https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUniIUJ2PwQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUniIUJ2PwQ)
*EDIT* No embedded videos???
Car is awesome. Why does every test video have to be dominated by foolish drifting? :facepalm:
Does it sound like shit?
RASP
New 425bhp turbocharged BMW M3 tested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUniIUJ2PwQ#ws)
Has to be http not https
Quote from: Catman on May 09, 2014, 10:11:17 AM
Car is awesome. Why does every test video have to be dominated by foolish drifting? :facepalm:
+1. Who drives like that all the time?
Thing I love most about my cars is the precision and adjustability at the limit. That's not the same as endless drifting.
RE this new M3, as you can imagine I have by now read all the first drives. C&D, R&T, MT, Car, Evo are all up on their websites.
Overall impressions are good. A bit of complaints about the engine character/noise in a couple, a bit of whining about the electric steering in a couple others. But overall everyone loves it. It seems the chassis is magnificent.
On the whole I like it but I am not as excited for this gen as I have been for the previous two. I am sure to drive it on a track at a BMW Mexico event somewhat soon and we'll see.
In part my priorities are changing, shifting towards having two more specialised cars instead of one that does it all which is what the M3 excels at.
(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj593/MexicoCityM3/chM3tweet_zps888210da.jpg)
I'm glad they dropped the weight on it. It's only about 3470lbs which is pretty damn good all things considered. Still though shame about the engine character. As much as people here love to write shit like that off it's important.
If only it could have the character of the beloved IS250 engine! Woe is me. Could you get a more formulaic greek tragedy than this beautiful vehicle being ruined by such a characterless dud.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 09, 2014, 12:40:55 PM
I'm glad they dropped the weight on it. It's only about 3470lbs which is pretty damn good all things considered. Still though shame about the engine character. As much as people here love to write shit like that off it's important.
Yeah, it's about the same weight as en E46 M3 or a 1M. This will easily be the best handling M3 ever IMO. Most fun I'll know when I drive it. Maybe maybe not.
Quote from: MrH on May 09, 2014, 12:45:35 PM
If only it could have the character of the beloved IS250 engine! Woe is me. Could you get a more formulaic greek tragedy than this beautiful vehicle being ruined by such a characterless dud.
Hey, Steve and various other automotive professionals with more qualified opinions than your said it, not me. I can only how difficult it must be for folks whose experience/knowledge you have to defer to to come to conclusions that don't jive with your perpetual fetishizing of technology and objective progress :huh:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 09, 2014, 01:02:55 PM
Hey, Steve and various other automotive professionals with more qualified opinions than your said it, not me. I can only how difficult it must be for folks whose experience/knowledge you have to defer to to come to conclusions that don't jive with your perpetual fetishizing of technology and objective progress :huh:
Thanks for your psychoanalysis, Chicken Little.
I for one am really excited about this vehicle I know little about so far. The more enthusiast options, the better. Sorry for withholding my poo-pooing on it because of it's supposed "lack of powertrain character".
Powertrain character is very important to me.
Quote from: MrH on May 09, 2014, 01:31:30 PM
Thanks for your psychoanalysis, Chicken Little.
I for one am really excited about this vehicle I know little about so far. The more enthusiast options, the better. Sorry for withholding my poo-pooing on it because of it's supposed "lack of powertrain character".
Who is Chicken Little here? Look at your first post in this thread :wtf: I'm sure the car is great, its just a little bit of a shame the engine is not as perfect as everything else in the car.
Well I think this is a lot like comparing the M3 (V8) and the 1M.
The M3 has the much more characterful engine. The 1M has the much more characterful chassis.
For fun on any given day, I reach for the keys to the 1M. It is a lot more fun anywhere except on the track, "crappy" turbo engine notwithstanding.
For a balls out session at the track, they are even. The 1M's better chassis offsets the better, more responsive engine in the M3 by about the same.
This new M3 has an engine that is in between those two. Not as characterful as the E90 V8 but definitely better then the N54 in the 1M. And it seems it has a better chassis than either. So I am pretty sure it will trump both. After and only after I test it I *might* go bonkers and trade both for a new M3.
Also: would it have been lovely to have everything perfect? Yes. But this is not a perfect world. For that, you need more money to get something like a 911S for about 50% more money. And still: less practical.
So - such is life. The M3 will STILL be the best all-around car for the price IMHO.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 09, 2014, 02:54:14 PM
So I am pretty sure it will trump both. After and only after I test it I *might* go bonkers and trade both for a new M3.
I feel that for the sake of your wallet, you're better off not driving this car :lol:
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 09, 2014, 02:54:14 PM
Well I think this is a lot like comparing the M3 (V8) and the 1M.
The M3 has the much more characterful engine. The 1M has the much more characterful chassis.
For fun on any given day, I reach for the keys to the 1M. It is a lot more fun anywhere except on the track, "crappy" turbo engine notwithstanding.
For a balls out session at the track, they are even. The 1M's better chassis offsets the better, more responsive engine in the M3 by about the same.
This new M3 has an engine that is in between those two. Not as characterful as the E90 V8 but definitely better then the N54 in the 1M. And it seems it has a better chassis than either. So I am pretty sure it will trump both. After and only after I test it I *might* go bonkers and trade both for a new M3.
What about the 1M with the V8?
Doesn't really matter though. This thing is an incredible value. 911 Carrera or base C7 performance with 4 real seats for C7 money. I respect that.
1M with the V8 would probably upset the characterful chassis.
Quote from: Xer0 on May 09, 2014, 03:02:27 PM
I feel that for the sake of your wallet, you're better off not driving this car :lol:
For the sake of keeping the forum interesting, I hope he drives it. :lol:
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 09, 2014, 05:24:48 PM
1M with the V8 would probably upset the characterful chassis.
V8 is only 22lb heavier than the I6..... and it's shorter too.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 09, 2014, 05:24:48 PM
1M with the V8 would probably upset the characterful chassis.
The V8 would have added about 10K to the 1M's price rendering it a lot less attractive. Like I said, not a perfect world.
Does this one have the fake engine sound pumped into the cabin via speakers like so many other Bimmers these days? Kind of sounds like it from the video (in-car engine sound doesn't sound much like the out-car sound).
Quote from: MX793 on May 09, 2014, 08:44:05 PM
Does this one have the fake engine sound pumped into the cabin via speakers like so many other Bimmers these days? Kind of sounds like it from the video (in-car engine sound doesn't sound much like the out-car sound).
Yep. They all do now.
I've driven an M5 and also an M135i with this feature/bug (depending on your point of view). Frankly I couldn't care less. Both sound great and 99.9% of people wouldn't notice it if not told. I don't.
I don't know. Imagine you bang a hot chick, and then you find out she's a post-op. Some people are into that stuff, but I'm not. I want the real thing.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 09, 2014, 08:56:40 PM
I don't know. Imagine you bang a hot chick, and then you find out she's a post-op. Some people are into that stuff, but I'm not. I want the real thing.
This is more like fake tits. Been there done that and I don't care one bit either.
I'm really interested in this car as well. Overall I like what I've read/seen so far.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 09, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Doesn't really matter though. This thing is an incredible value. 911 Carrera or base C7 performance with 4 real seats for C7 money. I respect that.
It's about $10k-$15k more than the c7 similarly equipped, at least as I've configured them.
The engine change, to my understanding was due to emissions regulations, so I don't really see the point of bitching about it or faulting BMW for it. They didn't have much choice.
Plenty of companies are building engines like their old V8 well into the future in all the same markets. Ford has a similar engine in a Mustang that costs nearly half the M3's price.
I think the V8 was a break from tradition fueled by the horsepower wars and the semi-bubble of the early 00s. As "much" flack as this engine is getting it is a 100% return to tradition, and I'm sure is also a huge cost savings for BMW as well which is enabling them to keep the price low profitably. However, BMW then runs the risk of the normal 3s and the M3 being very close in character. Chassis wise they have definitely stepped it up, and the DCT is a nice differentiator for the transmissions... but the powerband sounds dangerously similar to the 335i's, which can be brought up to these levels for a couple hundred dollars
BMW 335i Does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFc9x8qCsTA#)
So what's the cost difference between this and the v8?
Quote from: MrH on May 10, 2014, 10:19:51 AM
So what's the cost difference between this and the v8?
I wish I was as good at making up facts as sporty is.
Quote from: Laconian on May 09, 2014, 05:42:57 PM
For the sake of keeping the forum interesting, I hope he drives it. :lol:
+1. The one percenters need to contribute more to this forum!
Quote from: Catman on May 09, 2014, 10:11:17 AM
Why does every test video have to be dominated by foolish drifting? :facepalm:
Because 99.9% of people who buy RWD cars, any RWD car, do that in their spare time. Duh!
Quote from: MrH on May 10, 2014, 10:57:16 AM
+1. The one percenters need to contribute more to this forum!
I'm with you on this crusade. Us Plebes do more than our share!
So where's that Mercedes?
+1
Quote from: Lebowski on May 10, 2014, 10:25:17 AM
I wish I was as good at making up facts as sporty is.
lol it was me that made up the 10K guesstimate above. Poor sporty can't catch a break.
I don't know by how much but with the much lower production numbers and all that's needed to make 420hp@8300 RPM NA its very likely that it's a lot note expensive than the 1Ms N54.
Quote from: Lebowski on May 10, 2014, 10:25:17 AM
I wish I was as good at making up facts as sporty is.
What facts did I make up?
Quote from: MrH on May 10, 2014, 10:57:16 AM
+1. The one percenters need to contribute more to this forum!
I don't know about the one percenter membership but it's fair to say regarding spending on cars you can basically count on me to do something between stupid and extremely stupid (financially).
So: M3, i3, Stingray, Cayman GTS or pray to Dios an i8 in the next 24 months at some point, yeah.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 10, 2014, 09:52:30 AM
Plenty of companies are building engines like their old V8 well into the future in all the same markets. Ford has a similar engine in a Mustang that costs nearly half the M3's price.
I think the V8 was a break from tradition fueled by the horsepower wars and the semi-bubble of the early 00s. As "much" flack as this engine is getting it is a 100% return to tradition, and I'm sure is also a huge cost savings for BMW as well which is enabling them to keep the price low profitably. However, BMW then runs the risk of the normal 3s and the M3 being very close in character. Chassis wise they have definitely stepped it up, and the DCT is a nice differentiator for the transmissions... but the powerband sounds dangerously similar to the 335i's, which can be brought up to these levels for a couple hundred dollars
BMW 335i Does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFc9x8qCsTA#)
My hunch is that the V8 no more expensive to build - more cylinders and valves but also no turbos, no intercooler, etc., etc. Thing is F/I motors can more easily game the BS eco testing, so that's why they're doing it.
If all it took was a few bolts ons and a tune that's what BMW would've done from the factory. Turns out this new M3 motor is all new and significantly more beefed up, as one would expect when going from 300 to 425 hp.
Also, something's not right with that video - he starts in second. Probably just going down hill...
So it's getting good write-ups everywhere. I'd so choose this over the M4 - looks better even.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 10, 2014, 02:24:10 PM
My hunch is that the V8 no more expensive to build - more cylinders and valves but also no turbos, no intercooler, etc., etc. Thing is F/I motors can more easily game the BS eco testing, so that's why they're doing it.
If all it took was a few bolts ons and a tune that's what BMW would've done from the factory. Turns out this new M3 motor is all new and significantly more beefed up, as one would expect when going from 300 to 425 hp.
Also, something's not right with that video - he starts in second. Probably just going down hill...
V8 had ITBs which I don't know for a fact but am pretty sure the new I6T doesn't, as well as a very expensive ionic current knock control system rendered unnecessary by DI. Most importantly though, the engine shares its architecture with the mass produced x35 I6T, down to the bore and stroke. Beefing up an existing high volume motor can't be as involved as making a high tech bespoke low volume engine. And it's possible they didn't have to beef it up that much... there have been plenty of overbuilt engines and given how many folks have turned up the power with the regular x35 motor without incident I wouldn't doubt it to be one of them. I'm not knocking it- objectively it gets the job done- but this is more like the E36 M3's US engine than what people typically think of for an ///M powerplant. I would not be surprised if a large % of parts were interchangeable.
As you stated there's really not much more hi tech in the M3 V8 than the 5.0L found in the ~$31k Mustang.
The new M3 (S55) motor is all new vs. the N55: different bore/stroke, two turbos vs. one, dry sump oiling, forged internals, and 7,600 RPM red line (which is ginormous for a turbo motor - so it's sure to have an anti-knock system); so no economies of scale in design or manufacture are realized.
Same bore and stroke. And the original N54 had twin turbos. I'm sure it has anti-knock, but not the high tech ionic knock from the V8. N54/N55 have forged internals too. Big time economies of scale.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 10, 2014, 09:58:36 PM
Same bore and stroke. And the original N54 had twin turbos. I'm sure it has anti-knock, but not the high tech ionic knock from the V8. N54/N55 have forged internals too. Big time economies of scale.
C&D has said all it shares with the N55 is the head. Different block, pistons, valvetrain, etc.
Frankly, I haven't been able to find an authoritative source about this.
BMW has said that it is built on the same assembly line as the rest of the sixes though. But the M3 itself has been built in the same assembly line as the regular 3 series forever now so who cares.
Lots of "info" out there, including the source that said bore x stroke is different than the N55. I'd be very surprised if it used the same head - there is a significant difference in combustion characteristics and VE% when going from ~100 hp/L to ~140 hp/L - flow dynamics, cylinder pressures, etc.
The bore and stroke info is from BMW's website. All of their 3, 4, and 6 cylinder engines use a 3.3x3.5 inch bore and stroke. Forged internals info on the N54/N55 is from service manuals. Being that folks are able to go from ~100hp/L to ~140hp/L with just a chip, yes, they may do some port work and revise the head design for better cooling etc but I would bet BMW designed this engine from the outset for this duty as they knew long ago they were going all turbo in their lineup. Plus with the base engine in everything from a little 1 series up to a big ass LWB 7, it had to already be engineered to handle heavy loads and heat removal.
