Z4M / E46 M3 - Are they just not that fast?

[anonymous-user]

GregorFuk said:

{I don't want to argue what may or may not have been done. I guess my point was that 'Blueprinting' is a manufacturing process so whether it was or wasn't done isn't going to show up on the Electronic Parts Catalogue. The S54 used in the CSL revs the highest and pushes more power than any other off the shelf version of this engine. It has long been thought that BMW used the best castings for these engines. It's not hard to think that they may have spent a bit of extra time matching reciprocating weights, picking the best of the components coming off the assembly line and cleaning up any casting burrs in the inlet tract. You could call it Blueprinting, you could call it a little extra care'.

That's exactly what you are doing.

Show me solid fact based information produced by BMW M division and I'll humbly shut my trap and enjoy reading about it. Until then, it's nothing but internet opinions.

Maybe M division did put in the extra work to the engines to create an even greater S54, or maybe they just punted them out the door in the same way as the boggo E46 M3's and let the fancy carbon eye candy do the job.

It's a nice notion to have a car sitting in the garage that's been meticulously hand tuned prior to leaving the factory, I agree. But there is probably a very high chance that it's simply not true.

[0836whimper]

Need to ask Hans-Bruno Starke or Peter Schmidt

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=129...

[andyman_2006]

DoubleTime said:

GregorFuk said:

{I don't want to argue what may or may not have been done. I guess my point was that 'Blueprinting' is a manufacturing process so whether it was or wasn't done isn't going to show up on the Electronic Parts Catalogue. The S54 used in the CSL revs the highest and pushes more power than any other off the shelf version of this engine. It has long been thought that BMW used the best castings for these engines. It's not hard to think that they may have spent a bit of extra time matching reciprocating weights, picking the best of the components coming off the assembly line and cleaning up any casting burrs in the inlet tract. You could call it Blueprinting, you could call it a little extra care'.

That's exactly what you are doing.

Show me solid fact based information produced by BMW M division and I'll humbly shut my trap and enjoy reading about it. Until then, it's nothing but internet opinions.

Maybe M division did put in the extra work to the engines to create an even greater S54, or maybe they just punted them out the door in the same way as the boggo E46 M3's and let the fancy carbon eye candy do the job.

It's a nice notion to have a car sitting in the garage that's been meticulously hand tuned prior to leaving the factory, I agree. But there is probably a very high chance that it's simply not true.

---

FFS its well known the CSL has a better engine (uprated) than the standard S54 M3 everyone knows it, and as a result of this plus rarity, and other lighter components the cars are now worth up to £80K. They are faster than a standard M3, have many different engine components to a standard S54 M3, are lighter and us 'normal' M3 owners understand and accept this, end of.

Whether there is a document from M-Division with proof or reference to 'was it blueprinted or not' makes no difference to me, and i'm sure many other owners of non CSL's. All we know is bmw no longer build CSL spec cars, and haven't built a CSL in any ilk since the E46 S54 one.

Could we end this stupid argument please.

Andy

[anonymous-user]

0836whimper said:

Need to ask Hans-Bruno Starke or Peter Schmidt

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=129...

That was an interesting read, thanks for that.

Unfortunately there still wasn't any mention on the engine upgrades.

andyman_2006 said:

---

FFS its well known the CSL has a better engine (uprated) than the standard S54 M3 everyone knows it, and as a result of this plus rarity, and other lighter components the cars are now worth up to £80K. They are faster than a standard M3, have many different engine components to a standard S54 M3, are lighter and us 'normal' M3 owners understand and accept this, end of.

Whether there is a document from M-Division with proof or reference to 'was it blueprinted or not' makes no difference to me, and i'm sure many other owners of non CSL's. All we know is bmw no longer build CSL spec cars, and haven't built a CSL in any ilk since the E46 S54 one.

Could we end this stupid argument please.

Andy

Oh sorry Mr Internet. Has this discussion not gone the exact way YOU wanted it to? You do realise why these websites are called FORUMS don't you? It's not an argument, it's a friendly debate.

You may be contended with rumors whilst others need factual information.

[k-ink]

I think the above post highlights a general internet issue. Some pop in to discuss and debate things, to maybe find out if they are wrong or on the right path. Others wade into battle

[mark.c]

cerb4.5lee said:

e21Mark said:

High revving, normally aspirated engines (such as the s14, s54 etc) were never designed with motorway driving in mind.

I wouldn't completely agree and if you take the E92 M3 as an example...it's a comfortable cruiser first and foremost with all the mod cons for blasting up and down motorways for me.

