Performance Tested - 2016 BMW 340i xDrive Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com · May 2016

Performance Tested - 2016 BMW 340i xDrive Long-Term Road Test

We take our long-term 2016 BMW 340i to the track for performance testing.

longtimelurker · May 2016

Crap all-season tires the same width as those found on a 3100-lb GTI, on a 3800+ lb. mega-powerful sedan. This vehicle is basically too fast-accelerating for the contact patch size and quality that it possesses.

AWD helps acceleration out of the hole, but with an over-108-mph trap speed, obviously another underrated BMW powerplant.

markinnaples_ · May 2016

12.7 in the quarter with a stock 3 series? Damn, that's impressive, seriously. But whew, $60k for a 3 series? That's ridiculous, even considering the performance, but I guess when you're forking out almost $50k for a new Camaro SS coupe, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

schen72 · May 2016

$60k is the price with all the option boxes ticked, which I imagine very few BMW buyers actually do.

throwback · May 2016

The car is quick no doubt about that. Glad to see BMWs engine team can still make some power.

longtimelurker · May 2016

"Our newest long-term car, a 2016 BMW 340i, replaces the smaller, sportier 2015 BMW M235i in our hearts, minds and test fleet."

Not seeing how this vehicle, with no sport suspension, tires or wheels, is going to replace the M235i. Even configured as a convertible, that car was in a different class in handling and braking.

throwback · May 2016

schen72 said:
$60k is the price with all the option boxes ticked, which I imagine very few BMW buyers actually do.

I don't know about that. Most BMWs are heavily optioned as they are mostly leased.

mojo_mike · May 2016

The acceleration times are nothing short of amazing. Basically the same 0-60 and quarter mile times as Car & Driver was able to get with the Mustang GT 350. Those skinny 225 tires didn't help the lateral acceleration figures one bit.

roadburner · May 2016

In a few months the B58 will find its way into the F22; now THAT should be entertaining...

mercedesfan · May 2016

@throwback,
Yeah, but people lease them because of the lease specials. Most Bimmers sold are extremely stripped down so people can get the advertised low monthly payments. I've never understood that. Why buy a luxury car if you aren't willing to splurge on the luxuries?

s197gt · May 2016

exactly, most leases (around here at least) get the premium package and cold weather package and not much more.

as far as this car... can't argue with the performance specs. way under-rated engine.

a set of good summer tires away from .9+ g and i wouldn't even feel the need to go wider for this family sports sedan. wider isn't always better.

whobodym · May 2016

@mercedesfan, easy to understand for people who care most about being seen by others and don't actually care much about the car themselves

longtimelurker · May 2016

s197gt said:
exactly, most leases (around here at least) get the premium package and cold weather package and not much more.

as far as this car... can't argue with the performance specs. way under-rated engine.

a set of good summer tires away from .9+ g and i wouldn't even feel the need to go wider for this family sports sedan. wider isn't always better.

The 18" upgrade is to 255/40-18 on the rear, keeping the existing size on the front. The 19" upgrade is 225/40-19 front, 255/35-19 rear. So BMW believes, even for X-Drive cars, that best handling is achieved by staying with the 225 section in front and going to a 255 section in the rear, with a +1 change in aspect ratio front to rear. That is borne out by the Edmunds test driver saying that it essentially handles like a rear-drive car, but that absolute grip is not all that high. In addition to just getting the skidpad number higher, I would suspect that with this much torque everywhere on the tach, a wider rear tire will allow faster corner exits by allowing that power to be put down better.

That was the finding in the M235i test, although it's true that was a rear-drive car.

roadburner · May 2016

longtimelurker said:

s197gt said:
exactly, most leases (around here at least) get the premium package and cold weather package and not much more.

as far as this car... can't argue with the performance specs. way under-rated engine.

a set of good summer tires away from .9+ g and i wouldn't even feel the need to go wider for this family sports sedan. wider isn't always better.
The 18" upgrade is to 255/40-18 on the rear, keeping the existing size on the front. The 19" upgrade is 225/40-19 front, 255/35-19 rear. So BMW believes, even for X-Drive cars, that best handling is achieved by staying with the 225 section in front and going to a 255 section in the rear, with a +1 change in aspect ratio front to rear. That is borne out by the Edmunds test driver saying that it essentially handles like a rear-drive car, but that absolute grip is not all that high. In addition to just getting the skidpad number higher, I would suspect that with this much torque everywhere on the tach, a wider rear tire will allow faster corner exits by allowing that power to be put down better.

That was the finding in the M235i test, although it's true that was a rear-drive car.

A friend of mine at the dealer is a former SCCA regional racer and he told me two things about the M235i:
1. Keep the staggered tire configuration
2. Do not add any more power until you fit an LSD

I know the LSD isn't as big an issue with xDrive cars but the only Bimmers I want with AWD are the trucks.

longtimelurker · May 2016

roadburner said:

longtimelurker said:

s197gt said:
exactly, most leases (around here at least) get the premium package and cold weather package and not much more.

as far as this car... can't argue with the performance specs. way under-rated engine.

a set of good summer tires away from .9+ g and i wouldn't even feel the need to go wider for this family sports sedan. wider isn't always better.
The 18" upgrade is to 255/40-18 on the rear, keeping the existing size on the front. The 19" upgrade is 225/40-19 front, 255/35-19 rear. So BMW believes, even for X-Drive cars, that best handling is achieved by staying with the 225 section in front and going to a 255 section in the rear, with a +1 change in aspect ratio front to rear. That is borne out by the Edmunds test driver saying that it essentially handles like a rear-drive car, but that absolute grip is not all that high. In addition to just getting the skidpad number higher, I would suspect that with this much torque everywhere on the tach, a wider rear tire will allow faster corner exits by allowing that power to be put down better.

That was the finding in the M235i test, although it's true that was a rear-drive car.
A friend of mine at the dealer is a former SCCA regional racer and he told me two things about the M235i:
1. Keep the staggered tire configuration
2. Do not add any more power until you fit an LSD

I know the LSD isn't as big an issue with xDrive cars but the only Bimmers I want with AWD are the trucks.

I would agree with that, roadburner. In the M235i track test, Edmunds said, "It doesn't step out under power very easily, but would rather stick and turn." I would suspect that is because it has the additional meat on the rear contact patches.

Performance Tested - 2016 BMW 340i xDrive Long-Term Road Test

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles