[BayEmVay]

Does it beat the ZF 8 speed RWD's record of 4.3? Does the AWD unit hurt the fuel economy much?

Information on this car's performance has been very scant! Anyone got answers?

[ocN55]

I think someone has a 4.1 0-60, car was probably not stock. But yes, awd will have a big advantage in a 0-60 acceleration. And AWD does lower fuel economy, how much it affects depends on the car.

[BayEmVay]

Right, so I'm trying to find someone or something with hard data. Any magazine links, etc.? Everything seems so scant.

[JBL84]

It's listed at 4.4 0-60. The Xdrive lowers the MPG about 2 all around so nothing too dramtice there. I think 4.1 is a stretch considering the M3/M4 is rated at 3.9-4.0 0-60

[JBL84]

Download the BMW genius app for iPhone. Has some good information on things like this for all of the current BMW's

[angelbones]

I have NO data to back up this statement, but intuitively I would say the AWD might be a tick or so slower than the RWD. Reason: added weight. Would like to see references to confirm numbers though.

[bizzyqu]

Originally Posted by angelbones

I have NO data to back up this statement, but intuitively I would say the AWD might be a tick or so slower than the RWD. Reason: added weight. Would like to see references to confirm numbers though.

0-60 at least, xdrive is faster per bmw's numbers on their site. 4.6 for the rwd and 4.4 for awd. http://www.bmwusa.com/bmw/2series/coupe#Models-Specs

[Zooks527]

Originally Posted by BayEmVay

Right, so I'm trying to find someone or something with hard data. Any magazine links, etc.? Everything seems so scant.

As in the post above, here you go: http://www.bmwusa.com/bmw/2series/coupe#Models-Specs

Originally Posted by bizzyqu

0-60 at least, xdrive is faster per bmw's numbers on their site. 4.6 for the rwd and 4.4 for awd. http://www.bmwusa.com/bmw/2series/coupe#Models-Specs

The cut line is tire stickiness versus number of tires trying to spin. AWD cars are typically faster off the line than RWD, as while most performance cars have enough torque to spin two wheels (and thus either waste energy or trigger traction control), few have enough to spin all 4.

The extra 150 pounds for the AWD system catches up with it in a quarter mile run, where the RWD cars are usually just a skosh faster.

[shark715]

Originally Posted by BayEmVay

Does it beat the ZF 8 speed RWD's record of 4.3? Does the AWD unit hurt the fuel economy much?

Information on this car's performance has been very scant! Anyone got answers?

The 0-60 spec and EPA mileage rating for every model is on BMWUSA's website. As is typically the case with BMW, the magazine and on line testers almost always report a faster 0-60 time versus BMW's spec. I assume BMW quotes a conservative spec to insure that 100% of the cars meet it (so they don't end up with any customers feeling they have been cheated) and of course factors like altitude, ambient temperature, and available surface traction can affect the actual result. But the published data should be useful for comparing model versus model.

[angelbones]

Did a little research myself and found BMW's number interesting and thank you for at least posting a source. Fact is, there are so many variables, such as driver, location, weather, etc., that you really have to put ALL sources together to get a true comparison. Anyway, I went to C&D, and their numbers for the 228 were 4.9 for the RWD, and 5.0 for the AWD. For the M235, it was 4.3 for the RWD, and (their sister magazine R&T), it was 4.5 for the AWD. As you can see, the rags numbers are always faster than what BMW claims so no complaints there. Because there are so many variables, I'm not going to dispute either claim (although one could argue that BMW would skew better for the AWD in order to sell a higher price car, but I'll leave that to pure speculation). Being in FL, you can't even find an AWD, but up north, it's hard to find a RWD. So, I say go with what you need, not what these VERY close numbers tell you.

[shark715]

For comparing BMW model to BMW model I would rely strictly on BMW's data. Hard to believe that BMW would purposely fudge the results as I could see this becoming the subject of class action lawsuits...or could you imagine a disgruntled employee claiming he/she has knowledge that the results were falsified. The problem with using C&D's numbers is that if you dig into it you will find that they are comparing tests that were run in different conditions. And are there completely objective? When I bought my SLK55 (10 years ago when they first came out, the newer ones are faster), Mercedes claimed a 0-60 time of 4.9. When C&D tested the car, they were able to clock times as low as 4.2. So guess what the headline was on the magazine cover the next month? Yeah, all the '55 owners loved it, but you get my point.

[shark715]

One thing you can be sure of is that with stock equipment and tires the M235 AWD will always be quicker 0-60 then the RWD apples to apples. I had the opportunity to drive both back to back without a salesperson in the car. Without AWD the limiting factor is traction. But if you add an LSD or special tires, the results might be different given the extra weight of xdrive components.

[Transfer]

Why does this matter? Go drive one.