RE: The new BMW M3
Discussion
StuH said:
Yawn.
Speaking as an ex Noble owner (and TVR), currently M5, soon to be new M3, that is just a collection of bar chat, stereotyped cliche's.
The german cars win because as an overall package theyare the better all-round car.
...
Of course i'm buying an "M" because i want to look good at the golf club, have a small d*** and can't drive
Speaking as an ex Noble owner (and TVR), currently M5, soon to be new M3, that is just a collection of bar chat, stereotyped cliche's.
The german cars win because as an overall package theyare the better all-round car.
...
Of course i'm buying an "M" because i want to look good at the golf club, have a small d*** and can't drive
OK, OK, stereotypes accepted!
I'm not saying they're not good cars, they're just not as focused as the "M", "AMG", etc. badges would have you believe. They probably ARE more rounded cars as a result.
What I was trying to say is that each successive iteration (and I'll put 'Type R' and 'GTi' in with this as well) is less-and-less focused, because that's what the market wants - a badge-image is created by the truly harcore machines (E30, RS2, ITR etc.) which unfortunately don't sell very well), THEN people* decide they want the badge and the cachet, but they don't want a car they have to work to drive.
So the cars themselves (M3, M5, AMG-everything, RS4/6, Civic Type R, etc...) end up running this tightrope between doing the 'badge' justice and actually appealing to enough people to make a profit...engineers vs marketing men/accountants.
I'd actually say that BMW have done a better job of this than Merc and Audi (and, sorry to say, Honda's latest effort!) in recent years. And all are hobbled by increasing crash-regs and increasing technology available to stuff in the cars, both increasing weight.
Hope that explains my point a little better - it wasn't intended as anti M-cars or anti M-car drivers, more a rant against the market forces which promise these "motorsport-derived" cars then give us a compromised product in the name of mass appeal!
- Not present company, I'm sure - you've owned a Noble, which is on my list of 'cars I must see if I want to buy'. But your run-of-the-mill M3, M5, AMG, RS4/6 owner. Even your current Civic Type R owner. I was grossly generalising and some proper petrolheads on here got caught up in the crossfire, wrongly I admit!
Zod said:
Mr Whippy said:
Zod said:
but once you know what you want it to do, you only ever use two settings, M button on or off. Then you are just driving the car and it is gloriously fast.
Gloriously fast...What about the fun factor?
Never see many people mention fun these days, just how fast it is and the headline figures of power and torque or something.
Not putting down the E60 M5, it really is a tour de force, but I'm quite sure that it need not have been and still been *a good car* in isolation.
I think BMW today worry too much what their competitors are doing.
E34 M5, yes please, with Nordschliefe suspension and M parallels please!
How fun and basic can it get? RWD, 6spd manual, 6 pot simplicity (all in a line!). Done.
The simplicity and focus on the driver is the appeal, not the headline figures which mean bugger all on UK roads
Dave
It IS fun. I defy anyone to drive one outside town and not enjoy it. OK, so I have to shave off more speed before tight bends than I did in the CSL, but I can come out of them incredibly quickly. It's easy to read reviews and imagine it's like playing a PS game, but it's nothing like that. It's a car with a massively powerful engine, four big tyres, a very clever LSD and a gearbox that some love and some hate. Believe me, if you get it wrong driving an M5, it punishes you. If you get it right, it is fantastic. It is not some pre-programmed ride on rails.
Drive one for a weekend and see.
What I'm getting at is that it's nothing exciting because where it matters it's not progressed beyond any of the previous M3's except in weight and on-paper statistics (from what I can see)
Thats why I'm not thrilled.
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Zod said:
Mr Whippy said:
Zod said:
but once you know what you want it to do, you only ever use two settings, M button on or off. Then you are just driving the car and it is gloriously fast.
Gloriously fast...What about the fun factor?
Never see many people mention fun these days, just how fast it is and the headline figures of power and torque or something.
Not putting down the E60 M5, it really is a tour de force, but I'm quite sure that it need not have been and still been *a good car* in isolation.
I think BMW today worry too much what their competitors are doing.
E34 M5, yes please, with Nordschliefe suspension and M parallels please!
How fun and basic can it get? RWD, 6spd manual, 6 pot simplicity (all in a line!). Done.
The simplicity and focus on the driver is the appeal, not the headline figures which mean bugger all on UK roads
Dave
It IS fun. I defy anyone to drive one outside town and not enjoy it. OK, so I have to shave off more speed before tight bends than I did in the CSL, but I can come out of them incredibly quickly. It's easy to read reviews and imagine it's like playing a PS game, but it's nothing like that. It's a car with a massively powerful engine, four big tyres, a very clever LSD and a gearbox that some love and some hate. Believe me, if you get it wrong driving an M5, it punishes you. If you get it right, it is fantastic. It is not some pre-programmed ride on rails.
Drive one for a weekend and see.
What I'm getting at is that it's nothing exciting because where it matters it's not progressed beyond any of the previous M3's except in weight and on-paper statistics (from what I can see)
Thats why I'm not thrilled.
Dave
Thom said:
article said:
295lb ft of torque at 3,900rpm
In pure BMW fashion they have forgotten to put some torque in there. Hopefully Alpina will quickly correct this with a turbocharged engine.
The point of it is Evolution of the brand.
It'll go like fury, and I suspect in the hands of mere mortals, or those less critical than motoring hacks, it'll be one of the finest/purest point-to-point 4 seaters on the market.
In the context of it's opposition, it'll have to be pretty dire to be more uninvolving than the technically competent but characterless and oppresively hardcore RS4.
The C63 AMG will no doubt be in keeping with the AMG ethos of making dragsters loosely disguised as well-specced road cars, but will it be serious opposition? I doubt it - even if it is an M3 beater, the fact that Merc haven't made a genuine M3 alternative since the 190E 16v, and that until recently their build quality was appalling will probably disuade anybody from comparing the two - the AMG will be more in competition with the Alpina B3.
Personally - although I think it looks a bit of mess externally and, I believe, the power-to-weight isn't vastly better than the E46 - I'd not be grumbling if I had one.
In truth, and it's a shame BMW won't ever admit to it
http://www.carpages.co.uk/bmw/bmw-320si-26-11-05.a...
is the spiritual successor to the E30 M3 - a homologation car and proud of it. Munichs had one for a while, and the level of detail was impressive in todays modern market.
It'll go like fury, and I suspect in the hands of mere mortals, or those less critical than motoring hacks, it'll be one of the finest/purest point-to-point 4 seaters on the market.
In the context of it's opposition, it'll have to be pretty dire to be more uninvolving than the technically competent but characterless and oppresively hardcore RS4.
The C63 AMG will no doubt be in keeping with the AMG ethos of making dragsters loosely disguised as well-specced road cars, but will it be serious opposition? I doubt it - even if it is an M3 beater, the fact that Merc haven't made a genuine M3 alternative since the 190E 16v, and that until recently their build quality was appalling will probably disuade anybody from comparing the two - the AMG will be more in competition with the Alpina B3.
Personally - although I think it looks a bit of mess externally and, I believe, the power-to-weight isn't vastly better than the E46 - I'd not be grumbling if I had one.
In truth, and it's a shame BMW won't ever admit to it
http://www.carpages.co.uk/bmw/bmw-320si-26-11-05.a...
is the spiritual successor to the E30 M3 - a homologation car and proud of it. Munichs had one for a while, and the level of detail was impressive in todays modern market.
Edited by Dunk76 on Tuesday 10th July 11:37
mackie1 said:
Power to weight in the new one is about 250bhp/ton and the old one was 215 so it's a healthy increase. Also, people who've driven it say it feels lighter than it is so I wouldn't worry.
They should be able to get to 300 bhp/tonne with a CSL. All they need to do is drop the weight to 1450kg and up the power by a modest amount to 435bhp. If they improve either figure further then all the better. Strange that so many armchair-experts are willing to talk the new M3 down (and equally, if I'm being fair, how many people are willing to defend it) without ever having driving one.
My feeling is this is more about brand bias than how good (or lacking) the E92 M3 really is. And that is generally the Achilles heal of PH imho - too many people wading into conversations to rubbish cars that don't align with their own personal preference (read car they presently own), rather than voicing an informed opinion based on real-world experience.
My feeling is this is more about brand bias than how good (or lacking) the E92 M3 really is. And that is generally the Achilles heal of PH imho - too many people wading into conversations to rubbish cars that don't align with their own personal preference (read car they presently own), rather than voicing an informed opinion based on real-world experience.
bad_roo said:
True. Nothing wrong with enthusiasm but some people become genuinely blinkered partisans once they've invested their own money. I like having a bit of sport with S2000 owners in that regard.
Totally agree. But then you don't tell us what you drive?Does this blinkered outlook not reach as far as the scribes of the reviews then? Do they not have personal preferences and bias? It would only be natural if they did.
Edited by ferrisbueller on Tuesday 10th July 12:44
As a (probably irrelevant) aside, but also to add some more perspective to mine and Dave's (Whippy) comments.
This WILL be a phenomenal point-to-point machine. No doubt. None at all.
But...exactly WHERE will you be able to use even 50% of it's ability?
- Don't say M-way / Autobahn, as they're rarely clear and it's essentially straight-line stuff, don't need an agile car to do 150mph+ there, just the power and grip.
- An A-road (or EU equivalent)? Don't be silly...current hot-hatches can already take those roads at dangerous speeds (i.e. far faster than visibility permits). The extra ability of the M3 (E46 or 92) is only going to increase the number of pieces that the police have to pick up if someone DOES drive it at 9/10ths or more.
- A B-road? This car isn't made for them, and the A-road argument holds doubly true.
...which just leaves on a track...and IMHO there are only two roadgoing BM's properly suited to track use - E30 M3 and E46 CSL.
Car manufacturers are being forced by legislation and economics to make heavier and heavier cars. They are also engaged in bhp wars. To make the bhp usable, they also have to increase grip/handling levels.
As a result of all this, cars are getting less and less 'fun'. What exactly is 'fun' about driving a 911 Turbo or M3 at say 5/10 of it's ability down an A- or B-road?!? The only thing is the kick in the back from the acceleration, to my mind, as everything else is done for you by the car at that level.
PS - 'roo - always a pleasure mate!
This WILL be a phenomenal point-to-point machine. No doubt. None at all.
But...exactly WHERE will you be able to use even 50% of it's ability?
- Don't say M-way / Autobahn, as they're rarely clear and it's essentially straight-line stuff, don't need an agile car to do 150mph+ there, just the power and grip.
- An A-road (or EU equivalent)? Don't be silly...current hot-hatches can already take those roads at dangerous speeds (i.e. far faster than visibility permits). The extra ability of the M3 (E46 or 92) is only going to increase the number of pieces that the police have to pick up if someone DOES drive it at 9/10ths or more.
- A B-road? This car isn't made for them, and the A-road argument holds doubly true.
...which just leaves on a track...and IMHO there are only two roadgoing BM's properly suited to track use - E30 M3 and E46 CSL.
Car manufacturers are being forced by legislation and economics to make heavier and heavier cars. They are also engaged in bhp wars. To make the bhp usable, they also have to increase grip/handling levels.
As a result of all this, cars are getting less and less 'fun'. What exactly is 'fun' about driving a 911 Turbo or M3 at say 5/10 of it's ability down an A- or B-road?!? The only thing is the kick in the back from the acceleration, to my mind, as everything else is done for you by the car at that level.
PS - 'roo - always a pleasure mate!
Edited for my addled brain getting names wrong...
Edited by havoc on Friday 13th July 09:00
Andrew Frankel on the Ferrari F40/Enzo. Just replace with E30 M3/E92 M3 and is the sentiment not the same?
New Ferrari F40 please
It’s an odd thing, but I’ve never met anyone who’s driven the Ferrari Enzo who really loved it. In press and public they may rave about its power and performance but in private, all those I’ve spoken to about it express admiration for its engineering but little in the way of raw affection.
I’ve not driven an Enzo but I did spend yesterday at the helm of an F40 which served only to confirm my long held belief that it’s not simply the best Ferrari I’ve ever driven, but also the finest road car I’ve ever sat in. Yet, scarily, the F40 is 20 years old.
It may lack the outright power of an Enzo or 599GTB but what it has more of than any other supercar I’ve driven in the last decade – and that includes the McLaren and Bugatti – is the ability to involve the driver. The noise of its engine, the delectable feel and precision of its steering and the absolutely pared cabin means there is a greater sense of occasion driving one down the high street than offered by most supercars on the open road. And when you do open it up – well I always wanted to die in my sleep until I drove an F40.
Could Ferrari build another stripped out road racer that cared less about how fast it went than how it went fast? The 360 Challenge Stradale was a huge step in this direction, good enough to transform a pretty poor car, so imagine what could be achieved if it started with a decent piece of kit like an F430 or, better still, a clean sheet.
Of course it is not a car Ferrari needs. It’s selling more road cars than ever and still riding high on the race track. But to make a car not because it’s the quickest, or most high-tech, expensive or outlandish but simply and purely because it was the best to drive – wouldn’t that be something very, well, Ferrari?
New Ferrari F40 please
It’s an odd thing, but I’ve never met anyone who’s driven the Ferrari Enzo who really loved it. In press and public they may rave about its power and performance but in private, all those I’ve spoken to about it express admiration for its engineering but little in the way of raw affection.
I’ve not driven an Enzo but I did spend yesterday at the helm of an F40 which served only to confirm my long held belief that it’s not simply the best Ferrari I’ve ever driven, but also the finest road car I’ve ever sat in. Yet, scarily, the F40 is 20 years old.
It may lack the outright power of an Enzo or 599GTB but what it has more of than any other supercar I’ve driven in the last decade – and that includes the McLaren and Bugatti – is the ability to involve the driver. The noise of its engine, the delectable feel and precision of its steering and the absolutely pared cabin means there is a greater sense of occasion driving one down the high street than offered by most supercars on the open road. And when you do open it up – well I always wanted to die in my sleep until I drove an F40.
Could Ferrari build another stripped out road racer that cared less about how fast it went than how it went fast? The 360 Challenge Stradale was a huge step in this direction, good enough to transform a pretty poor car, so imagine what could be achieved if it started with a decent piece of kit like an F430 or, better still, a clean sheet.
Of course it is not a car Ferrari needs. It’s selling more road cars than ever and still riding high on the race track. But to make a car not because it’s the quickest, or most high-tech, expensive or outlandish but simply and purely because it was the best to drive – wouldn’t that be something very, well, Ferrari?
Olf said:
Mr Whippy said:
Zod said:
Mr Whippy said:
Zod said:
but once you know what you want it to do, you only ever use two settings, M button on or off. Then you are just driving the car and it is gloriously fast.
Gloriously fast...What about the fun factor?
Never see many people mention fun these days, just how fast it is and the headline figures of power and torque or something.
Not putting down the E60 M5, it really is a tour de force, but I'm quite sure that it need not have been and still been *a good car* in isolation.
I think BMW today worry too much what their competitors are doing.
E34 M5, yes please, with Nordschliefe suspension and M parallels please!
How fun and basic can it get? RWD, 6spd manual, 6 pot simplicity (all in a line!). Done.
The simplicity and focus on the driver is the appeal, not the headline figures which mean bugger all on UK roads
Dave
It IS fun. I defy anyone to drive one outside town and not enjoy it. OK, so I have to shave off more speed before tight bends than I did in the CSL, but I can come out of them incredibly quickly. It's easy to read reviews and imagine it's like playing a PS game, but it's nothing like that. It's a car with a massively powerful engine, four big tyres, a very clever LSD and a gearbox that some love and some hate. Believe me, if you get it wrong driving an M5, it punishes you. If you get it right, it is fantastic. It is not some pre-programmed ride on rails.
Drive one for a weekend and see.
What I'm getting at is that it's nothing exciting because where it matters it's not progressed beyond any of the previous M3's except in weight and on-paper statistics (from what I can see)
Thats why I'm not thrilled.
Dave
Ultimately boiled down to something along the lines of being flawed, to give it character and charm.
A big flawed six pot, dimensionally under-specced (for Ring work) tyres, that make it fun on real roads, a focus on being lightweight, rather than a focus on power output, afterall, who ever said a powerfull car was a good car?
CSL engine and spend the money saved developing that V8, and spend more money on carbon fibre to make it lighter! Then it won't fade it's large sliding callipers as easily, it'll be easier on the fuel and tyres, it'll be more pointy and it can use smaller tyres and give more feel back to the driver.