I don't think it's a bad thing that BMW is utilizing economies of scale... the last M3 was the first one that didn't share engine architecture with regular 3s. But they are definitely using them now.
N55 didn't have forged internals. The 54 did however.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 11, 2014, 08:52:04 AM
the N54/55 and S55 are completely different engines
Lol, no.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 11, 2014, 06:32:22 AM
The bore and stroke info is from BMW's website. All of their 3, 4, and 6 cylinder engines use a 3.3x3.5 inch bore and stroke. Forged internals info on the N54/N55 is from service manuals. Being that folks are able to go from ~100hp/L to ~140hp/L with just a chip, yes, they may do some port work and revise the head design for better cooling etc but I would bet BMW designed this engine from the outset for this duty as they knew long ago they were going all turbo in their lineup. Plus with the base engine in everything from a little 1 series up to a big ass LWB 7, it had to already be engineered to handle heavy loads and heat removal.
I don't think it's a bad thing that BMW is utilizing economies of scale... the last M3 was the first one that didn't share engine architecture with regular 3s. But they are definitely using them now.
"Folks" are hacks but automakers are not - it takes far more than just a chip to reliably and rationally (driveability) make such big jumps in power; ergo the N54/55 and S55 are completely different engines so I can't see any economies of scale/scope save for maybe not having to engineer the F30 chassis to accept such a disparate engine range as the E9x. If there were scale/scope advantages in the S55 the E9x M3 would've also had a hotter version of the N54/55 and not the V8. Thing is turns out the eco hegemony during the E9x design cycle wasn't near what it is today so there wasn't near the impetus (ergo, the S55 and not the V8).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 11, 2014, 06:32:22 AM
The bore and stroke info is from BMW's website. All of their 3, 4, and 6 cylinder engines use a 3.3x3.5 inch bore and stroke. Forged internals info on the N54/N55 is from service manuals. Being that folks are able to go from ~100hp/L to ~140hp/L with just a chip, yes, they may do some port work and revise the head design for better cooling etc but I would bet BMW designed this engine from the outset for this duty as they knew long ago they were going all turbo in their lineup. Plus with the base engine in everything from a little 1 series up to a big ass LWB 7, it had to already be engineered to handle heavy loads and heat removal.
I don't think it's a bad thing that BMW is utilizing economies of scale... the last M3 was the first one that didn't share engine architecture with regular 3s. But they are definitely using them now.
Well, this is from a BMW press release about the S55:
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892746 (http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892746)
Bore, stroke and displacement are different from an N55.
Also:
Here is what UK magazine CAR writes after the workshop:
Rumours of a V6 triple-turbo circulated early in the M3/M4's development but the production unit is a 3.0-litre straight six with two turbochargers, and an over-square bore of 89.6mm and 80mm stroke. It shares nothing other than peripheral ancillaries with BMW's other straight-six petrol engine, but the familiar design has allowed BMW to retain the production infrastructure to build it, saving money to reinvest back into other weight-saving measures without drastically increasing the price of a relatively cost-sensitive performance car. This means that the M3/M4 range should still retail from around £60k when it goes on sale next year.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 11, 2014, 09:00:15 AM
Lol, no.
Tech info is sparse but we know at a minimum the block, head, pistons, turbos + related stuff, and dry sump oiling system is completely different than the N54/55. How does this not make the S55 a completely different engine? Owing to far higher power and different RPM operating range it is also highly likely the crank, rods, and cams are different too (making the S55 even more "completely different").
Quote from: GoCougs on May 11, 2014, 09:03:16 AM
"Folks" are hacks but automakers are not - it takes far more than just a chip to reliably and rationally (driveability) make such big jumps in power; ergo the N54/55 and S55 are completely different engines so I can't see any economies of scale/scope save for maybe not having to engineer the F30 chassis to accept such a disparate engine range as the E9x. If there were scale/scope advantages in the S55 the E9x M3 would've also had a hotter version of the N54/55 and not the V8. Thing is turns out the eco hegemony during the E9x design cycle wasn't near what it is today so there wasn't near the impetus (ergo, the S55 and not the V8).
I have seen lots of such "folks" with modded/chipped engines at the track. They end up spending 90% of their track time parked trying to figure out WTF is wrong with their engines and fixing things. Meanwhile my stock cars can go all day. Impressive for a 1/4 mile run sure. A SINGLE run in many cases.
Also this is interesting - very much so for me at high altitude:
The turbos run at a maximum of 1.25 bar boost but often less, the electronic brain only cranking up to that level of pressure under high operating temperatures or at high altitude. It means the power and torque figures will remain consistent in the vast majority of conditions. As Vice President of engineering, Albert Biermann, explains, that means a standard M3/M4 will often be as fast on track as a tuned car with a claimed additional 50bhp but no extra leeway to continue to develop that power as operating temperatures soar.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 11, 2014, 09:16:25 AM
I have seen lots of such "folks" with modded/chipped engines at the track. They end up spending 90% of their track time parked trying to figure out WTF is wrong with their engines and fixing things. Meanwhile my stock cars can go all day. Impressive for a 1/4 mile run sure. A SINGLE run in many cases.
Yep. If it were that easy that's what automakers would do - they wouldn't spend big $$$ making different engines for each application. It pretty much comes down to design vs. engineering.
I have to SMH head a bit at BMW boasting that the S55 is 20 lbs lighter than the S65. Does that include the intercooling and add'l exhaust piping? Even if it did the S65 V8 was developed ~10 years ago - I'm pretty sure if designed today they'd find an additional ~20 lbs weight savings and definitely an additional ~10 hp.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 11, 2014, 09:14:11 AM
Well, this is from a BMW press release about the S55:
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892746 (http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892746)
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2014/3/335iSedan/Features_and_Specs/335iSedanSpecifications.aspx (http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2014/3/335iSedan/Features_and_Specs/335iSedanSpecifications.aspx)
Bore, stroke and displacement are different from an N55.
Also:
Here is what UK magazine CAR writes after the workshop:
Rumours of a V6 triple-turbo circulated early in the M3/M4's development but the production unit is a 3.0-litre straight six with two turbochargers, and an over-square bore of 89.6mm and 80mm stroke. It shares nothing other than peripheral ancillaries with BMW's other straight-six petrol engine, but the familiar design has allowed BMW to retain the production infrastructure to build it, saving money to reinvest back into other weight-saving measures without drastically increasing the price of a relatively cost-sensitive performance car. This means that the M3/M4 range should still retail from around £60k when it goes on sale next year.
Bore n displacement are the same.
