RE: 2024 BMW M4 CS | PH Review
Discussion
If i was thinking of buying one of these and i turned up at a dealer and the actual car in this feature was the demonstrator, just the colour alone would already have me thinking no let alone the styling.
Once i sat inside i would want to get out, that interior is awful.
Even if this car could make me a powerfully built company director driving god … its a Munter to look at, inside and out.
Once i sat inside i would want to get out, that interior is awful.
Even if this car could make me a powerfully built company director driving god … its a Munter to look at, inside and out.
pacdes said:
Motormouth88 said:
Imagine dropping over 100k on this and walking out the next morning to see it sitting on your driveway in all its hideous glory
(hideous glory) - funny... one consolation being that you'd be able to sleep at night knowing it was still there every morning.Edited by pacdes on Saturday 18th May 12:50
raspy said:
£117,100 and it is listed as 0-60 in 3.4 seconds?
Who is going to buy this when you get a Model 3 Performance for £60k that does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds?
Must be on a wind up… anyone who wants a Ferrari/Lamborghini/Mclaren etc is not buying a M3P because they’d get destroyed at the lights. I certainly have zero, ZERO urge to bin off my GT4… for one. Who is going to buy this when you get a Model 3 Performance for £60k that does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds?
The nearest traffic lights are 4 miles away from where I live. I get the whole EV efficiency thing and would certainly consider one as a daily, white goods transport to get me to the gym, catch up with friends etc. but for a road trip up north taking in some nice driving roads… over to Wales, good food more great roads, an EV would not cut it for the sheer pleasure and enjoyment on such a trip FOR ME! Efficiency and least cost would not be considered at all.
Nomme de Plum said:
The traffic light thing is and always was rather pointless. The form of motive power in this regard is irrelevant.
The very low CoG and polar moment does allow and EV to handle and corner far better than the weight would seem imply. That takes a bit of getting used to. It is subtedly different when compared to say my old modified S1 Exige where weight transfer front to rear and vice versa had a major impact on handling and cornering.
I wonder what the weight distribution is for this M4?
Bizarrely, the specification sheet for the new M4 CS shows plenty of stats, but nothing about weight distribution. The very low CoG and polar moment does allow and EV to handle and corner far better than the weight would seem imply. That takes a bit of getting used to. It is subtedly different when compared to say my old modified S1 Exige where weight transfer front to rear and vice versa had a major impact on handling and cornering.
I wonder what the weight distribution is for this M4?
Turning circle is nice and large at 12.6m, like a bus!
raspy said:
£117,100 and it is listed as 0-60 in 3.4 seconds?
Who is going to buy this when you get a Model 3 Performance for £60k that does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds?
If we are doing pointless stats, a Model 3 Performance does 0 - 200kph in 13.6 seconds and a normal M4 does it in 11.3 seconds, no doubt the CS would be quicker. Also quite different cars, I’m not sure how well a model 3 would be on a track day?Who is going to buy this when you get a Model 3 Performance for £60k that does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds?
E90_M3Ross said:
From what I gather the DCT boxes seem a little less reliable in cars with turbos. They are pretty much bullet proof in the E9x M3s.
The input torque to the gearbox being the defining variable.Turbo + slushbox is all part of a pre-ordained pathway to the ultimate goal of no cylinders, no turbos and no gearbox.
samjlevy said:
If we are doing pointless stats, a Model 3 Performance does 0 - 200kph in 13.6 seconds and a normal M4 does it in 11.3 seconds, no doubt the CS would be quicker. Also quite different cars, I’m not sure how well a model 3 would be on a track day?
Ah on a track? Yes, the M4 CS would be much quicker (especially with the vroom vroom noises) and according to everything I've read about electric cars, the model 3 would probably run out of charge after a few corners, assuming it didn't spin round on the first corner like a wobbly jelly. raspy said:
samjlevy said:
If we are doing pointless stats, a Model 3 Performance does 0 - 200kph in 13.6 seconds and a normal M4 does it in 11.3 seconds, no doubt the CS would be quicker. Also quite different cars, I’m not sure how well a model 3 would be on a track day?
Ah on a track? Yes, the M4 CS would be much quicker (especially with the vroom vroom noises) and according to everything I've read about electric cars, the model 3 would probably run out of charge after a few corners, assuming it didn't spin round on the first corner like a wobbly jelly. GT9 said:
E90_M3Ross said:
From what I gather the DCT boxes seem a little less reliable in cars with turbos. They are pretty much bullet proof in the E9x M3s.
The input torque to the gearbox being the defining variable.Turbo + slushbox is all part of a pre-ordained pathway to the ultimate goal of no cylinders, no turbos and no gearbox.
rottenegg said:
I don't mind it actually. Would look better in Isle of Man green with anthracite wheels though.
I don't really get the big thigh separator lumps in the seats though. Not something you want to catch your gonads on.
Yes, those seats look fantastic but can get painful if you don’t drop into them correctly or fancy a quick correction mid drive. Many of the reviewers have said the same. I don't really get the big thigh separator lumps in the seats though. Not something you want to catch your gonads on.
E90_M3Ross said:
GT9 said:
E90_M3Ross said:
From what I gather the DCT boxes seem a little less reliable in cars with turbos. They are pretty much bullet proof in the E9x M3s.
The input torque to the gearbox being the defining variable.Turbo + slushbox is all part of a pre-ordained pathway to the ultimate goal of no cylinders, no turbos and no gearbox.
However, as an exercise, let's estimate the size and value of these lists for all cars ever made for the last 150 years:
1. Interesting normally-aspirated or supercharged petrol cars with either manual or semi-automatic transmission
2. Interesting normally-aspirated petrol cars with automatic transmission
3. Interesting forced-induction petrol cars with automatic transmission
4. Other interesting cars (turbo+manual, hybrid, wankel, etc)
And, if you can save just one of those lists, which one are you going to go for?
I believe a situation could be envisaged where list 1 can be preserved for the long term, and maybe, just maybe, some new cars added to it after 2035, to keep enthusiasts happy.
But the price is eventually replacing everything else with cars that don't burn stuff...
eddharris said:
rottenegg said:
I don't mind it actually. Would look better in Isle of Man green with anthracite wheels though.
I don't really get the big thigh separator lumps in the seats though. Not something you want to catch your gonads on.
Yes, those seats look fantastic but can get painful if you don’t drop into them correctly or fancy a quick correction mid drive. Many of the reviewers have said the same. I don't really get the big thigh separator lumps in the seats though. Not something you want to catch your gonads on.
Magikarp said:
I like it, and in that colour. I must be either defective, or degenerate.
No I would say you're not living in the past and open to design language changes. I'm still not quite there yet with the new corporate nose, but I don't think it's going anywhere soon, and it doesn't look too offensive on M models to be fair.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff