RE: BMW M3 tester's notes: PH Blog

[Mermaid]

Gruber said:

I was also somewhat disappointed by the attack on Moosey. Whatever his name, background and career he ought to be allowed to spout forth on here with anonymity like the rest of us (provided he sticks to the rules, natch).

I like Chris Harris & his automotive/journalistic flair, but I too felt it was unnecessary to name. Cheers all.

[lord trumpton]

Very interesting to read.

It kinda highlights the limitations of the e9X and calls its brethren; the mighty e60 M5 into the same sentence. Two cars from the same genre that offered limited thrills for the average owner with average skills on below average roads (ie most owners). Throw the poor economy into the recipe and its a safe prediction that time will treat them in the same way that it did the e36 M3.

It sounds like the new M3 offers something for all levels of owner. Its looks bd hard too.

[E65Ross]

One thing interesting from a lot of journos over the last couple of years and now......

On the E92 M3

"Needs to be revved hard and doesn't have enough torque"

So, the new car has a lot more torque and displays all the characteristics that were seemingly wanted

On the New M3/4

"doesn't need to be revved as hard and thus doesn't feel as special"

make your fking mind up guys.

[Boobonman]

Where can I read stuff Chris Harris has written about his time with his E92?

[cerb4.5lee]

cheese said:

hornetrider said:

Mermaid said:

"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"

The M3 for today's environment, well done BMW.

I'm surprised a driver of Monkey's obvious prowess prefers instant hot hatch turbo torque gratification to a glorious NA V8 screamer. For shame.

He doesn't say that. He said "I loved my E92, but it was surprisingly limited as my daily driver." The 'daily driver' bit is the important part. The point, I infer that he is making, is that you cannot regularly rev a 4.0 V8 M engine out to it's interesting part on British roads.

This was exactly the criticism I had of mine as a daily as its only really exciting on the top end and most other turbo cars will batter you on the bottom end.

[Patrick Bateman]

lord trumpton said:

Very interesting to read.

It kinda highlights the limitations of the e9X and calls its brethren; the mighty e60 M5 into the same sentence. Two cars from the same genre that offered limited thrills for the average owner with average skills on below average roads (ie most owners). Throw the poor economy into the recipe and its a safe prediction that time will treat them in the same way that it did the e36 M3.

It sounds like the new M3 offers something for all levels of owner. Its looks bd hard too.

Last naturally aspirated M cars with bespoke V8 and V10 engines universally hailed as epic? I doubt that somewhat.

[eliotrw]

I for one can totally see why Harris took his stance on the situation. It does seem rather underhand to heckle from the sidelines wearing a mask, to me anyway..
What I will say is that I have read all of the reviews of this car, everyone I have read, has read like a easy 5 stars review. Most of them try to make some irrelevant to the real world point however about how its turboed and therefore worthy of a lower score. Im not sure most people care, heck, im a car nut and i don't, my friend who swapped a e92 cab for a Focus RS might be pleased though...


All of the reviews ive seen have noted that yes the engine is so so in terms of sound, mainly at idle. Now if you actually think about how a lot of performance engines sound at idle, like say the E60 M5, or a Porsche flat six there are others, this isnt an exhaustive list... then you would find it not that relevant, in my view anyway. I give zero $#£@s about what my car sounds like when idling to be honest.

Maybe the mid range isn't great either, i'm not particularly bothered about that, what about the top end? It sounds quite good to me? The e92 though, do i think that is the best sounding M3, really? to be honest, no... Sorry thats a bit controversial isnt it!? But i don't, i genuinely prefer how ALL the previous M3s sound in comparison.

The point i'm trying to get across i think is that on this matter, the turboed M car, i find almost every journo about is trying to hard to be "cool" by saying "its lacking character" or whatever the hot topic of the month is rather than being honest about the e92 and accepting that maybe its the awkward transitional step car that was never quite right in the first place. It sounds to me like this car has righted all the wrongs of the previous model and in 2014, with the way things are going that makes me very pleased indeed.