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2015/M/M3Sedan/Features_and_Specs/M3SedanSpecifications.aspx (http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2015/M/M3Sedan/Features_and_Specs/M3SedanSpecifications.aspx)
I'm sure the part numbers are different, but the underlying architecture is still the same. It's like Honda's engines. The F22A and H22A look totally different spec wise... different bore/stroke, one is SOHC the other is DOHC VTEC, H22A has piston oil squirters etc... but underneath it all they have the same bore spacing and have interchangeable accessories and peripherals (intake/exhaust manifolds etc.). You could take a bare F22 block and build an H22. People often combine parts from the two to make an ideal combo (i.e. F22's 95mm crank to take the H22 to 2.3L). I don't doubt it's a similar situation with the N54/55 and S55. Maybe it's pedantic but to me calling them "completely different" is inaccurate. Same layout, same bore and stroke, same accessories. By that logic the 335HP N55 is "completely different" from the 306HP one, or the N55 is "completely different" from the N54.
I don't see what the big deal is- M3s have generally always had hopped up versions of mainstream engines. That doesn't take away from them at all, but it is what it is.
It's not pedantic, it's just not correct ;). Completely different means exactly that - not sure what the resistance is all about. The F22A and H22A are also completely different engines just as the N54/44 and S55 are - different block, heads, pistons, etc. As to the N55 vs. N55HP and N54 vs. N55, you'll have to research the differences.
If major parts are interchangeable it's the same engine to me.
:facepalm:
Quote from: MrH on May 11, 2014, 02:06:29 PM
:facepalm:
What the fuck are you crying about now
So if I add aluminum heads, hotter cam, and better intake + carb, I'll have the same engine?
Sure, the block might be the same. But the build is different. And costs more.
The two BMW engines have some stuff in common, but they are different. I'm sure there are a few cost savings compared to the V8, but the emissions thing sounds like a much larger influence.
I guess it's what you want to believe. I don't buy the emissions thing in the context of companies like Chevy and Ford bringing bigger, lower tech V8s to the same markets as the M3 on a long term basis. I have made peace with BMW going all turbo and I get why they went this route. But I'm not buying that NCAP forced their hand.
Big v8s like in the Mustang... Which isn't being sold with a v8 in Europe.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 11, 2014, 02:38:52 PM
So if I add aluminum heads, hotter cam, and better intake + carb, I'll have the same engine?
Sure, the block might be the same. But the build is different. And costs more.
The two BMW engines have some stuff in common, but they are different. I'm sure there are a few cost savings compared to the V8, but the emissions thing sounds like a much larger influence.
Actually, yes, it's the same engine as the long block is unchanged. Now swap out the 350 block for a small-journal 327 block (and hence crank, pistons and rods), and it's not the same engine, even though the 350 and small-journal 327 share some architecture and misc. and immaterial components (distributor, oil pan, etc.). The 350 is not a hotter version of the 327 - they're completely different engines, as are the N55 and S55.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 11, 2014, 04:14:20 PM
I guess it's what you want to believe. I don't buy the emissions thing in the context of companies like Chevy and Ford bringing bigger, lower tech V8s to the same markets as the M3 on a long term basis. I have made peace with BMW going all turbo and I get why they went this route. But I'm not buying that NCAP forced their hand.
Beyond the technical aspect of little discernible cost savings between the S65 and S55 the MSRP on the F30 M3 is $62,925 which is $5,350 more than the E90 M3 (last sold in 2011, which means it's ~$6,000 more in real dollars).
Detroit sells very very few V6/V8-powered vehicles in Europe, and same with Japan, ergo, both have largely skipped F/I save for Ford (and that hasn't gone well in the US). BMW sells a lot of M3s and 3ers in Europe.
Quote from: MrH on May 11, 2014, 04:21:12 PM
Big v8s like in the Mustang... Which isn't being sold with a v8 in Europe.
:confused:
http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/FutureVehicles/Ford-Mustang (http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/FutureVehicles/Ford-Mustang)
QuoteThere's a 5.0-litre V8 and we have also brought Ford Mustang performance to the acclaimed EcoBoost engine.
http://www.ford.de/Pkw-Modelle/Produktneuheiten/Mustang (http://www.ford.de/Pkw-Modelle/Produktneuheiten/Mustang)
QuoteDer Ford Mustang ist mit dem unzähmbaren 5-Liter V8-Motor verfügbar und die volle Leistung des Ford Mustang ist ebenfalls mit dem renommierten Ford EcoBoost-Motor erhältlich.
(The Ford Mustang is available with the irrepressible 5-liter V8 engine and full performance of the Ford Mustang is also available with the renowned Ford EcoBoost engine.)
:huh:
Quote from: GoCougs on May 11, 2014, 04:48:22 PM
Beyond the technical aspect of little discernible cost savings between the S65 and S55 the MSRP on the F30 M3 is $62,925 which is $5,350 more than the E90 M3 (last sold in 2011, which means it's ~$6,000 more in real dollars).
How are you so certain there are "little discernable cost savings" between the S65 and S55.... and what relevance does the MSRP have to this discussion
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 11, 2014, 04:57:20 PM
How are you so certain there are "little discernable cost savings" between the S65 and S55.... and what relevance does the MSRP have to this discussion
Because I do not see a logical path that states that the S55 is materially less expensive to produce. The S55 is a unique engine, and though it has two less cylinders it does have a bunch of costly stuff to support F/I that the S65 does not have.
I mention MSRP because if BMW were interested in cost savings why does the M3 cost ~$6k/10% more than its predecessor?
Because, like, they're trying to fuck the consumer, man
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 11, 2014, 04:49:26 PM
:confused:
http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/FutureVehicles/Ford-Mustang (http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/FutureVehicles/Ford-Mustang)
http://www.ford.de/Pkw-Modelle/Produktneuheiten/Mustang (http://www.ford.de/Pkw-Modelle/Produktneuheiten/Mustang)
:huh:
The point is that the impact of the M3 on BMWs overall fleet emissions (for Europe) is not negligible. These cars are tuned for the ECE fuel economy & CO2 emissions test because that has a huge impact on taxes (just ask Colin).
OTOH the 5 Mustangs Ford sells in all of Europe on any given month don't have that impact.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 11, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
What the fuck are you crying about now
I've never seen someone preach such uneducated speculation as fact before. It's totally facepalm worthy.
F.Y.A.
C'mon, guys, we can all get along even if we disagree.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 10, 2014, 01:49:27 PM
What facts did I make up?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 10, 2014, 09:52:30 AM
I'm sure is also a huge cost savings for BMW as well which is enabling them to keep the price low profitably.
I just don't buy the angle that this was cost driven, and don't see how you have the information to be so sure there's significant cost savings. Your posts here haven't supported the claim and your Mustang example is just plain goofy.
Quote from: MrH on May 11, 2014, 06:25:30 PM
I've never seen someone preach such uneducated speculation as fact before. It's totally facepalm worthy.
Mmmmm just as you did in the Caddy In Europe thread. And as you did in your assertion that the Mustang would not be sold with a V8 in Europe. And as you did in mistaking MCM3 for me to claim that I had put hard costs on the motors. But hey, only counts when sporty does it, right? :huh:
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 11, 2014, 06:23:04 PM
The point is that the impact of the M3 on BMWs overall fleet emissions (for Europe) is not negligible. These cars are tuned for the ECE fuel economy & CO2 emissions test because that has a huge impact on taxes (just ask Colin).
OTOH the 5 Mustangs Ford sells in all of Europe on any given month don't have that impact.
I'm pretty sure this is the first time fleet emissions were mentioned here. If that's the case then this makes sense.
Blah blah blah... At the end of the day if any of us had the money and was looking at a performance sedan - the M3 still better be at or near the top of the shopping list or that persons head needs to be examined.
If I had 60k to spend on cars I would get 2 or 3 used ones
E90 wagon and a 997 C2S
Quote from: GoCougs on May 10, 2014, 02:24:10 PM
Also, something's not right with that video - he starts in second. Probably just going down hill...
I actually start off in 2nd gear quite a bit. It is usually a bit smoother than 1st gear if you are looking to take off "leisurely" instead of in a hurry. I would guess most automatics don't spend more than a second or so in first gear with engines like this (300+ HP).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 11, 2014, 07:35:27 PM
Mmmmm just as you did in the Caddy In Europe thread. And as you did in your assertion that the Mustang would not be sold with a V8 in Europe. And as you did in mistaking MCM3 for me to claim that I had put hard costs on the motors. But hey, only counts when sporty does it, right? :huh:
:confused: Same stance in the Caddy thread that I have here. We don't have anywhere near enough information to make such statements like this is a cost savings move, or trying Cadillac in Europe is a huge loss,
Mustang wasn't originally going to have the V8 in Europe. Must have recently changed. Regardless, it's fleet emissions as pointed out above.
You didn't put hard costs to it, but you're insisting it's a big cost savings. We have no idea what the costs are. Why you're pretending to have a firm grasp on all of this internal BMW information, I'll never understand.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on May 12, 2014, 08:42:05 AM
I actually start off in 2nd gear quite a bit. It is usually a bit smoother than 1st gear if you are looking to take off "leisurely" instead of in a hurry. I would guess most automatics don't spend more than a second or so in first gear with engines like this (300+ HP).
Sounds a bit harsh(er) on the clutch though...
If that BMW could do 0-60 in 3.6 sec by starting in 2nd you're talking HUGE power, more that just chipping it (which is what I was getting at).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2014, 10:41:53 AM
Sounds a bit harsh(er) on the clutch though...
If that BMW could do 0-60 in 3.6 sec by starting in 2nd you're talking HUGE power, more that just chipping it (which is what I was getting at).
I probably misunderstood what you meant then.
I only start out in 2nd when I am
not trying to go fast. If I am trying to go fast of course it is better to start in first and use the full range of RPMS before shifting to second. For me starting in first gear isn't as smooth because I would shift almost immediately, so it seems smoother to just start out in 2nd (since the engine is large enough to do so, even off boost) when I am not trying to drive fast (which is probably 90% of the time).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2014, 10:41:53 AM
Sounds a bit harsh(er) on the clutch though...
If that BMW could do 0-60 in 3.6 sec by starting in 2nd you're talking HUGE power, more that just chipping it (which is what I was getting at).
Not really. Between the lost traction and lost forward thrust of the shift, it's not unreasonable that 2nd gear would be better for lower times. And that 335i was an auto. That "chip" is good for almost 100HP on chassis dynos (which I know you don't accept as admissible evidence). Longevity/reliability over the long term probably takes a hit but it is what it is.
100 hp from a chip? WTF?
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 12, 2014, 11:14:28 AM
100 hp from a chip? WTF?
Sorry, 80WHP on a bone stock auto 135i :huh:
[img]http://www.burgertuning.com/images/jb4_dyno/dyno1.jpg[/img
http://www.burgertuning.com/jb4_pnp_BMW_performance_tuner.html (http://www.burgertuning.com/jb4_pnp_BMW_performance_tuner.html)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 12, 2014, 08:29:46 AM
If I had 60k to spend on cars I would get 2 or 3 used ones
E90 wagon and a 997 C2S
And neither is a sedan which is what I said...
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 12, 2014, 11:04:11 AM
Not really. Between the lost traction and lost forward thrust of the shift, it's not unreasonable that 2nd gear would be better for lower times. And that 335i was an auto. That "chip" is good for almost 100HP on chassis dynos (which I know you don't accept as admissible evidence). Longevity/reliability over the long term probably takes a hit but it is what it is.
Actually, it is pretty unreasonable. No one ever starts in 2nd if they have 1st - you'd get far better times simply taking it easy in 1st. The scant few cars that can pull off sub 4-sec 0-60 times in 1st gear have a lot more than ~380 hp and have at least a M/T, DSG or high stall converter slushy A/T.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 12, 2014, 11:14:28 AM
100 hp from a chip? WTF?
On a turbo car it's not too out of the ordinary - "chipping" just cranks up the boost which cranks up the power. Of course, the engine won't last long at all, and there will be driveability issues (esp. big turbo lag), which many fail to mention/realize.
Quote from: r0tor on May 12, 2014, 11:25:38 AM
And neither is a sedan which is what I said...
I'm pretty sure they made E90 non ///M sedans...................................................
Quote from: SJ_GTI on May 12, 2014, 10:53:59 AM
I probably misunderstood what you meant then.
I only start out in 2nd when I am not trying to go fast. If I am trying to go fast of course it is better to start in first and use the full range of RPMS before shifting to second. For me starting in first gear isn't as smooth because I would shift almost immediately, so it seems smoother to just start out in 2nd (since the engine is large enough to do so, even off boost) when I am not trying to drive fast (which is probably 90% of the time).
Funny, I test drove the S4 earlier today (before reading this post), an auto and a manual, and was surprised in the manual to hit the rev limiter at what I would call parking lot speed. I'm used to the taller gears in the c6, can go to about 50 in first.
Quote from: Lebowski on May 12, 2014, 11:54:00 AM
Funny, I test drove the S4 earlier today (before reading this post), an auto and a manual, and was surprised in the manual to hit the rev limiter at what I would call parking lot speed. I'm used to the taller gears in the c6, can go to about 50 in first.
I am not sure how fast I can get in first, but since you mentioned it I am going to check it out on my way home. :lol:
It can't be too high though. Maybe 25 mph at most.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 12, 2014, 11:36:36 AM
I'm pretty sure they made E90 non ///M sedans...................................................
An "e90 wagon" is not a sedan
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2014, 10:41:53 AM
Sounds a bit harsh(er) on the clutch though...
If that BMW could do 0-60 in 3.6 sec by starting in 2nd you're talking HUGE power, more that just chipping it (which is what I was getting at).
Not really. I frequently take off in 2nd gear as well. Doesn't require any more clutch slipping than taking off in 1st provided it's on pretty flat ground (or a downhill). I generally have an easier time keeping up with traffic that way since the 1-2 upshift eats a lot of time in unhurried driving.
I've tried launching the car in 2nd gear at autox events, thinking that not making the 1-2 shift might buy me a few milliseconds. Definitely not the fastest way to take off from a stop. Only vehicle I've ever operated where taking off in 2nd was advantageous was a motocross bike. Limited traction, ultra-short gearing, and the risk of shifting into neutral when shifting out of first all conspire to make a 2nd gear launch preferable.
Quote from: r0tor on May 12, 2014, 12:32:23 PM
An "e90 wagon" is not a sedan
Continue to miss the point in your pedantry. That point being for 60K you could get more car buying used.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 12, 2014, 02:51:02 PM
Continue to miss the point in your pedantry. That point being for 60K you could get more car buying used.
That's true for any amount of money.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 12, 2014, 02:51:59 PM
That's true for any amount of money.
Indeed. It's also true that if nobody ever bought new cars because used cars are a much sounder investment, there would never be any replenishment of the used car supply.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 12, 2014, 02:51:02 PM
Continue to miss the point in your pedantry. That point being for 60K you could get more car buying used.
I swear you have a reading comprehension plan or just live in your own world...
I say anyone looking to buy a performance sedan should have the M3 on the top of their list
You say you would buy a wagon and a 911
I said great, none of those are performance sedans
You say blah blah blah I'm missing the point of my own comment.
Really.... Has English really failed us this badly...
Well color me surprised, but looks like redline is somewhere between 35-40 mph. Too much traffic to test it right to the rev limiter, but got to rough 35 mph with rpms in the mid 6k's.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 12, 2014, 02:51:02 PM
Continue to miss the point in your pedantry. That point being for 60K you could get more car buying used.
Thanks for the insight captain obvious.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on May 12, 2014, 03:37:36 PM
Well color me surprised, but looks like redline is somewhere between 35-40 mph. Too much traffic to test it right to the rev limiter, but got to rough 35 mph with rpms in the mid 6k's.
Jesus, I didn't look at the speedo but seemed much lower than that.
Quote from: r0tor on May 12, 2014, 03:14:31 PM
I swear you have a reading comprehension plan or just live in your own world...
I say anyone looking to buy a performance sedan should have the M3 on the top of their list
You say you would buy a wagon and a 911
I said great, none of those are performance sedans
You say blah blah blah I'm missing the point of my own comment.
Really.... Has English really failed us this badly...
A wagon is a sedan with a cap on the back. Its the exact same thing.
Quote from: MX793 on May 12, 2014, 03:08:59 PM
Indeed. It's also true that if nobody ever bought new cars because used cars are a much sounder investment, there would never be any replenishment of the used car supply.
If nobody bought new cars used cars would increase in price to where buying new would make sense. We saw it during the recession. Hell, used car prices are still way higher than they used to be.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 12, 2014, 05:11:21 PM
If nobody bought new cars used cars would increase in price to where buying new would make sense.
It already makes sense for more than 10 million a year (US).
To get the thread back on topic (if that's possible here :).
Initial performance data from an actual F80 M3 owner in the middle east:
VBOX Data is in, Finally.
The weather was still not optimal. I tried going to an area outside the city, but it was still hot. The temperature was still 27 degrees Celsius.
I had no passengers in the car this time, but the road was not very sticky, but what to do. There was also a slight bend in the road at the end.
I did launch couple of times and kept on getting 4.2 seconds to 100km/h (0-62 MPH).
I didnt use the 1 foot roll out feature in the Performance Box.
Here is the video of the run:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqsIrpsIUy4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqsIrpsIUy4#ws)
Exhaust noise from outside:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvTzCmrJqxU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvTzCmrJqxU#ws)
(http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1025502&d=1399850390)
(http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1025503&d=1399850390)
(http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1025504&d=1399850390)
0-100 MPH in 8.8 is damn quick. Car sounds totally different inside and out though :lol:
I have a hard time thinking that by he ATS v would be more desirable to me even though I'm a gm fanboi. Would love a techno violet or Boston green m3 with speed cloth interior.
Quote from: 68_427 on May 12, 2014, 06:49:30 PM
I have a hard time thinking that by he ATS v would be more desirable to me even though I'm a gm fanboi. Would love a techno violet or Boston green m3 with speed cloth interior.
OTOH I'd like to see the ATS-V. Only thing that I don't like on recent Cadillacs is the electronics. Both the dashboard display and the cue suck compared to their BMW equivalents. Also: trannies are a gen behind. But other than that, great cars and great value (here they are priced very competitively).
To me it needs a v8 to really standout. But that most likely Won't happen. And I hate the new caddy logo.
ATS-V with an LTx would be awesome. Instead, twin turbo V6 with SynthaSound
The 3.6tt actually sounds good for what it is
A used ATS-V with an LT1 would be high on my list in a few years. Too bad it doesn't come with an LT1.
What do people think of the blue colour? I can't decide if I like it or not. Definitely different.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 12, 2014, 06:32:48 PM
Car sounds totally different inside and out though :lol:
lol I noticed that, it's actually pretty funny
Quote from: Lebowski on May 13, 2014, 01:58:49 PM
What do people think of the blue colour? I can't decide if I like it or not. Definitely different.
I dig it. That is probably the color I would buy.
Considering the color of my current car, along with the fact the one time I owned a BMW (2000 BMW Z3 2.3i) it was a similar color ("Atlanta Blue" which was a sort of baby blue color), not too surprising though.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on May 13, 2014, 02:28:19 PM
I dig it. That is probably the color I would buy.
Considering the color of my current car, along with the fact the one time I owned a BMW (2000 BMW Z3 2.3i) it was a similar color ("Atlanta Blue" which was a sort of baby blue color), not too surprising though.
I like your blue.
I like it too, I think when I said I can't decide what I meant was I like it, but not sure if I'd grow tired of it over time vs a "safe"/generic color like silver/white.
Definitely of the non "safe"/boring m3 colors, it's my fav. I don't like the orange or the gold.
Quote from: Lebowski on May 13, 2014, 02:33:42 PM
I like your blue.
I like it too, I think when I said I can't decide what I meant was I like it, but not sure if I'd grow tired of it over time vs a "safe"/generic color like silver/white.
Definitely of the non "safe"/boring m3 colors, it's my fav. I don't like the orange or the gold.
I think this blue is a bit much. I'd likely go for mineral white with sakhir orange interior.
Configurator here: http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/mseries/m3sedan/2014/showroom/design/visualizer.html (http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/mseries/m3sedan/2014/showroom/design/visualizer.html)
That blue sucks. Long live LeMans blue. Much better color.
The more I look at the blue the more I like it. W/ silverstone interior.
Configurator has been up for 2-3 weeks.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 13, 2014, 03:04:44 PM
Configurator here: http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/mseries/m3sedan/2014/showroom/design/visualizer.html (http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/mseries/m3sedan/2014/showroom/design/visualizer.html)
BYO configurator here:
http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/byo/byohome.aspx?namodelcode=15TN (http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/byo/byohome.aspx?namodelcode=15TN)
Only options I would get would be carbon ceramic brakes, USB connectivity (how is this not standard on a 60K car) and the moonroof. Alpine white paint with black cloth seats... would be cool if they brought back the old ///M cloth from the E30 like they do for the plaid in the GTI.
Woah, that thing shifts fast. That acceleration video is nuts.
I hate the farting sounds
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 13, 2014, 03:17:46 PM
BYO configurator here:
http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/byo/byohome.aspx?namodelcode=15TN (http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/byo/byohome.aspx?namodelcode=15TN)
Only options I would get would be carbon ceramic brakes, USB connectivity (how is this not standard on a 60K car) and the moonroof. Alpine white paint with black cloth seats... would be cool if they brought back the old ///M cloth from the E30 like they do for the plaid in the GTI.
Really the moonroof? That means losing the CF roof which IMO is a big feature.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 13, 2014, 04:57:57 PM
Really the moonroof? That means losing the CF roof which IMO is a big feature.
IMO it's a gimmick. If I have to drive a sedan I might as well make it comfy. Leave the full on sacrifices for the full on sports cars. That is not meant to be a swipe... M3 is the jack of all trades which includes luxury/convenience.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 13, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
Leave the full on sacrifices for the full on sports cars. That is not meant to be a swipe... M3 is the jack of all trades which includes luxury/convenience.
So why the $8k carbon ceramic brakes?
Quote from: Lebowski on May 13, 2014, 05:48:09 PM
So why the $8k carbon ceramic brakes?
That won't affect the car's comfort or usability. Just make it better at the track
Here's a shirt for the M fanbois in here
http://blipshift.com/products/m-azing?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_content=m-azing&utm_campaign=new (http://blipshift.com/products/m-azing?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_content=m-azing&utm_campaign=new)
Quote from: 68_427 on May 13, 2014, 08:03:18 PM
Here's a shirt for the M fanbois in here
http://blipshift.com/products/m-azing?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_content=m-azing&utm_campaign=new (http://blipshift.com/products/m-azing?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_content=m-azing&utm_campaign=new)
Meaning me. I've got a lot of ///M or BMW clothing. You know, for track days & club events. And for being an ass.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 13, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
IMO it's a gimmick. If I have to drive a sedan I might as well make it comfy. Leave the full on sacrifices for the full on sports cars. That is not meant to be a swipe... M3 is the jack of all trades which includes luxury/convenience.
I see your point. Personally, I just don't care about the moonroof. The 1M doesn't have one and I never miss it.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 13, 2014, 10:05:33 PM
I see your point. Personally, I just don't care about the moonroof. The 1M doesn't have one and I never miss it.
My Z doesn't have one and I don't miss it. Wifey's Rabbit does have one though. But the funny thing is her cabin is much more airier than mine so she barely uses hers, but wishes I had a sunroof in mine.
Every car I've ever had that had one, I never opened it. My girlfriend likes them though.
Night time is open window season. Convertible season to be 100% honest but that's too much of a commitment. In the rare occasions where we are out in wifey's car instead of mine at night we use the moonroof all the time.
Back to the M3/4 though....
Performance coupes go head-to-head: BMW M4 vs. Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAaJRIg63kM#ws)
Definitely no moon roof at all possible - more weight, more noise, something else to go wrong as the car ages.
A number of Sutcliffe articles in this week's Autocar.
Comparison of BMW M4 vs Merc C63 AMG Coupe..... conclusion is fairly clear that he prefers the Merc. He likes the M4, but it sounds like it is a bit too civilised.
But then there is a First Drive review of the Cayman GTS, and he states that if he had £55 - 6oK burning a hole in his pocket, he's take this car in preference to the M4 without hesitation.
Quote from: Colin on May 14, 2014, 11:45:55 PM
A number of Sutcliffe articles in this week's Autocar.
Comparison of BMW M4 vs Merc C63 AMG Coupe..... conclusion is fairly clear that he prefers the Merc. He likes the M4, but it sounds like it is a bit too civilised.
But then there is a First Drive review of the Cayman GTS, and he states that if he had £55 - 6oK burning a hole in his pocket, he's take this car in preference to the M4 without hesitation.
In other news, the sky is blue.
He said the same about the E92. Back then he missed the E46.
The Cayman is a 2 seater and more focused (of course). This guy always likes the "rawer" choice. Autocar also blasted the i8. Old man.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 15, 2014, 05:34:12 PM
In other news, the sky is blue.
He said the same about the E92. Back then he missed the E46.
The Cayman is a 2 seater and more focused (of course). This guy always likes the "rawer" choice. Autocar also blasted the i8. Old man.
Yes, no surprises in what got written.
It was fat guy Matt Saunders who failed to get the i8.
"They" only seem to have one criteria for almost any car, which is barely relevant to how anyone would/could drive on a public road. Yesterday's nonsense was about the Macan Diesel, which has been lambasted as not being as fast as the petrol cars, them saying that they don't really understand the concessions that have been made to come up with a lower tax proposition. Of course, they don't - they don't ever have to pay for anything and on their salaries they would struggle to afford a Fiesta, so they have no concept of the fact that £££ is a criteria for most of us when we buy and own a car. And to think that I heard Steve Cropley (one of the few whom I do respect) say that they have to say "relevant".
Posting this here as well as on Lebowski's thread. And proposing we rename this thread to "The M3 Thread". After all, we have a specific thread of brzzzzz, Yarises, Mustangs and Vettes.
Chris Harris comments on the new M3:
To add a little motivation. Chris Harris' notes on the new M3:
Engine
Weird noise to begin with. No word of a lie, I laughed out loud when trying to define it - all I could think was 'mapped 335d'. It's less musical, lower frequency and less clearly straight-six than the M235i I'm currently driving. At first I didn't like it much, then it became a non-issue and after thrashing around a circuit for a while I almost liked it. But it's a million miles from the E46 and E92. Would I buy an everyday car on the basis of noise? Probably not. Radio 4 and ZZ Top will always overcome.
Performance
Scorching. The manual will hit 100mph in nine seconds dead, the DCT in 8.7 seconds. It hardly feels turbocharged and the torque is all-consuming. Real-world, this car is miles quicker than the old E92, and the torque means the rear axle loads up much earlier in a given turn, meaning you have the sensation of controlling the car's attitude with your right foot far more than you did before.
Throttle response.
I didn't have any problem with the throttle response. In comfort the throttle is long and a little lazy - normally I like that, but the shorter sport and sport-plus settings worked better in this car for me. In the latter the speakers mess around with the intake noise some more. Compared to, say, an E46 you lose a tiny amount of instant zap, but considering it has two turbochargers, you can take several stabs mid-corner to trim your line and the response is always there. It's worth revving out to 7,500rpm too.
More engine..
Proper M engine, turbos and all? Yup Fuel economy at a cruise is miles better than before - a genuine 30mpg - whereas I used to see 19mpg in my E92. The M3 badly needed some range, it now has it. This is perhaps the most important improvement over the outgoing V8.
Is the motor special enough? For a quick track blast and a few hours on the road, to impress a few hacks? Probably not, especially in light of the deranged V8 model's zap and DTM blare beyond 7,500rpm. But for everyday use, the torque, the sheer speed and the range make the new gizzards - for me - far more appealing.
Colleagues have given it real flak, with the insinuation that it isn't special (dry sump, forged crank anyone?) but I'd buy this car because of the motor, not in spite of it.
Chassis
Flipping good.
Steering
Leave it in comfort. The other two settings simply add weight, and I disliked them both. The 3 Series electric steering rack has been comprehensively re-engineered for this car, at vast expense. Does it feel like a conventional hydraulic rack? Nope. Is it exceedingly accurate? Yes. And the world really does have a short memory if it cites the last two M3s as being steering paragons. The E46 was light but accurate, the E92 lacked initial response off-centre. Neither were great.
This is not steering to savour, but it gives the driver instant confidence, and that is a brilliant trick when allied to all that front axle grip. For a big car, you can place the M3 with uncanny accuracy.
Gearbox
I only drove a DCT, and the manual would need to be somewhere near a late NSX in shift quality to persuade me to not have the two-pedal car. The dual-clutch is fast, smooth in town, gives extra fuel economy and it just suits the power and torque delivery of the motor. Fast shifts give a decent exhaust crack too.
Brakes
We had the optional carbon ceramics, which will make prospective owners look away because they're too expensive. Well, BMW is talking about €7,000 for them, and they're plain superb. If I was going to use this car as intended, I'd have them, and normally I always advise the cheaper steel option. I'm saying that partly because with the standard Super Sport rubber and those ceramic stoppers, you have something instantly track-able.
Cabin
Single piece front seats are spot-on. Steering wheel still too thick, hi-fi very good, iDrive still baffling. Just the right amount of bespoke touches to make it feel that much more special than an F30 3 Series. Incidentally, geeks like me are rejoicing that this car gets its own internal designation - F80. The coupe is F82.
Looks
Not mine to judge really. But if the M3, in that baby blue colour (which is actually a metallic on closer inspection) isn't the best looking M3 since the 1990 Sport Evolution, then I'll call all those E46 CSL owners Jessies. Actually, the CSL is a belting looking thing, isn't it. Look, the F80 has such a sexy rear axle set-down on the road, that people like us will point and grin at them.
Would you?
Absolutely. I loved my E92, but it was surprisingly limited as my daily driver. Opportunities to enjoy that motor beyond 7,000 were predictably limited, the lack of torque left you exposed to turbo hot hatches and, well, you know my thoughts on the range.
This car rights all of those wrongs. In isolation, the motor gets blown into next week by the current C63 507 for pure noise and theatre, but on the road the BMW's fuel consumption and massive torque would swing it for me. Sounds boring, but that's what matters in a daily driver.Not to mention the transmission which makes the Merc's feel pretty antiquated now. And I still think the powertrain feels special enough for an M car.
The rest of the package is BMW M at its best. I think it's a truly special car. It made me smile for the two days that I drove it. When the video comes out in the next few weeks, watch the section where we talk through the level of modification over standard 3er. This car is 50 per cent new.
It's a blinder. I'll have the saloon, the dampers, the big brakes, the DCT, and probably the baby blue. So exactly the car I drove on the launch then.
Maybe I am weird but engine noise is paramount to me. If I am alone I rarely drive with music on. So I dont think people docking it for not having a great sound are just hating. That shit is important to some people.
I feel like the M3 is somewhat changing its purpose. It used to be the 3 series without compromise. Car is excellent but it kind of makes me sad the design was dictated by fuel economy and emissions. Incredible performance to get <200g/km CO2. I guess BMW had no choice.
The BMW Performance Exhaust makes it sound much more aggressive. But at like $5K I'd rather just get it strait from Akrapovic.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 16, 2014, 02:47:34 PM
Maybe I am weird but engine noise is paramount to me. If I am alone I rarely drive with music on. So I dont think people docking it for not having a great sound are just hating. That shit is important to some people.
I feel like the M3 is somewhat changing its purpose. It used to be the 3 series without compromise. Car is excellent but it kind of makes me sad the design was dictated by fuel economy and emissions. Incredible performance to get <200g/km CO2. I guess BMW had no choice.
The 3 series has always been a compromise. If you want a race car, then you shouldn't be looking at a sedan or BMW to begin with.
In my mind, M has always been about blending the best driving dynamics in a luxury package possible. Seems like it still sticks to that pretty well.
Nice sound is nice but isn't that important to me. I have music on most of the time anyway. I think in the real world for people who actually buy the cars, the extra torque and better mpg offset the subjectively less attractive note.
Quote from: MrH on May 16, 2014, 04:43:37 PM
The 3 series has always been a compromise. If you want a race car, then you shouldn't be looking at a sedan or BMW to begin with.
In my mind, M has always been about blending the best driving dynamics in a luxury package possible. Seems like it still sticks to that pretty well.
Fair enough
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 16, 2014, 06:27:53 PM
Fair enough
I guess if you want a balls out sports car with 4 doors, the closest you got is an Sti, but even that is a compromise.
I like my sports cars extreme, and my sedans livable I guess.
Quote from: MrH on May 16, 2014, 06:38:58 PM
I guess if you want a balls out sports car with 4 doors, the closest you got is an Sti, but even that is a compromise.
I like my sports cars extreme, and my sedans livable I guess.
Yea I think it's better to keep the things separate. The M3 has crazy range though... if you could only have 1 car you can't do better for the $$$. Even for the $$$, new, I can't think of two cars to replace it. Maybe a Mustang GT and like a Civic? It's pretty impressive.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 16, 2014, 08:41:20 PM
Yea I think it's better to keep the things separate. The M3 has crazy range though... if you could only have 1 car you can't do better for the $$$. Even for the $$$, new, I can't think of two cars to replace it. Maybe a Mustang GT and like a Civic? It's pretty impressive.
Yeah, I agree. I guess at that price point though, I'd rather play the used two car game. Hell, that's what I'm doing now.
A used Genesis r spec + brz/future miata is significantly cheaper and a better option for me.
Interesting combo. I would probably go the other more generic way (Cayman S/Z4M/etc. and something like an Accord Sport)
If a car has a great sound I will rarely ever turn the radio on. If it doesn't, then the stereo is on all the time. Sound is very important to me.
I think both kinds of cars have their place. Wifey's car has a much better stereo and less road noise than mine. If it had more power it would be a great long distance car. I just don't know if I want my performance cars to sacrifice "performance sound" for "practical sound". I had a big audio build planned for the Z.... after almost a year with it I'd much rather put that $$$ into "performance sound" mods. Especially due to the fact that with the stupid Bose system I have to rewire the whole car......
I know EU is coming down hard on noise regs (like everything).... but when BMW made the E39 they made the car quiet on the outside and piped real engine noise inside through a tube. Still a little cheesy, but real at least. I wonder why that's not an option for BMW. I think the Focus ST has that setup too.
I am not overly concerned with engine sound but this is pathetic!
http://youtu.be/jS4Dh_EAfJI
You should hear the sound symposer in the racers helmets though.....