That's where the problem lies sadly with cars like the M3 and they try to do so many things well...yet end up being a master of none of them.

Surely that is something that could be levelled at the majority of cars though, there will always be an element of compromise. To not have it would mean all of us would be trying to commute or drop the kids off to school in an Atom or the like. I think that a car like the E46 M3 should be celebrated because it can do so much. Rear drive, capable chassis, chuckable, rev happy N/A lump that can also house the kids safely and comfortably.

I also wonder whether some would still consider an E46 M3 slow if they sat next to a proper wheelman (not me I hasten to add) to see what the car is really capable of as opposed to a straight line drag against some modern turbo charged hot hatch?

[GregorFuk]

0836whimper said:

Need to ask Hans-Bruno Starke or Peter Schmidt

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=129...

This is a good read, but probably best not to treat it as the bible. As I recal reference is made to the arches being made wide me which is 100% not the case. Memories are getting hazy, even within the design team.

[andyman_2006]

DoubleTime said:

Oh sorry Mr Internet. Has this discussion not gone the exact way YOU wanted it to? You do realise why these websites are called FORUMS don't you? It's not an argument, it's a friendly debate.

You may be contended with rumors whilst others need factual information.

---

I dont exactly mind which way the discussion goes, however I simply dont see your obsession with another posters blueprinted comment....

I'm perfectly content with not having a blueprinted engine in my car thats all and also perfectly content that the CSL version was different enough for it to be deemed special. Is it blueprinted? who knows but its better than my stock S54....for some reason you're still intent on chasing proof that a CSL needs some further provenance of some sort...

Andy

[andyman_2006]

mark.c said:

Surely that is something that could be levelled at the majority of cars though, there will always be an element of compromise. To not have it would mean all of us would be trying to commute or drop the kids off to school in an Atom or the like. I think that a car like the E46 M3 should be celebrated because it can do so much. Rear drive, capable chassis, chuckable, rev happy N/A lump that can also house the kids safely and comfortably.

I also wonder whether some would still consider an E46 M3 slow if they sat next to a proper wheelman (not me I hasten to add) to see what the car is really capable of as opposed to a straight line drag against some modern turbo charged hot hatch?

---

Agree with you're comments fully Mark..all cars have some form of compromise.

on the 2nd point, I had the fortunate chance to be a passenger in a Palmer Sport E92 M3 being driven by a proper racing driver (BTCC) and it really shows how quick the cars can go around Oulton park....and made me realise how slow i was when driving the very same car on the same circuit. I still enjoyed my track time (20 laps) but shows how little skill and performance is used on the open road most of the time in these cars, and how much skill and performance the car needs to be using to go really quickly.

Suppose a motorway rolling race or a slip road drag doesn't fully show the true overall performance of a car designed to go fast around a track, and its not all about straight line outright speed.

Andy

[rb5er]

andyman_2006 said:

I dont exactly mind which way the discussion goes, however I simply dont see your obsession with another posters blueprinted comment....

I think the obsession is more that people won't believe its not blueprinted and feel the need to continue arguing that it is, without any evidence.

He wouldn't have felt the need to reply if he didn't keep getting people arguing that it is with no evidence.

If you let it lie then he wouldn't feel the need to have retort to what he sees as unsubstantiated claims.

Bang your head on the wall all you like but it is you that has kept the debate going. Or just carry on, but I suggest you find some substance if you want to argue the point.

[k-ink]

Does it even matter one way or the other? Not really!

[rb5er]

k-ink said:

Does it even matter one way or the other? Not really!

Nope, not really, but its nice to have a factual conversation rather than talk about something that may just be make believe.

If nobody ever picked anyone up on untrue "facts" then we'd all just be talking more nonsense than needs to be talked.

[andyman_2006]

rb5er said:

I think the obsession is more that people won't believe its not blueprinted and feel the need to continue arguing that it is, without any evidence.

He wouldn't have felt the need to reply if he didn't keep getting people arguing that it is with no evidence.

If you let it lie then he wouldn't feel the need to have retort to what he sees as unsubstantiated claims.

Bang your head on the wall all you like but it is you that has kept the debate going. Or just carry on, but I suggest you find some substance if you want to argue the point.

---

Well I never said it was blueprinted, it was me that said 'lets stop the argument' about this blueprint stuff, all i said was simply 'its more special' than a non CSL S54, simple.

I also dont care if it is or not.

