.

[shoei]

Originally Posted by Musaabi

Im open to being wrong, I don't mind it, there's always things we can learn and new ideas that can help drive our opinions. The average M3 driver who wants a quick fun car can get that same level from the m3. The average M driver isn't sitting there timing their 0-60 to really be able to tell a .3 second difference in or the .8 seconds in a quarter mile. Let's be realistic here, these are bragging numbers that change depending on so many variables. The 330 to the 340 we see almost 2 second improvement in 0-60 and quarter mile. That's a significant number that you're able to actually feel and tell the difference for the 15k difference between the 330 and m340. But for m3 to m340 for 15-30k more I'm having a hard time justifying that costs for fractions of a second. Like I said feel and build and are different for sure and certain performance characteristics drive up the cost but is it that much different?

Yes. A million times yes. You can't compare the two.

They're all steaks. But ones A5 wagyu. And no, that's not the 330. 330 is NY strip. 340 is tomahawk. M3 is A5.

Fit finish, visceral feel, minimal body sway - doesn't matter if you're just making taking the right on the freeway on-ramp or turn 6 at Laguna, you'll know if you are in a M3 or not. Nothing you do to a 330/340 will make it feel or drive like a M car. I don't even want to hear it about M340, it's not the same thing.

I'm not shitting on non-M's. It's just a night and day difference, as much as it may not appear to be so or no matter how much some people don't want it to be. I'm not in a current M3 and don't have a dog in this fight, I've just owned a few iterations of both cars you've mentioned, starting in the e9x era.

[MTM3]

Originally Posted by Musaabi

The 2020 M340 had 0-60 in 3.8 and 30-50 in 2.4 and 1/4 mile at 12.3 seconds(half second slower) which is slightly off the M3. I was honestly expecting better out of the M3 esp considering it costs 10-30k more for the car. I def appreciate it for being more of a track car and I understand all that jazz but performance wise it's pretty identical to the 340 for significantly more money. I've been looking at the m3 and I'm having a hard time pulling the trigger in a lease payment that's almost double the current amount for a car that performers slightly better. Changing to coil overs ($1700) plus a tune (1200) and a upgraded high flow cat($800) is still less than 5k in upgrades and would get the performance on par with the m3. Unless I'm completely wrong..

I bet you call your car M340 every time you mention your 340i, right?

[AlexFL]

Originally Posted by MachinesWithSouls

Did anyone else read this article? The fact that the Alfa won really bothered me.

When magazines test these things and choose the slower car because it "feels" better, it's a cop out they use to try and get some clicks.

The Alfa might not even start in the morning.

This is what happened when they brought the Alfa to the track: "To get even closer to these sedans, we headed to Grattan Raceway's 2.0-mile road course, where the Quadrifoglio promptly melted down. We suspect improper bedding of the brake pads led the front set to disintegrate in seven laps, and Alfa—still investigating the incident—thinks that's a possibility. Fortunately, the loss of braking power ended without damage or too much drama. Could this incident be a harbinger of what a relationship might bring?" I don't know how you make Alfa win after this (not unexpected) disaster.