RE: The new BMW M3
Discussion
fatboy b said:
Still baffles me how they've allowed this side profile of the Coupe to get into production. It looks like some 6-year old has just drawn the rear wheel in a random position. Looks totally daft.
From some angles, it does look reasonable, but the colour and that rear wheel positioning? I wouldn't be seen dead in that.
I'll stick to my E36 318 iS thanks; well balanced chassis and nowhere near enough power to get me into any sorts of trouble
Havoc,
Yup, but as Adam says, as indeed did I, those that crave feedback and connection with the vehicle they drive aren't the target for these things.
I'd say a high majority of them will be sold as trinkets for those who rate badge and company/golf club/gym car-park willy waving as higher priorities than being able to experiment with the limit on their favourite road across the Fens.
I'd put money on the fact that if you surveyed all new M3 owners as they left the showroom, very few would be able to tell you why the E30 M3 was like it was, the ethos behind it, and what it achieved for BMW. Similarly, I suspect that the majority of new RS4 owners have no idea about the UR-quattro, or that those that buy the forthcoming C-Class AMG haven't got the foggiest about the 190E 2.3-16 and what it meant for Merc in general.
The relevance of previous incarnations of the breed, and any evolutionary aspects are simply lost due to irrelevance. But in the world of motoring Journalism, they seem unable to let go of the icons that have gone before, and, it seems, unable to grasp that the M3 badge has only once stood for Motorsport - since 1992 it's been a marketing thing denoting arsing great engine and higher servicing costs. Did Prialux win the WTCC in an M3?
Comparing the new M3 with it's forebears is like comparing a Spitfire with a Typhoon - certainly the Spit is more evocative, achieved something sensational and generally makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand-up, but which would you rather fly into combat these days?
I'm not defending the new M3, and won't pass any judgement until I've driven it - I'm just saying it's a consequence of it's time.
It's a curiously British thing to constantly benchmark the past - I wonder if the Continental mags will bemoan it's apparently lack of driver involvement compared with it's forerunners? or if they'll focus on some of the progression aspects from the E46
Having said that, my own opinion is that it looks like a contrived mess of marketing and engineering - less torque and more weight doesn't bode well. However, when it hits the road in the UK, it will suddenly make the E46 look terribly dated - just as the E46 did to the E36, and the so on. That is one thing BMW are very good at.
Yup, but as Adam says, as indeed did I, those that crave feedback and connection with the vehicle they drive aren't the target for these things.
I'd say a high majority of them will be sold as trinkets for those who rate badge and company/golf club/gym car-park willy waving as higher priorities than being able to experiment with the limit on their favourite road across the Fens.
I'd put money on the fact that if you surveyed all new M3 owners as they left the showroom, very few would be able to tell you why the E30 M3 was like it was, the ethos behind it, and what it achieved for BMW. Similarly, I suspect that the majority of new RS4 owners have no idea about the UR-quattro, or that those that buy the forthcoming C-Class AMG haven't got the foggiest about the 190E 2.3-16 and what it meant for Merc in general.
The relevance of previous incarnations of the breed, and any evolutionary aspects are simply lost due to irrelevance. But in the world of motoring Journalism, they seem unable to let go of the icons that have gone before, and, it seems, unable to grasp that the M3 badge has only once stood for Motorsport - since 1992 it's been a marketing thing denoting arsing great engine and higher servicing costs. Did Prialux win the WTCC in an M3?
Comparing the new M3 with it's forebears is like comparing a Spitfire with a Typhoon - certainly the Spit is more evocative, achieved something sensational and generally makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand-up, but which would you rather fly into combat these days?
I'm not defending the new M3, and won't pass any judgement until I've driven it - I'm just saying it's a consequence of it's time.
It's a curiously British thing to constantly benchmark the past - I wonder if the Continental mags will bemoan it's apparently lack of driver involvement compared with it's forerunners? or if they'll focus on some of the progression aspects from the E46
Having said that, my own opinion is that it looks like a contrived mess of marketing and engineering - less torque and more weight doesn't bode well. However, when it hits the road in the UK, it will suddenly make the E46 look terribly dated - just as the E46 did to the E36, and the so on. That is one thing BMW are very good at.
Edited by Dunk76 on Monday 9th July 10:19
There is ONE person on this thread who has driven the car and his view is that the new car feels lighter on its feet than the old one and more raw. Despite this everyone wants to jump on the "M3 gone soft" bandwagon. I read misinformation that the car is 120kg heavier than it is. I see the same old "no torque" idiocy, which just shows a misunderstanding of the M GmbH ethos (go buy an AMG if you just want torque). And there is someone who'd rather have an Alpina - Alpinas are lovely cruise machines with torquey engines and auto gearboxes, but nothing like an M car.
I despair.
I despair.
Zod said:
There is ONE person on this thread who has driven the car and his view is that the new car feels lighter on its feet than the old one and more raw. Despite this everyone wants to jump on the "M3 gone soft" bandwagon. I read misinformation that the car is 120kg heavier than it is. I see the same old "no torque" idiocy, which just shows a misunderstanding of the M GmbH ethos (go buy an AMG if you just want torque). And there is someone who'd rather have an Alpina - Alpinas are lovely cruise machines with torquey engines and auto gearboxes, but nothing like an M car.
I despair.
Zod - Exactly I despair.
Looking forward to mine arriving like an excited puppy
Dunk76 said:
in the world of motoring Journalism, they seem unable to let go of the icons that have gone before, and, it seems, unable to grasp that the M3 badge has only once stood for Motorsport - since 1992 it's been a marketing thing denoting arsing great engine and higher servicing costs
According to the BMW USA website "“M” stands for Motorsport. And there’s no question that these cars have racing in their blood.".I think it's reasonable that journos (and the rest of us) compare the reality to the marketing pitch.
IMO the press tends to be too kind to BMW. The Autocar review said:
"...the steering never scores more than six out of 10 no matter where or how you drive the car. Nor do the brakes, which suffered from fade on the road...Or the fuel consumption, which was regularly down in the mid-teens on roads on which the old car would have hit well over 20mpg....You are not likely to be disappointed by the new M3 because in many ways it is a deeply impressive car, with a huge range of abilities and very few flaws"
So, steering and brakes 6/10, but in conclusion it's deeply impressive with very few flaws. That's completely inconsistent. I would have thought steering and brakes are rather important if you want to drive fast and enjoy it.
When Mercedes or Audi build a car with a great engine and crap steering/brakes, they get caned. When BMW do it, it's a minor flaw on an otherwise great car. Go figure.
John
Zod said:
There is ONE person on this thread who has driven the car and his view is that the new car feels lighter on its feet than the old one and more raw. Despite this everyone wants to jump on the "M3 gone soft" bandwagon. I read misinformation that the car is 120kg heavier than it is. I see the same old "no torque" idiocy, which just shows a misunderstanding of the M GmbH ethos (go buy an AMG if you just want torque). And there is someone who'd rather have an Alpina - Alpinas are lovely cruise machines with torquey engines and auto gearboxes, but nothing like an M car.
I despair.
Vast proportion of naysayers are also those that are in no position to buy such a car. I may or may not be in a position to buy one but, I wouldn't say it's a piece of crap until I had driven it mainly because I understand the press seem to be writing for each other at the moment and not for the eventual drivers of the cars.I despair.
Like this review saying the M3 will not induce a handling thrill comparable to a cayman - I mean no sh1t sherlock. Please note, 4 seats, an immensly usable boot and the Z4MC. If I was the editor I'd be asking for a rewite on crud like that. How does it compare to the 4 seat merc, how does it compare to the forthcoming RS5 (if there's one the S5 if not)...
Get with the plot.
I will usually stick up for BMW, esp. the M-sport division (it's the closest thing out there to Honda's "Type R" philosophy...another brand that's getting softer under the weight of 'Marketing').
And I think the new engine/chassis combination will be storming (regardless of the position of that rear wheel!
). But I can't help but feel that we'll have to wait for the CS/CSL to get the 'full-fat M-sport' version of this car.
Not a criticism of the car, just of marketing and what 'customers' apparently want...
And I think the new engine/chassis combination will be storming (regardless of the position of that rear wheel!
). But I can't help but feel that we'll have to wait for the CS/CSL to get the 'full-fat M-sport' version of this car. Not a criticism of the car, just of marketing and what 'customers' apparently want...
Olf said:
Like this review saying the M3 will not induce a handling thrill comparable to a cayman - I mean no sh1t sherlock. Please note, 4 seats, an immensly usable boot and the Z4MC
I remember when the last M3 came out it was compared very favourably with the 911, the only criticisms being the worse ride quality and a little less steering feel (and the brakes, obviously!).So I think it's still quite interesting to compare the M3 to the best that Porsche have to offer (as a benchmark) even if they are different types of cars. But obviously more useful to compare to other 3-door, 4 seat coupes - but no doubt that will come in the group tests.
John
Edited by LathamJohnP on Monday 9th July 10:54
Zod said:
There is ONE person on this thread who has driven the car and his view is that the new car feels lighter on its feet than the old one and more raw. Despite this everyone wants to jump on the "M3 gone soft" bandwagon. I read misinformation that the car is 120kg heavier than it is. I see the same old "no torque" idiocy, which just shows a misunderstanding of the M GmbH ethos (go buy an AMG if you just want torque). And there is someone who'd rather have an Alpina - