[Blue2]

I've always owned RWD cars. I'm looking to build a new M240i and I'm leaning towards the xDrive because it's .4 seconds faster to 60. That's pretty significant.

Weather is not a concern because I live in Florida.

Is there any reason to get the RWD over the AWD? Sliding the car a little is fun, but I think I'd rather be faster.

[TheGeekGuy]

Lighter weight and price. You can spend the saved money on mods or extras. Also, .4 might seem fast, but will you REALLY notice it? I don't.

[Littlecoupe]

The 0-60 gap will likely be even greater on the street due to less grip versus a prepped drag strip. With that being said, how often are you doing launch control starts? I've only done a handful myself, and I like fast cars.

Dynamically, the RWD will feel a bit better since it's not using or dragging front axles. My X-Drive feels more RWD than a FWD based system, but it doesn't feel quite as RWD as my '15 Mustang did, likely due to the lack of transfer case and extra axles.

Also, the RWD will be slightly faster from a roll since carrying less weight.

In saying all that, I did a short track session with mine and I was pleased with X-Drive. It does plow on tight corners, which may be more due to suspension setup than AWD, but the back does like to step out, and it remains very controllable when it does slide.

[Bandit009]

Originally Posted by Blue2

I've always owned RWD cars. I'm looking to build a new M240i and I'm leaning towards the xDrive because it's .4 seconds faster to 60. That's pretty significant.

Weather is not a concern because I live in Florida.

Is there any reason to get the RWD over the AWD? Sliding the car a little is fun, but I think I'd rather be faster.

I have xdrive and live in FL. I like the xdrive because the acceleration is excellent from a start. No wheel slip. And coming out of turns, the few I can find here, the car has wild grip. And pulls so hard out of the corner. Lastly, with the heavy rains we get here I find the xdrive a plus.

I don’t need to be fish tailing everywhere so don’t miss the rwd. I do; however, miss a manual transmission.

[Blue2]

Originally Posted by Bandit009

I have xdrive and live in FL. I like the xdrive because the acceleration is excellent from a start. No wheel slip. And coming out of turns, the few I can find here, the car has wild grip. And pulls so hard out of the corner. Lastly, with the heavy rains we get here I find the xdrive a plus.

I don’t need to be fish tailing everywhere so don’t miss the rwd. I do; however, miss a manual transmission.

Great info.

I'm also going to miss my manual, but I just can't justify the additional price of the new M2 when the M240i styling is better and it's just as fast to 60 mph.

How often do you use manual mode and do you find it decent?

[WilcoJunoHotel]

I'm in north Georgia where we get a mixed bag of weather and roads (curvy, hilly, etc).

I opted for the RWD due to less weight and complexity. Will likely never drive it in snow and if it does rain while driving, it will be no different than what I grew up driving and I will know what to expect and how to deal with it when the rear end gets a little fishy.

I do however ride the mountain roads of GA, TN, NC and VA a lot at a spirited pace and the AWD would come in very handy on those trips as well as when certain roads remain damp for most of the winter.

There are always trade-offs.

Edit: This car is not my daily. I have a Honda Ridgeline AWD that I love and it will literally go anywhere so it is my nasty weather vehicle. If the M240i was my daily, I probably would have gone with the AWD instead of RWD.

[Brewtul]

I got the RWD. I sold my 2018 Mustang GT and my m240 replaced it. I just wanted something lighter, with good aftermarket options and great tech, and handling. It's also not my daily, I already got a Hyundai Santa Cruz with AWD for that.

Also, I thought about the long term and having less complexity(less things to service and leak!) and not having to replace full sets of tires was a plus.

[BobHen]

Today's automatics are much better, lightening quick and just as, if not more, engaging than manuals, especially when shifted manually. BMW's "real-wheel biased" AWD is fantastic off-the-line or around corners. Rocketing out of a corner without disturbing a pebble is pretty amazing. Couple the above with BMW's sweet B58 makes the M240 x-drive a monster, when you want it to be.

Get the AWD.

Bob

[LivingInSalt]

Originally Posted by BobHen

Today's automatics are much better, lightening quick and just as, if not more, engaging than manuals,

explain how an automatic is more engaging than a manual

[Aramis1919]

I would have been happy with rear drive only but not available ( in the UK) when I ordered my M240i X-drive in May 2022.

[Bandit009]

Originally Posted by Blue2

Great info.

I'm also going to miss my manual, but I just can't justify the additional price of the new M2 when the M240i styling is better and it's just as fast to 60 mph.

How often do you use manual mode and do you find it decent?

The ZF transmission is excellent. Shifts are fast and done with authority. With that said it is not a manual feel. I still have a 330i 6-spd. That car is more engaging because of the three pedals. However, the B58 engine in the 240i is bananas and so much fun in its own right. I use the manual mode frequently. It’s the only way to reach redline. The car is very fun to drive. But don’t think the manual mode will mimic a true manual driving experience. This car is very fast with the xdrive. I couldn’t imagine driving something faster. I get compliments on the looks all the time. I have seen M2s in the wild here and don’t like the way they look. Happy with the 240i. I don’t think you can find a better value of performance and fit and finish.

[Littlecoupe]

I agree with the thoughts on the ZF. It's not a manual, and it will never be a manual nor will it have the driver engagement of one. I think if you MUST have an automatic, the ZF is a great one to have. Manual mode works in it's own right, smooth under light throttle and snappy under hard throttle weather shifted manually or automatically.

I have gotten used to the pedal feel enough that I know at what point the transmission will engage a downshift. It's almost psychic. Automatics have come a long way. Although I think I'd still like a manual, this is a great automatic to have.

[danallxt]

I got the RWD. I sold my 2018 Mustang GT and my m240 replaced it. I just wanted something lighter,

Are they not comparable in weight, and if anything the Mustang GT 2018 a bit lighter?...would depend upon how each are speced but i would not consider the M240 lighter than the Mustang GT. Perhaps 50 lbs either way depending upon spec?

[Evilmoretea]

Originally Posted by danallxt

Are they not comparable in weight, and if anything the Mustang GT 2018 a bit lighter?...would depend upon how each are speced but i would not consider the M240 lighter than the Mustang GT. Perhaps 50 lbs either way depending upon spec?

Yeah it’s literally 50-100lbs weight difference. Nothing really.

The real difference is it’s less weight over the front axle so better balance. Not sure how much of a difference it will make as I haven’t driven both but it could lead to better front end

[BobHen]

Originally Posted by LivingInSalt

explain how an automatic is more engaging than a manual

It's faster. Faster in auto mode. And if in manual mode, the shifts are lightening quick. The time between thinking about shifting and the trans shifting is as quick as you can move your finger.

With a manual, the time between thinking about shifting and the car shifting is slower and that's non-productive, lost performance time.

Cars that use both gas and electric motors, like the E-Ray Corvette, are quicker still and better performing because the electric motors never lose pull between gear changes.

Have a look at the Savageese video review of the E-Ray Corvette. At the 24-minute mark, they talk about how the car's fantastic pull between gear changes because the electric motors never stop pulling.

Manuals are old tech. If you prefer one that's fine, but they are not as fast which means they offer less performance compared to today's autos. And not as fast equates to being not as engaging.

Bob

[LivingInSalt]

Originally Posted by BobHen

And not as fast equates to being not as engaging.

That's one aspect of engaging vs the 99 other aspects that make an auto less engaging

[danallxt]

Originally Posted by BobHen

It's faster. Faster in auto mode. And if in manual mode, the shifts are lightening quick. The time between thinking about shifting and the trans shifting is as quick as you can move your finger.

With a manual, the time between thinking about shifting and the car shifting is slower and that's non-productive, lost performance time.

Cars that use both gas and electric motors, like the E-Ray Corvette, are quicker still and better performing because the electric motors never lose pull between gear changes.

Have a look at the Savageese video review of the E-Ray Corvette. At the 24-minute mark, they talk about how the car's fantastic pull between gear changes because the electric motors never stop pulling.

Manuals are old tech. If you prefer one that's fine, but they are not as fast which means they offer less performance compared to today's autos. And not as fast equates to being not as engaging.

Bob

Your premise is valid only if you are using the car exclusively for track duty or 1/4 mile times. In the real world driving the difference in performance is there only if you are driving max throttle, not too many of us continually drive that way on the streets so the "faster" difference premise becomes moot. And why the comp to a E-Ray Corvette?,not relevant.

But you totally miss the point of driving engagement, as if acceleration is all there is. With a manual you have necessary driving engagement every time you take the car out, even just to putt round the block as ya gotta do the clutch, revs, gear change etc, oh yes, it does involve the dreaded thinking thing....ie engagement (brain, leg/ foot, and hand/arm control/coordination) . You can be close to brain dead and drive an automatic, to drive a manual takes a degree of skill that involves a degree of driving engagement far and above driving any automatic. Anyone that claims otherwise obviously has never driven a manual.

[BobHen]

Originally Posted by danallxt

Your premise is valid only if you are using the car exclusively for track duty or 1/4 mile times. In the real world driving the difference in performance is there only if you are driving max throttle, not too many of us continually drive that way on the streets so the "faster" difference premise becomes moot. And why the comp to a E-Ray Corvette?,not relevant.

But you totally miss the point of driving engagement, as if acceleration is all there is. With a manual you have necessary driving engagement every time you take the car out, even just to putt round the block as ya gotta do the clutch, revs, gear change etc, oh yes, it does involve the dreaded thinking thing....ie engagement (brain, leg/ foot, and hand/arm control/coordination) . You can be close to brain dead and drive an automatic, to drive a manual takes a degree of skill that involves a degree of driving engagement far and above driving any automatic. Anyone that claims otherwise obviously has never driven a manual.

I have driven and owned both including a Mustang GT manual. You are equating doing more with engagement. That is misguided. Before electric starters, cars had to be manually crank-started. By your definition, one could say that manual starters are more engaging than electric starters. But that "engagement" does not make them better or more efficient. The same holds true for manually shifting.

You can use today's automatics in "manual paddle-shift mode". That gives you control and engagement. And that engagement is much faster, making performance much better. And better performance makes for better driver engagement.

The reverence to the E-Ray Corvette is because that car shifts without any loss of power between shifts. Making it even better than today's automatics and "much better" than manual shifting. The less loss of power between shifts means more driver control and better performance, again all equating to more driver engagement.

Most all very high-end super cars have abandoned the manual.

You are incorrect about only getting those benefits on the track. Those benefits are available anytime you push the M240 in the same way that the benefits of AWD are available anytime you push the M240 coming out of a corner. You don't need to be on the track to feel those "engaging" performance benefits.

Bob

[BG42]

Tbf no lift shift has been out for quite a while. My c7 is a 7spd manual and it has no lift shift. They abandoned manuals because the people who buy them are very few and far between. I think for corvettes particularly 25% or less of their sales were manual. Also for quite sometime autos have been able to hold a bit more power than a stock manual so people who drag or add power leaned more towards them because clutches are expensive. A good example is why bmw wont sell you an m3 comp awd with anything but an auto. Now rwd vs awd this car in stock form is probably fine power wise for rwd start adding power and you will really enjoy the awd.

[danallxt]

Originally Posted by BobHen

I have driven and owned both including a Mustang GT manual. You are equating doing more with engagement. That is misguided. Before electric starters, cars had to be manually crank-started. By your definition, one could say that manual starters are more engaging than electric starters. But that "engagement" does not make them better or more efficient. The same holds true for manually shifting.

You can use today's automatics in "manual paddle-shift mode". That gives you control and engagement. And that engagement is much faster, making performance much better. And better performance makes for better driver engagement.

The reverence to the E-Ray Corvette is because that car shifts without any loss of power between shifts. Making it even better than today's automatics and "much better" than manual shifting. The less loss of power between shifts means more driver control and better performance, again all equating to more driver engagement.

Most all very high-end super cars have abandoned the manual.

You are incorrect about only getting those benefits on the track. Those benefits are available anytime you push the M240 in the same way that the benefits of AWD are available anytime you push the M240 coming out of a corner. You don't need to be on the track to feel those "engaging" performance benefits.

Bob

First off let me say i have no dispute with the premise that modern automatics have generally better efficiency and acceleration performance than manuals, never was my point.

Where we differ is in the definition of "driver engagement". I will not rudely say you are misguided in equating it solely to acceleration or 0-60 times, rather you have a very narrow focused definition. Your premise seems to be that cars of roughly equal performance, ie hypothetically a manual driven M240x vs automatic, the minor difference in peak performance at 9/10ths makes it more engaging, most driving enthusiasts would not agree.

To me driving engagement means active interaction mentally and physically with the driving task. You can drive an automatic coast to coast without "engaging" a clutch and manually shifting, you can't make it around a block without doing so in a manual.

My scale of driving engagement from 0-10 (0-less) would be:
chauffeur driven = 0
self driving -level 4 automation = 2
Automatic tranny = 5
Manual tranny w/rev match and no lift shift = 8
Manual tranny – traditional = 10

Your example of the crank starting cars makes my point as you concurred (the simple act of starting those cars was much more "engaging" than pushing a button, but you went on to equate engaging must equate to better or more efficient...not at all, you are conflating more efficient/better/performance with driver engagement, apples and oranges.

[Blue2]

Originally Posted by danallxt

First off let me say i have no dispute with the premise that modern automatics have generally better efficiency and acceleration performance than manuals, never was my point.

Where we differ is in the definition of "driver engagement". I will not rudely say you are misguided in equating it solely to acceleration or 0-60 times, rather you have a very narrow focused definition. Your premise seems to be that cars of roughly equal performance, ie hypothetically a manual driven M240x vs automatic, the minor difference in peak performance at 9/10ths makes it more engaging, most driving enthusiasts would not agree.

To me driving engagement means active interaction mentally and physically with the driving task. You can drive an automatic coast to coast without "engaging" a clutch and manually shifting, you can't make it around a block without doing so in a manual.

My scale of driving engagement from 0-10 (0-less) would be:
chauffeur driven = 0
self driving -level 4 automation = 2
Automatic tranny = 5
Manual tranny w/rev match and no lift shift = 8
Manual tranny – traditional = 10

Your example of the crank starting cars makes my point as you concurred (the simple act of starting those cars was much more "engaging" than pushing a button, but you went on to equate engaging must equate to better or more efficient...not at all, you are conflating more efficient/better/performance with driver engagement, apples and oranges.

The M240i I'm building is going to mark a departure from manuals for me, so this is a really good conversation. I loved my manual 2019 M2 competition. I just can't justify the price difference between a 2024 M240i and M2 when the xDrive is faster off the line and, in my opinion, much better looking. I just can't get into the M2's Lego look.

My big fear is missing my manual transmission. I really hope the manual mode can be engaging enough to make me happy. You can force it to stay in manual mode (except for downshifts to prevent stalling) if you shift it to S and then use the paddles, right?

[Brewtul]

Originally Posted by danallxt

Are they not comparable in weight, and if anything the Mustang GT 2018 a bit lighter?...would depend upon how each are speced but i would not consider the M240 lighter than the Mustang GT. Perhaps 50 lbs either way depending upon spec?

No? I have the RWD version which is 3605lbs, the mustang was 3850lbs