Andy

[mwstewart]

CSL engine is not blueprinted M3s with the same bolt on parts make more power with a better tune (CSL is of course capable of the same with a decent tune). The short block is a different part number because of the short dipstick tube that's required to clear the airbox. The motor revs 'harder' and higher because of everything we know about: better flowing airbox, exhaust, and different cam profiles.

I researched the car thoroughly when converting my E46 (so I know the oft quoted list posted above is also incorrect in several places).

[Leins]

It was me who initially brought up the "blueprinting" thing, but it was only said in passing as that was my understanding. TBH, it never bothered me either way when I owned the car, and even less now that I don't. My point was more that I found it a magnificent noisy car that was always an event to drive, and a major part of that was due to its S54. While not supercar fast, I never found the car lacking myself. In fact I was out in a supercharged CSL a few years back, and not only had it lost its signature sound, I felt it was almost too quick for the road. Make of that what you will I suppose

[Baz Tench]

I go on M3Cutters sometimes, and I'm sure there was someone on there who listed all the engine differences the CSL had. There were many!

[cerb4.5lee]

andyman_2006 said:

mark.c said:

Surely that is something that could be levelled at the majority of cars though, there will always be an element of compromise. To not have it would mean all of us would be trying to commute or drop the kids off to school in an Atom or the like. I think that a car like the E46 M3 should be celebrated because it can do so much. Rear drive, capable chassis, chuckable, rev happy N/A lump that can also house the kids safely and comfortably.

I also wonder whether some would still consider an E46 M3 slow if they sat next to a proper wheelman (not me I hasten to add) to see what the car is really capable of as opposed to a straight line drag against some modern turbo charged hot hatch?

---

Agree with you're comments fully Mark..all cars have some form of compromise.

on the 2nd point, I had the fortunate chance to be a passenger in a Palmer Sport E92 M3 being driven by a proper racing driver (BTCC) and it really shows how quick the cars can go around Oulton park....and made me realise how slow i was when driving the very same car on the same circuit. I still enjoyed my track time (20 laps) but shows how little skill and performance is used on the open road most of the time in these cars, and how much skill and performance the car needs to be using to go really quickly.

Suppose a motorway rolling race or a slip road drag doesn't fully show the true overall performance of a car designed to go fast around a track, and its not all about straight line outright speed.

Andy

I accept all cars have a compromise but I don't really get the remit of the E92 M3, you mention the E92 M3 is a car designed to go fast around a track yet they are purchased by sales reps or similar mostly hence why I always mention it's cruising and comfort that is their best quality overall.

My biggest criticism with both the E46 M3/E92 M3 is that their engines are best suited to a track but for me they are built for the road primarily and that's where the problem lies...if you want an exciting/engaging track car surely a car based on a practical family car isn't going to be the first choice.

Hence where my jack of all trades and master of none opinion comes from.

[bennyboysvuk]

cerb4.5lee said:

My biggest criticism with both the E46 M3/E92 M3 is that their engines are best suited to a track but for me they are built for the road primarily and that's where the problem lies...if you want an exciting/engaging track car surely a car based on a practical family car isn't going to be the first choice.

However, if you really want a car that would shine a little on the track, yet must be capable of lugging the family about as well then it's still probably the best off-the-shelf choice out there...though I'd love a thread all about cars that fulfil that remit.

[mark.c]

cerb4.5lee said:

I accept all cars have a compromise but I don't really get the remit of the E92 M3, you mention the E92 M3 is a car designed to go fast around a track yet they are purchased by sales reps or similar mostly hence why I always mention it's cruising and comfort that is their best quality overall.

My biggest criticism with both the E46 M3/E92 M3 is that their engines are best suited to a track but for me they are built for the road primarily and that's where the problem lies...if you want an exciting/engaging track car surely a car based on a practical family car isn't going to be the first choice.

Hence where my jack of all trades and master of none opinion comes from.

I get that, but that's the thing....if you want an exciting/engaging track car and have no other use for that car other than track or ultimate fast road duty then you buy an Atom etc. If however you need that car to earn it's money elsewhere in the form of family/daily duties then I think that the M3 in whatever format does a superb job of achieving a high degree of success in all areas. Yes it will never be as precise as an Atom but them a Atom wont take the kids to school.

Is there a car out there that you have in mind that the M3 could aspire to be?

[cerb4.5lee]

mark.c said:

Is there a car out there that you have in mind that the M3 could aspire to be?

The M3 is about as good as it gets I think, I prefer the two car option though an exciting/engaging car purpose built and then something comfy for the weekdays.