E92 M3 or M135i

[EricE]

bennyboysvuk said:

OP, which will you go for then? Or will you go the 911 route instead, which could be another possibility?

Still undecided but leaning towards the M3. Test driving the A45 tonight.

As for Porsches, they are definitely on my list but not at this point in time. I bought a '71 911 2.2 S six years ago when my friends bought flashy new motors. It's a glorious motoring experience but it has also taught me that the green eyed monster is alive and well, hiding in places where you least expect it.
That's why I'm looking for something a bit more "under the radar", something that's fun to drive, doesn't turn heads and won't have me worried about door dings when I park it to buy groceries. I feel like a M135i or E92 M3 (rebadged to 316i ) would fulfil that job nicely.

If I left the whole envy factor out of consideration (inevitably many of you will tell me I'm an idiot for caring what other people think and that's ok) I'd probably buy a 987 Cayman R or Spyder.

[Crafty_]

Welshbeef said:

The point is both are a great buy BUT one is an M car the other isn't and to Petrol heads that's all the difference you need.

On the other hand I couldn't give a toss what badge is on the back.

daz05 said:

You're completely missing the point it matters not one bit that it can keep an M3 honest, it's a very different experience.

Taking your point we could argue the Golf R will keep most performance cars honest for 3/4 of the year in this country. I'd have one of those over the M135 because it's an even better everyday road car and it comes with the added bonus of not looking silly.

I didn't say it was a similar experience, just felt that the little 135 was being talked down, given subsequent comments probably because it isn't "a real M".

If we're going to call the 135 mundane you'll all be comatose in the Golf. Fast yes but totally uninvolving. If you've driven a 1.4 shopping version its exactly the same, just faster. Yes 4x4 would be good for poor weather and I'm a little concerned about the 1er in that, but I can get to work through 8 miles of 30mph limits - if thats not possible its probably because the roads are clogged full of muppets and its just as well to work from home anyway ! (or at least, thats what I tell myself..).
I don't think the 1er looks "silly", especially not the LCI (which is a huge improvement). What does look poor (and remember, I'm coming from Vauxhalls) is the golf interior, cheap and tacky.

Interested in the OPs man maths on an A45, lowest I've seen is low 30s, so unless I'm missing something they are quite a bit more than the 1er/E92 etc. It would have been on my list, but as it is they're out of budget..

[EricE]

Crafty_ said:

Interested in the OPs man maths on an A45, lowest I've seen is low 30s, so unless I'm missing something they are quite a bit more than the 1er/E92 etc. It would have been on my list, but as it is they're out of budget..

Crafty_ said:

Interested in the OPs man maths on an A45, lowest I've seen is low 30s, so unless I'm missing something they are quite a bit more than the 1er/E92 etc. It would have been on my list, but as it is they're out of budget..

I have to register the car in Austria (where I currently live because of my job) and they have import taxes based on Co2 emission. The taxes are based on the first year of registration and go up every year, so 7 year old E92 M3 with bonkers fuel consumption costs very little import tax (2000€) while a new 2014 M135i costs a lot (9000€).

The A45 has the advantage of being available as a 2013 model with 169g Co2 which makes the import tax cheap (3000€) and thus closes the gap to the M135i.

So if you're wondering why all car manufacturers are ruining their cars with 4-pot turbos and heavy hybrid systems, there is your answer.
A new Cayman GT4 costs 30% (22000£) more to register here than in UK, Germany or elsewhere.
At the same time a new 918 costs nothing because of the 72g/100km rating.

"Dumb" doesn't even begin to describe this system. It's another reason why I'm leaning towards the E92 M3 with the thirsty V8 because even if BMW decided to build another car with an engine like this I wouldn't be able to register it here, not without paying 50% more than the rest of the world.

[Crafty_]

Ah, yes I forgot you weren't in the UK. We moan, but on the tax front we have it relatively easy, the M135i is £295 tax for the first year and £205 thereafter. The A45 is £180 a year, An E92 would be £505 a year.

[bennyboysvuk]

EricE said:

Still undecided but leaning towards the M3. Test driving the A45 tonight.

As for Porsches, they are definitely on my list but not at this point in time. I bought a '71 911 2.2 S six years ago when my friends bought flashy new motors. It's a glorious motoring experience but it has also taught me that the green eyed monster is alive and well, hiding in places where you least expect it.
That's why I'm looking for something a bit more "under the radar", something that's fun to drive, doesn't turn heads and won't have me worried about door dings when I park it to buy groceries. I feel like a M135i or E92 M3 (rebadged to 316i ) would fulfil that job nicely.

If I left the whole envy factor out of consideration (inevitably many of you will tell me I'm an idiot for caring what other people think and that's ok) I'd probably buy a 987 Cayman R or Spyder.

Very sad to hear about your findings related to jealousy of your car. That sounds like it can only be bad.

I guess if you're considering envy factor in, then the M135i is certainly the least blingy of the cars you're looking at, with all body panels essentially being the same as the 114d.

With regard to the tax issues as well, the M3 sounds like it will be the car for you. I just don't think the AMG, nor the M135i are as throttle adjustable, accurate, responsive or fun to drive as the M3. Tonight's experience in the AMG will be telling.

[nickfrog]

EricE said:

I test drove a M135i at the local BMW dealer on Friday and the E92 M3 yesterday. To put this into context, our current daily shed is a Mini Cooper S R56 with the "sport suspension" option. The ride is very harsh, more so than it needs to be, but I find it extremely fun to drive - short wheelbase, not much body roll and a fun on the road without having to break the law.

The M135i felt the right size, noticeably larger than the Mini but still compact and wieldy. I was quite impressed by the torque but the very compliant suspension and light steering immediately put me off. The demo car had no adaptive suspension option but the ride was so far from what I expected from a "sporty" hatch that I don't think it would have made a difference. Of course that would make it a great daily driver but coming from the harsh mini, I don't mind some "not-so-sophisticated" damping.
The lack of LSD was quite noticeable around some hairpins in the wet with traction off. Both of these issues can be fixed though, the M135i with a decent KW or Bilstein suspension plus LSD would be a great package.

The M3 felt very big to me initially. The owner was quite encouraging and knew a few nice roads around in his area. Engine wise it really is on a completely different planet than the usual turbo-4 and turbo-6 story you get today.
It also felt better and better the harder drove and seemed to adjust to my driving style as opposed to the 1 series which somehow forced a line on me with it's turn in behaviour and body roll. The M3 just felt like it was more "on my side" whenever I drove a bit quicker, it was much sharper and predictable and thus inspired more confidence.

One downside to the M3 is that it looked more "in your face" than I had hoped. The particular car I'm looking at is a 2008 Coupe, white with carbon roof, black interior, OEM dark grey 18" wheels and 26000 miles without any modifications at all. Maybe it was the colour combination. I would have bought the M3 on the spot if the seller would have been more willing to negotiate.

Neither of the cars felt "fun" to drive in regular traffic (which the Mini does to a degree) but overall I strongly preferred the M3 over the M135i. I expected the lack of torque from the N/A M3 to be a bigger issue but realistically both cars had more power and torque than I "need".

I'm am going to test drive a friend's (remapped) A45 AMG tomorrow. They were absurdly expensive new but would cost me very little import tax due to their good mpg rating (which you can easily double in real life). After doing a bit math I found that a used A45 would cost me the same as a similarly aged/equipped M135i.

I think the car for you is the M3.

As for soft/hard suspension, it has little to do with "sportiness", although yes a harsh ride it usually associated with sporty, that's just perception/marketing. Having driven a R56 on "sport" suspension around Goodwood it didn't even take the (modest) curbs without losing lat grip or traction (or both) where the std suspension was faster at the apex because it was softer. As you infer (or Colin Chapman for that matter) it's all about damping / control.

I agree the M135i is a little lazy on turn in but a 5mn toe adjust helps and it rolls. That's probably why I like it and that, associated with the MPSS, it does get away with it without a LSD IMO, at least in the dry.

[EricE]

nickfrog said:

Having driven a R56 on "sport" suspension around Goodwood it didn't even take the (modest) curbs without losing lat grip or traction (or both) where the std suspension was faster at the apex because it was softer. As you infer (or Colin Chapman for that matter) it's all about damping / control.

Yes, that's what I'm used to. The suspension is very harsh and most cars on sale these days have a softer and much more capable suspension without any disadvantages. I found that even though the suspension is far from optimal it does make the car quite fun on the street.

