[rogerxp]

I love this place

[Em135eye]

Originally Posted by NFS

You are incredibly easy to wind up

I know. But I also find it incredibly easy to wind others up in return. Hence my "keeping it simple" thread getting to 5 pages in less than 24 hours...

[xenon]

Oh so it was all a wind-up! Well thank heavens for that.

Skillfully done though, it would have been very easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.

[Em135eye]

Part wind up, part debate..

[E92Fan]

Originally Posted by 335diesel

No it doesn't.
Because 225 rubber is perfectly sufficient and specced on all SE 335d tourings and saloons after thousands of hours of R&D.

Of course to those who have never driven one and make assumptions based on marketing hype, it handles terribly...

Lets look at the Evo 9 FQ360 and the rubber that had shall we? That handles pretty well...

You are quite correct - 225 rubber is generally sufficient on most of the 3er range. It has ample grip in a straight line and is a better proposition when the roads are steaming wet and there's risk of aquaplaning.

I don't think you can compare the rubber used on the 3er to an Evo 9 though - something about yaw control, active 4wd etc etc does more for the handling than the choice of rubber

However, when really pushing on, the 225 section rear tyres have a tendancy to tip into roll-induced oversteer especially if the car is running on non-sports suspension (which yours isn't). The roll-induced oversteer is largely due to the four-square setup of equally sized tyres front and rear, coupled with damping and spring rates that aren't firm enough to cope with severe load transfers. Going to 255 section rear tyres, and the sports suspension, help to control the load transfer and give a much more sure-footed handling response.

You might think this only applies to track work, but there is also a degree of difference, though not as large, when driving hard on an off-cambered twisty B-road section. If you were to drive on motorways at speeds far higher than the UK national limit, then you will notice an appreciable difference in handling response between an MSport and SE version of the same car. There is also a substantial difference in the suspension rebound damping with the MSport variants; this is most noticeable on an undulating motorway at highish speeds, in which case an MSport variant will exhibit much better vertical body control over an SE.

Please note however that your particular Touring will exhibit less difference because of the optioned Sport suspension that is installed on your car. Your Touring doesn't handle terribly, although it does handle better than a normal SE given the suspension you have.

The MSport range is a lot to do with marketing a more 'performance-orientated' model (which is perhaps stretching the reality a little bit), but there is a certain 'feel-good' factor in the extra bodykit and tactile improvements, if that's what floats your boat (well, not yours, but you know what I mean).

However, there is a difference in handling despite your thoughts to the contrary, and I have first-hand experience of that with empirical data to back that up. An MSport isn't just all show with no go - for sure there's no difference in straight-line performance, but show the car a really demanding bit of a road like Snake's Pass and the MSport will pull away from a standard SE through almost every corner (please note, standard SE, not your Touring)

[Em135eye]

Now THAT was a very interesting read and full of excellent information. Thanks!

As mentioned in the other thread, I made a mistake assuming sports suspension is standard on my car.

[moreno5]

annoyingly car was sold last night! Not to me

[Jude1]

17's are fine...why would I want anything else???

Originally Posted by 335diesel

I'm sure passengers love your 19" MV3s when their teeth get rattled out of their sockets. I'm sure the doubling of tyre costs is well worth it too. And I'm sure rim size isn't inversely proportional to the size of ones "equipment" Oh no - wouldn't think that for a minute.

17's are fine....why would I want anything else???

Originally Posted by 335diesel

Are wheel looks really so vital over comfort and ride quality?

I remember Gordon Murray writing about the prevalance of oversized wheels and how it's to "fit" in with fashion and design whims.

Many of you moan about how RFTs are so dire -maybe it's more because you specced giant wheels with rubber band tyres? I do get sick of the oversized wheel gang going on and on and on.

Oh to be a bit bigger lol lol lol

Originally Posted by 335diesel

230s 230s 230s

Or 162s 162s 162s (if you can find any).

I could finally conform at last, plus I'd be a bit bigger like all of the other wavers

Originally Posted by 335diesel

Carlos - I saw a black E91 325i with them - while I wasn't jealous of the car, the wheels looked fantastic. If anyone knows of any proper BMW ones for sale, shout my way!!

Really don't get your above comments?

Owners who have specified 19" MV3's are willy wavers...

Gordon Murray compares having over-sized (in what context?) alloys to being a fashion victim.....

The "Oversized" wheel gang moan about RFT's when they shouldn't have specified them in the first place......

Yet despite all of that, you want to contradict yourself by saying you want some 19" 230's or 162's (albeit 18's).....

Bit of irony and after reading the last 2 threads that you've posted so passionately on I couldn't resist the above post, take it as it was intended. Enjoy your car for what is and for why you purchased it.


Jules.

[F31-340i]

Originally Posted by 335diesel

It goes off fine when I boot it.

The badge was on it when I bought it - thanks for that though.

I'm sure passengers love your 19" MV3s when their teeth get rattled out of their sockets. I'm sure the doubling of tyre costs is well worth it too. And I'm sure rim size isn't inversely proportional to the size of ones "equipment" Oh no - wouldn't think that for a minute.

Still slower than a 335d too - even if the 335d has moped tyres fitted...

Having seen the PH thread this must be a wind up. Mind, he did seem to stop posting towards the end, so maybe not.

I've no doubt his passengers will love his 19" 230s just as much when/if he gets them.

One point did occur to me about the "suspensiongate". Its fairly common knowledge that the majority of SE drivers are of a more mature nature, and this is actually mostly because they want the softer ride of the non-sport suspension. They also usually buy the smaller engined models as "burning up chavvy Novas" is not usually as high a priority for them as it seems to be for 335diesel.

Hence on top of buying a large engined SE that will be difficult to sell at the best of times anyway - he's got one with sport suspension. All the Grandads that might have been interested in buying it when its time to sell will bemoan the rock hard ride and walk. Couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by 335diesel

Now THAT was a very interesting read and full of excellent information. Thanks!

As mentioned in the other thread, I made a mistake assuming sports suspension is standard on my car.

When I told you that you said that it was "utter tripe", that I was a "marketing victim" and that only "Walter Rohrl" or a "lotus test driver" could tell the difference between SE and Msport suspension / tyre packages.

[E902717]

Originally Posted by E92Fan

You are quite correct - 225 rubber is generally sufficient on most of the 3er range. It has ample grip in a straight line and is a better proposition when the roads are steaming wet and there's risk of aquaplaning.

I don't think you can compare the rubber used on the 3er to an Evo 9 though - something about yaw control, active 4wd etc etc does more for the handling than the choice of rubber

However, when really pushing on, the 225 section rear tyres have a tendancy to tip into roll-induced oversteer especially if the car is running on non-sports suspension (which yours isn't). The roll-induced oversteer is largely due to the four-square setup of equally sized tyres front and rear, coupled with damping and spring rates that aren't firm enough to cope with severe load transfers. Going to 255 section rear tyres, and the sports suspension, help to control the load transfer and give a much more sure-footed handling response.

You might think this only applies to track work, but there is also a degree of difference, though not as large, when driving hard on an off-cambered twisty B-road section. If you were to drive on motorways at speeds far higher than the UK national limit, then you will notice an appreciable difference in handling response between an MSport and SE version of the same car. There is also a substantial difference in the suspension rebound damping with the MSport variants; this is most noticeable on an undulating motorway at highish speeds, in which case an MSport variant will exhibit much better vertical body control over an SE.

Please note however that your particular Touring will exhibit less difference because of the optioned Sport suspension that is installed on your car. Your Touring doesn't handle terribly, although it does handle better than a normal SE given the suspension you have.

The MSport range is a lot to do with marketing a more 'performance-orientated' model (which is perhaps stretching the reality a little bit), but there is a certain 'feel-good' factor in the extra bodykit and tactile improvements, if that's what floats your boat (well, not yours, but you know what I mean).

However, there is a difference in handling despite your thoughts to the contrary, and I have first-hand experience of that with empirical data to back that up. An MSport isn't just all show with no go - for sure there's no difference in straight-line performance, but show the car a really demanding bit of a road like Snake's Pass and the MSport will pull away from a standard SE through almost every corner (please note, standard SE, not your Touring)

Excellent post like always!