[Patrick Bateman]

eliotrw said:

I for one can totally see why Harris took his stance on the situation. It does seem rather underhand to heckle from the sidelines wearing a mask, to me anyway..
What I will say is that I have read all of the reviews of this car, everyone I have read, has read like a easy 5 stars review. Most of them try to make some irrelevant to the real world point however about how its turboed and therefore worthy of a lower score. Im not sure most people care, heck, im a car nut and i don't, my friend who swapped a e92 cab for a Focus RS might be pleased though...


All of the reviews ive seen have noted that yes the engine is so so in terms of sound, mainly at idle. Now if you actually think about how a lot of performance engines sound at idle, like say the E60 M5, or a Porsche flat six there are others, this isnt an exhaustive list... then you would find it not that relevant, in my view anyway. I give zero $#£@s about what my car sounds like when idling to be honest.

Maybe the mid range isn't great either, i'm not particularly bothered about that, what about the top end? It sounds quite good to me? The e92 though, do i think that is the best sounding M3, really? to be honest, no... Sorry thats a bit controversial isnt it!? But i don't, i genuinely prefer how ALL the previous M3s sound in comparison.

The point i'm trying to get across i think is that on this matter, the turboed M car, i find almost every journo about is trying to hard to be "cool" by saying "its lacking character" or whatever the hot topic of the month is rather than being honest about the e92 and accepting that maybe its the awkward transitional step car that was never quite right in the first place. It sounds to me like this car has righted all the wrongs of the previous model and in 2014, with the way things are going that makes me very pleased indeed.

Or...maybe that's what they actually think? A screaming n/a V8 with an 8400rpm redline will be hard to beat in terms of character and thrills.

[martin elaman]

I think most here understand that if BMW wanted to build a lightweight 2 door coupe that drove like a modern e30 M3, they most certainly could; and without doubt enthusiasts would love it. BMW sort of have a start point with the upcoming M2, but I doubt this will be that car. Point is "that car" could be built by BMW, but the point is "that car", would not be born out of a consumer clinic or boardroom decision, which unfortunately is how cars are designed now. Pity. btw I think this is what Cmoose was trying to say about the "press" and their, 'take what they give us' attitude. I believe cmoose is right and Harris should learn from his insight. martin

[cerb4.5lee]

Patrick Bateman said:

eliotrw said:

I for one can totally see why Harris took his stance on the situation. It does seem rather underhand to heckle from the sidelines wearing a mask, to me anyway..
What I will say is that I have read all of the reviews of this car, everyone I have read, has read like a easy 5 stars review. Most of them try to make some irrelevant to the real world point however about how its turboed and therefore worthy of a lower score. Im not sure most people care, heck, im a car nut and i don't, my friend who swapped a e92 cab for a Focus RS might be pleased though...


All of the reviews ive seen have noted that yes the engine is so so in terms of sound, mainly at idle. Now if you actually think about how a lot of performance engines sound at idle, like say the E60 M5, or a Porsche flat six there are others, this isnt an exhaustive list... then you would find it not that relevant, in my view anyway. I give zero $#£@s about what my car sounds like when idling to be honest.

Maybe the mid range isn't great either, i'm not particularly bothered about that, what about the top end? It sounds quite good to me? The e92 though, do i think that is the best sounding M3, really? to be honest, no... Sorry thats a bit controversial isnt it!? But i don't, i genuinely prefer how ALL the previous M3s sound in comparison.

The point i'm trying to get across i think is that on this matter, the turboed M car, i find almost every journo about is trying to hard to be "cool" by saying "its lacking character" or whatever the hot topic of the month is rather than being honest about the e92 and accepting that maybe its the awkward transitional step car that was never quite right in the first place. It sounds to me like this car has righted all the wrongs of the previous model and in 2014, with the way things are going that makes me very pleased indeed.

Or...maybe that's what they actually think? A screaming n/a V8 with an 8400rpm redline will be hard to beat in terms of character and thrills.

Buy one and use it everyday and let me know how often you can tap into that character and thrill without losing your licence, the new M4 was always going to put right all of the E92 M3`s wrongs because they were all so glaringly obvious in the first place.

[DD1980]

Very interesting discussion....

I've never owned an M car but long wanted one. However my commuting 25k a year has to date made that a challenge as I don't have a garage for a second car (also a sore point, but we'll leave that one).

I think the F80 M3 would appear to be the perfect car for me... I am looking for speed, handling, space (for wife + kids occasionally) and contrary to another post, range is very much important (fuelling up every 250 miles would be a pain!). I run a F30 330d at the moment, which is a great car in so many ways but it is comfortable pace rather than something truly special in terms of engine and chassis. I have spent time in M135/235i's and they don't feel different enough to my 330d to make me live with the lesser range - I do accept that they handle better and sound much better, but they still feel a bit wobbly some times and the dynamics just aren't tight enough. I really want an M car, and for the first time I think the man maths might just work.

I notice that most people are put off by the engine, but what about the chassis? Doesn't get mentioned very often. Sounds like that could well be good enough to compensate for a less orchestral engine, and it will I'm sure be a significantly better package than a modded 335i.

Just my 2p worth. Looking forward to a test drive...

[JMo22]

cerb4.5lee said:

Buy one and use it everyday and let me know how often you can tap into that character and thrill without losing your licence, the new M4 was always going to put right all of the E92 M3`s wrongs because they were all so glaringly obvious in the first place.

Please look at the mileage used E92 M3s have done and tell me that most of them were used everyday.

In my opinion, Mr. Harris' response showed that he can't have worked in the "real world" and maybe should do that for a while to really understand who buys these things in the UK. I would bet that more than 50% commute by Underground or train and don't use them every day as a)they will get stuck in traffic for 2 hours a day and b) will have to park 20 minutes walk from the office on top of it.

[Patrick Bateman]

cerb4.5lee said:

Buy one and use it everyday and let me know how often you can tap into that character and thrill without losing your licence, the new M4 was always going to put right all of the E92 M3`s wrongs because they were all so glaringly obvious in the first place.

The gearing in my M5 is much the same.

You're a well known naysayer of the e90/92 but let's not get carried away here, for such a 'turkey' (as some people would like to think) it still had the competition beaten more often than not in any comparison tests.

As I said before, it's interesting that such a big deal is made about this having to wring its neck out to get the best from it yet look at the fondness people speak of the M3's and M5's of old (e30 through e46 and e28 through e39 respectively). The S62 in the e39 is often known as a torquey engine but you still need to wring its neck to truly gun it- and it's all the better for it.

[USABRZ]

I can't understand Mr. Harris's assertion than the outgoing M3's lack of low end torque was an issue for a DD. People talk about similar issues frequently. I drive a car with no low end torque, yet scoot about my city and highway roads faster than virtually all my fellow drivers. What's wrong with revving your engine out on a daily basis? On an hourly basis? On every single on ramp, and leaving every single toll booth? I say it's marvelous, and I never see anyone in a more torque-heavy car taking off ahead of me. People just don't drive very fast on every day roads, and am it is utterly mind blowing that someone would find the 9x M3 lacking enough torque for a DD.

[P1H]

cerb4.5lee said:

Patrick Bateman said:

eliotrw said:

I for one can totally see why Harris took his stance on the situation. It does seem rather underhand to heckle from the sidelines wearing a mask, to me anyway..
What I will say is that I have read all of the reviews of this car, everyone I have read, has read like a easy 5 stars review. Most of them try to make some irrelevant to the real world point however about how its turboed and therefore worthy of a lower score. Im not sure most people care, heck, im a car nut and i don't, my friend who swapped a e92 cab for a Focus RS might be pleased though...


All of the reviews ive seen have noted that yes the engine is so so in terms of sound, mainly at idle. Now if you actually think about how a lot of performance engines sound at idle, like say the E60 M5, or a Porsche flat six there are others, this isnt an exhaustive list... then you would find it not that relevant, in my view anyway. I give zero $#£@s about what my car sounds like when idling to be honest.

Maybe the mid range isn't great either, i'm not particularly bothered about that, what about the top end? It sounds quite good to me? The e92 though, do i think that is the best sounding M3, really? to be honest, no... Sorry thats a bit controversial isnt it!? But i don't, i genuinely prefer how ALL the previous M3s sound in comparison.

The point i'm trying to get across i think is that on this matter, the turboed M car, i find almost every journo about is trying to hard to be "cool" by saying "its lacking character" or whatever the hot topic of the month is rather than being honest about the e92 and accepting that maybe its the awkward transitional step car that was never quite right in the first place. It sounds to me like this car has righted all the wrongs of the previous model and in 2014, with the way things are going that makes me very pleased indeed.

Or...maybe that's what they actually think? A screaming n/a V8 with an 8400rpm redline will be hard to beat in terms of character and thrills.

Buy one and use it everyday and let me know how often you can tap into that character and thrill without losing your licence, the new M4 was always going to put right all of the E92 M3`s wrongs because they were all so glaringly obvious in the first place.

I know you've owned a E92 M3 but just can't understand this point of view, please can somebody explain the rationale step by step for me. I know it has been rehashed many times but I just don't get it.

As far as I can see there is little or no effort required to change down gears, especially with the auto variants. So what is the problem with a high revving naturally aspirated car for daily driving? I'm confident the E92 M3 engine can pull sufficiently under 5k to keep up with fast moving traffic.

The criticisms of such engines seem to be:
- "Turbo hatches will cause you problems" - will they give you problems if you use the appropriate gear? I think this comes down to the insecurity people have that someone might try and 'go for it' without them being ready and in the right gear, therefore leaving them behind.
- "Changing gears often is a chore" - seems a strange criticism from a car enthusiast even when we are talking about a daily driver.
- Fuel consumption - various posts in this thread about the reality of buying a performance car.
- "You can't tap into the character without losing your licence" - I understand this in the sense that second goes up to 70mph so on public roads, driving enthusiastically and at the top of the rev range, you are only likely to use 2nd and 3rd. But I don't see why this is a problem, in both the E92 M3 and the M4 you are only going to be accelerating on the move for for 4 or 5 seconds before being well over the speed limit. I don't think the gear is important,but the drama is.

Perhaps it is none of these and more of a case of perception of speed, I.e being able to feel the torque is there all the time. I suppose this is also handy when wanting to push on with others in the car without looking like a madman revving up to 8500rpm.

Has anyone got another way of looking at this?

[s m]

Gruber said:

Sadly, I recently had to sell my e92. I miss that engine soooo much. M3s have always been high-revving screamers that really need to be worked to show their best - e30 through to e92 all shared that core characteristic. I don't want a low-down torquey turbo'd lump, ta very much. It just isn't what the M3 is about in my head.

cerb4.5lee said:

Buy one and use it everyday and let me know how often you can tap into that character and thrill without losing your licence, the new M4 was always going to put right all of the E92 M3`s wrongs because they were all so glaringly obvious in the first place.

EricE said:

The new M3 sounds like an excellent car. I’m planning to buy a used model in 2-3 years, just after the facelift. Should be excellent value then.

All the talk about turbos, electric steering, etc. makes me laugh.
7 years from now everybody on PH will regard this car as the "last great M3" because the new one will be a hybrid. Another 7 years later everyone on PH will say the hybrid M3 was the "last great M3" because the new one will be fully electric and self-driving with a bespoke M software that allows for autonomous drifting in certain GPS-locked regions (i.e. racetracks).

.....and there's the rub for BMW - which buyers do they want?

EVO test of all the M3 said:

"The original E30 M3 is utterly brilliant in ways the people at M have either forgotten about or choose to ignore"

[cerb4.5lee]

I agree that usually a high rev N/A engine equals character and I have been quite disappointed that the new M4`s engine has been criticised so much regards sound and emotion and yes I didn't rate my E92 M3 and rightly so as it just doesn't make much sense as a daily but you have to experience it in that environment to understand it.

The fact is a blown engine wont ever compare in feeling to a N/A engine but the M4 improves over its predecessor in pretty much everyway but I have realised since owning a E92 M3 that reading reviews and watching vids cant be entirely relied upon because you have to experience the car fully to know exactly how good or bad it is.

[lord trumpton]

Patrick Bateman said:

Last naturally aspirated M cars with bespoke V8 and V10 engines universally hailed as epic? I doubt that somewhat.

The engines are a work of genius for sure.

The problem lies with the overall package; their fruits are growing far too high up. Neither cars are truly loved in the same way as the e46 and e39. History will be unkind to them

[cerb4.5lee]

s m said:

Gruber said:

Sadly, I recently had to sell my e92. I miss that engine soooo much. M3s have always been high-revving screamers that really need to be worked to show their best - e30 through to e92 all shared that core characteristic. I don't want a low-down torquey turbo'd lump, ta very much. It just isn't what the M3 is about in my head.

cerb4.5lee said:

Buy one and use it everyday and let me know how often you can tap into that character and thrill without losing your licence, the new M4 was always going to put right all of the E92 M3`s wrongs because they were all so glaringly obvious in the first place.

EricE said:

The new M3 sounds like an excellent car. I’m planning to buy a used model in 2-3 years, just after the facelift. Should be excellent value then.

All the talk about turbos, electric steering, etc. makes me laugh.
7 years from now everybody on PH will regard this car as the "last great M3" because the new one will be a hybrid. Another 7 years later everyone on PH will say the hybrid M3 was the "last great M3" because the new one will be fully electric and self-driving with a bespoke M software that allows for autonomous drifting in certain GPS-locked regions (i.e. racetracks).

.....and there's the rub for BMW - which buyers do they want?

That is a good observation and just shows how varied peoples opinions/expectations are and how they differ so much and it is impossible to keep every punter happy.

[CJP80]

P1H said:

I know you've owned a E92 M3 but just can't understand this point of view, please can somebody explain the rationale step by step for me. I know it has been rehashed many times but I just don't get it.

As far as I can see there is little or no effort required to change down gears, especially with the auto variants. So what is the problem with a high revving naturally aspirated car for daily driving? I'm confident the E92 M3 engine can pull sufficiently under 5k to keep up with fast moving traffic.

The criticisms of such engines seem to be:
- "Turbo hatches will cause you problems" - will they give you problems if you use the appropriate gear? I think this comes down to the insecurity people have that someone might try and 'go for it' without them being ready and in the right gear, therefore leaving them behind.
- "Changing gears often is a chore" - seems a strange criticism from a car enthusiast even when we are talking about a daily driver.
- Fuel consumption - various posts in this thread about the reality of buying a performance car.
- "You can't tap into the character without losing your licence" - I understand this in the sense that second goes up to 70mph so on public roads, driving enthusiastically and at the top of the rev range, you are only likely to use 2nd and 3rd. But I don't see why this is a problem, in both the E92 M3 and the M4 you are only going to be accelerating on the move for for 4 or 5 seconds before being well over the speed limit. I don't think the gear is important,but the drama is.

Perhaps it is none of these and more of a case of perception of speed, I.e being able to feel the torque is there all the time. I suppose this is also handy when wanting to push on with others in the car without looking like a madman revving up to 8500rpm.

Has anyone got another way of looking at this?

If you look at the e92 M3s power output below 5krpm relative to its mass, it's actually not fantastic:

Cayman GTS vs M3 vs 335d

Edited by CJP80 on Friday 16th May 21:56