Drove my coworker's friends A45 today and it was quite something. It had OEM tyres (forgot to check which) and a remap to allegedly 410 bhp and 560 Nm. Scary fast, I'd say no slower than a F80 M4 in a straight line, minus the traction drama.
The ride was relatively hard and steering was direct (which I enjoyed) with very little body roll (compared to the M135i) but it felt like it would neither oversteer nor understeer at the speeds I drove.
In fact it felt like it was on rails, kind of like a mid-engined car with lazier turn in and without the mid corner adjustability.

The gearbox was the biggest disappointment, slow to react and sometimes simply ignored downshifts. There was quite a lot of turbo lag and the engine sounded more than a bit embarrassing in "Sports" mode with the valved sports exhaust option. It was just plain loud with enormous noise on shifts but not very nice to listen to.
Overall not what I'm looking for but I get the term "super hot hatch" now.
What a quick car though! It felt like it would lunch anything this side of a 911 Turbo in terms of downright pace around some more technical roads up a local mountain.

[bennyboysvuk]

nickfrog said:

As for soft/hard suspension, it has little to do with "sportiness", although yes a harsh ride it usually associated with sporty, that's just perception/marketing. Having driven a R56 on "sport" suspension around Goodwood it didn't even take the (modest) curbs without losing lat grip or traction (or both) where the std suspension was faster at the apex because it was softer. As you infer (or Colin Chapman for that matter) it's all about damping / control.

I agree the M135i is a little lazy on turn in but a 5mn toe adjust helps and it rolls. That's probably why I like it and that, associated with the MPSS, it does get away with it without a LSD IMO, at least in the dry.

But the joy of a very stiff set-up is the darty direction changes without having to worry nearly so much about the weight transition. I would think that in a Mini, on the road (or on a go-kart track), this would be great fun.

I still feel that the M135is suspension is compromised due to the lack of LSD. They've given it a fairly soft rear ARB to ensure that it's compliant enough not to lift the inside rear wheel off the ground, thus requiring an LSD. It's all a big compromise, but I think 90% of drivers won't push it that hard. For the 10% that will, it won't engage like the M3 can.

Eric - Interesting findings on the A45. All those things would put me off, so are you back to looking at the M3 again?

[Pole84]

I may be biased, but the M3 is definately the way to go...

The engine is an absolute masterpiece, and won International Engine of the Year for FIVE (!) years in a row 2009-2012 in the 4L category... only to be replaced by the Maclaren V8

If I were you I would avoid turboed petrol engine cars if you can- 15-20 years from now, highly strung naturally aspirated V8's will be as rare as hens teeth, and every performance car will be all about how much boost you can get out of your 2 litre. Sad state of affairs but ho hum.

I use mine only on the weekends, and the routine is always the same. Get in. Both windows down. Engine start button. Bliss. Happy owner for 2 years now. If I had to change when I need more space in a car, I would only go large capacity NA V8- the Merc 6.2L, Audi's 5.2L V10 etc, but I am not doing that in a hurry.

[rassi]

Having done a Belgium-Denmark-Belgium (2x 1000 km) trip in my E92 M3 last week, I concur that it is quite a remarkable car: While of course the turbocharged inline 6 (be it M135 or new M3/M4) may offer the instant torque craved by many, especially those coming from a turbo diesel (step forward cerb4.5lee ...) but the NA V8 has an amazing throttle response, and is a master piece that never failed to impress, regardless of what speed it was driven at. Being on the autobahn, that meant anything from 70 to 270 kph, and it was utterly stable, responsive and accelerative.

Coupled with the DCT it simply gives you all options, from relaxed cruiser in D (and contrary to the SMG of the E60 M5, the DCT works brilliantly also in D) to super snappy manual changes with a fantastic blip on down changes.

If I were you OP, go for an E92 with the updated CIC nav (so September 2008 onwards) and with DCT, you will have a very complete car and the last NA M made.

[texasjohn]

I'd imagine that the M3 can do cruiser duty with the six speed too, block change 1st to 3rd to 5th, you can skip the gears if you aren't in a hurry and ride the torque.

This used to work well in my LS-engined Trans Am anyway.

[rassi]

texasjohn said:

I'd imagine that the M3 can do cruiser duty with the six speed too, block change 1st to 3rd to 5th, you can skip the gears if you aren't in a hurry and ride the torque.

This used to work well in my LS-engined Trans Am anyway.

Absolutely, it is just that I found that the DCT works so brilliantly and gives the car a real dual personality. But personal preference, and all that.

[cerb4.5lee]

rassi said:

I concur that it is quite a remarkable car: While of course the turbocharged inline 6 (be it M135 or new M3/M4) may offer the instant torque craved by many, especially those coming from a turbo diesel (step forward cerb4.5lee ...) but the NA V8 has an amazing throttle response, and is a master piece that never failed to impress, regardless of what speed it was driven at.

Hang about! granted I spent six years in a 330d but I had my Cerbera as well and that engine never disappointed me(apart from when it broke down which was a lot!) and that didn't need to be thrashed to death to get it to move, admitted it only revved to 7500rpm against the 8400rpm of the M3 though.

The M3`s biggest issue is its a lard arse and never feels like its running 414bhp because it has too much kerb weight to drag around with it hence why it struggles low down in its rev range because it is relatively torque light.

The S65 is a masterpiece and that I cant argue with but its wasted in a 3 series as far as I am concerned and I would have liked to have enjoyed that engine in something that's not as heavy as the M3.

[cerb4.5lee]

rassi said:

texasjohn said:

I'd imagine that the M3 can do cruiser duty with the six speed too, block change 1st to 3rd to 5th, you can skip the gears if you aren't in a hurry and ride the torque.

This used to work well in my LS-engined Trans Am anyway.

Absolutely, it is just that I found that the DCT works so brilliantly and gives the car a real dual personality. But personal preference, and all that.

Rassi is right about the DCT and it does get more from the engine for sure and because mine was a manual I used to have to really work the gearbox to keep the revs as high as possible but I used to bounce into the limiter to then have to change again quickly losing a little momentum.

So it pains me to say it because I prefer a manual but the DCT is the best way to go with the V8 M3 I think.

[ORD]

cerb4.5lee said:

Hang about! granted I spent six years in a 330d but I had my Cerbera as well and that engine never disappointed me(apart from when it broke down which was a lot!) and that didn't need to be thrashed to death to get it to move, admitted it only revved to 7500rpm against the 8400rpm of the M3 though.

The M3`s biggest issue is its a lard arse and never feels like its running 414bhp because it has too much kerb weight to drag around with it hence why it struggles low down in its rev range because it is relatively torque light.

The S65 is a masterpiece and that I cant argue with but its wasted in a 3 series as far as I am concerned and I would have liked to have enjoyed that engine in something that's not as heavy as the M3.

A fair point - why not drop it into the M2

[cerb4.5lee]

ORD said:

A fair point - why not drop it into the M2

I very much like the mindset you have!

Looking forward to the M2 as it is as well.

[daz05]

cerb4.5lee said:

I used to have to really work the gearbox to keep the revs as high as possible but I used to bounce into the limiter to then have to change again quickly losing a little momentum.

I find that rewarding so disagree, DCT takes you away from the action. I never find torque an issue with the car except lower 3rd gear on a steeper hill in terms of feel but momentum vise there is no real problem. A shorter 3rd ratio would have been ideal as 4th is quite short.

[cerb4.5lee]

daz05 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

I used to have to really work the gearbox to keep the revs as high as possible but I used to bounce into the limiter to then have to change again quickly losing a little momentum.

I find that rewarding so disagree, DCT takes you away from the action. I never find torque an issue with the car except lower 3rd gear on a steeper hill in terms of feel but momentum vise there is no real problem. A shorter 3rd ratio would have been ideal as 4th is quite short.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy cog swapping and I wouldn't buy a DCT model myself for the reason you mention but the DCT is good for whipping through the gears to keep it in a sweet spot in some ways, agree about the 3rd gear ratio in the manual too.

My fondest memory of the car is 8400rpm in third with a quick change to fourth and that was really enjoyable.

[bennyboysvuk]

ORD said:

A fair point - why not drop it into the M2

How about a Judd V8 in a 1M coupe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lbxIJD3V8 THAT is the way to do it.

[Mermaid]

Shape of things to come
http://forums.m3cutters.co.uk/showthread.php?t=117...