[SushilBajpai]

Originally Posted by nidhinsarath

Confused between 3 GT Luxury line and MB C220 CDI Avantgarde. I test drove C220 and i liked it very much but GT's interior has a got a very rich feel unlike MB. I had not taken TD of GT. It will happen in a couple of days.

I too looked at the cars carefully and finally chose the 3GT LL. GT is lot more practical than MB, particularly if you would use it as a family car or on long drives. It has loads of legroom in the rear seat, larger boot space and comfortable ride, which is what makes it appear a bit more plush. I did not like the rear seat leg-room and small boot of the MB C class.

[nidhinsarath]

I test drove GT Sports yesterday and I was impressed with the driving dynamics and rear seat comfort. The suspension has been made a lot more softer when compared to previous BM's. It rides well balanced but there is a bit body roll like in SUVs. It's not that peppy like 3 series sedan. But overall package is good. But still I'm not able to pick the best one of the two! There are lots of pros and cons for both vehicles.

[Axe77]

Personally for me the rear seat comfort, ride comfort and boot space were BIG factors in the pull to the GT. The MB rear seat and boot is a minus even compared to the 3 series let alone GT. What are your priorities that you're looking for buddy. That will help advising on selection

[SushilBajpai]

Originally Posted by nidhinsarath

I test drove GT Sports yesterday and I was impressed with the driving dynamics and rear seat comfort. The suspension has been made a lot more softer when compared to previous BM's. It rides well balanced but there is a bit body roll like in SUVs. It's not that peppy like 3 series sedan. But overall package is good. But still I'm not able to pick the best one of the two! There are lots of pros and cons for both vehicles.

The body-roll in 3GT in my opinion is negligible and it will not be factor, unless one was racing with the car. The GTs manufactured after October 2015 also come with the new engine, which delivers 190 BHP/40 nm torque. The peak torque is available at a slightly lower RPM. All this only improves the handling - albeit marginally - possibly unnoticeably so.

Originally Posted by Axe77

Personally for me the rear seat comfort, ride comfort and boot space were BIG factors in the pull to the GT. The MB rear seat and boot is a minus even compared to the 3 series let alone GT. What are your priorities that you're looking for buddy. That will help advising on selection

Axe77 rightly suggests that it is a matter of priorities.

If the car will always be self driven, with rarely anyone occupying the rear seat and mostly on short drives, then you have many choices including C class.

On the other hand if it is going to be a family car, where the rear seat will be occupied for more than a few miles/hours, and would be used for longish road trips, then 3GT would be a better choice.

A car like C class or 3 series is also often automatic choice for long drives. In any case, one can enjoy these cars only on good highways (auto gear box of course is something that makes easy the chore of bumper-to-bumper driving). Given this scenario, GT is probably more practical car.

Driver's age might be another factor altogether. There was obvious conflict in my views and that of my twenty year old son. The C class and 3 series were attractive for him. However, the reality that he might want to explore drives beyond 500 km with his friends (and their luggage) soon tilted the balance in favor of 3GT!

[nidhinsarath]

Originally Posted by SushilBajpai

The body-roll in 3GT in my opinion is negligible and it will not be factor, unless one was racing with the car. The GTs manufactured after October 2015 also come with the new engine, which delivers 190 BHP/40 nm torque. The peak torque is available at a slightly lower RPM. All this only improves the handling - albeit marginally - possibly unnoticeably so.

Its a news to me. So what was the power output and torque of GT manufactured before October 2015? I test drove a GT that was more than 6 months old!

[SushilBajpai]

Originally Posted by nidhinsarath

Its a news to me. So what was the power output and torque of GT manufactured before October 2015? I test drove a GT that was more than 6 months old!

The earlier GT was manufactured with N47 engine. BMW appears to have quietly upgraded the engine to B47 since October 2015. The N47 generates 184BHP/38 nm torque while B47 reportedly generates 190BHP/40 nm. It is too small an increment to be noticeable. However, the new engine also begins to deliver high torque at 1500 RPM instead of 1700 RPM which supposedly does make a difference.

The new 3 series, just launched, also sports this new engine.

BMW India website is quiet about these developments, so there is no official word on it. I have garnered this information from the VIN number and the information available on the internet, including a few posts by other BHPians.

So do check the VIN if you choose the 3GT.

[nidhinsarath]

I test drove GT sport line today and here are my observations
1. I liked the looks. It's subjective. There is a significant road presence.
2. Spacious interiors. There is no other vehicles in this range with this much of rear leg room and thigh support.
3. Pure drivers car
4. It strictly has good RIDING (Driver) QUALITY but the TRAVELLING(co-passengers) QUALITY is poor. On curvy roads even at 40-50kmph, rear passengers will get tossed and it makes the journey uncomfortable.
5. It has a significant body roll too
6. Powered open/close of boot lid, frameless doors are seriously eye catchers!
7. Interior finish has a rich feel especially with brown interiors.
8. Misses features like cruise control, electronic hand brake, hill hold, provision for installing navigation.

Tomorrow I'll driving C220 Avantgarde. I'll update a comparison between these two after the ride!

[Axe77]

Originally Posted by nidhinsarath

4. It strictly has good RIDING (Driver) QUALITY but the TRAVELLING(co-passengers) QUALITY is poor. On curvy roads even at 40-50kmph, rear passengers will get tossed and it makes the journey uncomfortable.
5. It has a significant body roll too

I actually don't think the body roll is that bad. Of course it'll be more than a 3 for instance but even for generally peppy driving without going wild, I've never had uncomfortable passengers at the front or back.

[SushilBajpai]

Originally Posted by Axe77

I actually don't think the body roll is that bad. Of course it'll be more than a 3 for instance but even for generally peppy driving without going wild, I've never had uncomfortable passengers at the front or back.

I quite agree. In my nearly 1,000 km on 3GT, I've not noticed body-roll of any significance, neither have any passengers complained about ride, even on relative curves on way to Amby-valley. Unless one was racing around the hair-pin bends I doubt if a normal driver would even notice it.

The suspension is absorbs bad patches quite well even at relatively high tyre pressure 34/38 psi front/rear as recommended on the door. The cabin is quite but one does hear the road noise.

[Akshay1234]

Originally Posted by SushilBajpai

The suspension is absorbs bad patches quite well even at relatively high tyre pressure 34/38 psi front/rear as recommended on the door. The cabin is quite but one does hear the road noise.

Please reduce the pressure and enjoy it even more. In city with upto 2 people or so use 30 all around. And with a full load use 32. You can increase by 2-3 psi for highway drives in each case. See how the ride softens. The pressures recommended by BMW are far too high for India.

[Axe77]

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Please reduce the pressure and enjoy it even more. In city with upto 2 people or so use 30 all around. And with a full load use 32. You can increase by 2-3 psi for highway drives in each case. See how the ride softens. The pressures recommended by BMW are far too high for India.

Thanks Akshay. I've also moved to the 30 / 32 PSI range and do find the ride quite comfortable at that level.

[sandeep108]

IMO if rated PSI is 34/38 for 2 people do not decrease so much to 30/32. Please try 32/36 first. Underinflation is BAD for tires, you will get bulges/flat spots and decreased tire life.

[Akshay1234]

Originally Posted by sandeep108

IMO if rated PSI is 34/38 for 2 people do not decrease so much to 30/32. Please try 32/36 first. Underinflation is BAD for tires, you will get bulges/flat spots and decreased tire life.

30-32 is hardly under inflation. Also if keeping 32 at the front why increase the rear to 36 unless heavily loaded? All the engine weight is at the front.

[sandeep108]

Originally Posted by akshay1234

30-32 is hardly under inflation. Also if keeping 32 at the front why increase the rear to 36 unless heavily loaded? All the engine weight is at the front.

If you call 6 points or 15% underinflation "hardly" then I have nothing further to add.

[Akshay1234]

Originally Posted by sandeep108

If you call 6 points or 15% underinflation "hardly" then I have nothing further to add.

To each his own. If you can show me even one situation where driving with 30 or 32psi has caused a tyre burst or over heating. I shall take your word for it.

Till then pressures like 26 are what I would consider underinflation. The recommended pressures are for European conditions where the average speed is well over 80kmph, and far higher on autobahns.

If you consider the roads here autobahns and are happy hearing a big thud and feeling a jolt every time you crash into a bump or pothole please go ahead and continue filling your 36/38psi. Till then please let others enjoy their ride more with a bit more comfort.

Let me also add there is a much higher chance of you getting sidewall or tyre damage running 36/38psi on these roads.