All I see is a fat flabby car with a big engine, big tyres and stiff suspension that will set blistering track times, be a hoot on the track, and likely get nowhere near it's performance edge on the road. How is it *ANY* better in any performance road car sense than the E46 M3 CS?
All I can see it having is more weight and power and questionable looks.
When Audi and Merc were using turbo V8's or big V8's or Supercharged V8's in their M5 and M3 competitors, BMW were making inline sixes that revved hard like race engines, or big V8's with NA delivery rather than FI like the RS6 or charged like the Merc units.
But today Audi makes an engine that matches the M unit in their medium/large saloon, so BMW have done nothing amazing there, and the RS6 will have a V10 like the M5, so BMW really haven't done anything stunning there either. And Mercedes are sticking their 6.3 V8 into everything they can, ultimately BMW have been left trying to compete with Audi and Mercedes and have forgotten their niche (imho) to a certain extent.
Will they secure more sales because they have diluted their focus and covered the appeal of the other manufacturers? I honestly don't think so as right now the RS4 and new Merc C class with a 6.3 V8 engine have tons more going for them from my POV, their flaws give them appeal.
BMW for me was about more than the power and technology, it was about the simple drive centric focus and decent six pot engines with rwd.
Just my 2p of course. M3 CSL should be all anyone wants if they want a sporty saloon car with seats for the kids and a boot!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
BMW for me was about more than the power and technology, it was about the simple drive centric focus and decent six pot engines with rwd.
But the innexorable march of progress and legislation mean that the days of the big NA inline six are limited.They tend to be bloody heavy, their height plays havoc with bonnet crash regs, their length gives rise to packaging issues with regards ancillaries like manifolds, rads etc.
From a performance perspective, the limitations of their specific output tend to come about from having arsing great pistons thundering up and down the bores exceeding the 25fps rule.
As a driver experience they're wonderful
As a piece of automotive engineering they are inherently flawed.
I think the E46 3.2 M3 engine was their swansong as aspirated performance engines.
Edited by Dunk76 on Tuesday 10th July 15:06
I think havoc makes an interesting comment. Where, (without going to a track), can you actually use all of the M3's performance. I drive a standard spec WRX Impreza and I can't use all of its performance, even on most B roads without risking serious points on my license. Now don't get me wrong I have petrol running through my veins and would love to have any version of the M3, but I have for sometime now wondered if there is a specialist market for "under tyred" cars that can get closer to a cars limits without the need for driving at ridiculously fast speeds, so ironically the polar opposite of the new breed of track biased supper grippy tyres. (In my ideal world these low grip tyres would have progressive limits that can be passed without fear of being bitten). Now I realise that this basically means taking away some of the safety of a car and therefore probably shouldn’t be condoned for road use. But the type of people that I imagine would be interested in such an option are likely to drive their cars near to their cars limits anyway and thus possibly at least you could argue that these under tyred cars would be safer? Even if you accept that this is a terribly stupid idea for road driving could it have any merits for track days? I always remember reading an article about how James Hunt used to drive an old Morris Minor, (sorry if I have got the actual car wrong but it is the type of car that it is most important), when he was upon hard times and he loved driving it as to keep up with most of the modern cars on the road he had to drive it at 10 tenths. This may not be the same analogy but hopefully close enough to see where my idea stems from.
Mr Whippy said:
Olf said:
Mr Whippy said:
Zod said:
Mr Whippy said:
Zod said:
Zod says the M5 is v. fast
Mr Whippy says M5's are no fun now. Sounds to me that you need a last gen CTR. Forget BMW ever existed.
Dunk76 said:
Mr Whippy said:
BMW for me was about more than the power and technology, it was about the simple drive centric focus and decent six pot engines with rwd.
But the innexorable march of progress and legislation mean that the days of the big NA inline six are limited.They tend to be bloody heavy, their height plays havoc with bonnet crash regs, their length gives rise to packaging issues with regards ancillaries like manifolds, rads etc.
From a performance perspective, the limitations of their specific output tend to come about from having arsing great pistons thundering up and down the bores exceeding the 25fps rule.
As a driver experience they're wonderful
As a piece of automotive engineering they are inherently flawed.
I think the E46 3.2 M3 engine was their swansong as aspirated performance engines.
Edited by Dunk76 on Tuesday 10th July 15:06
Edited by Zod on Tuesday 10th July 15:39
Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff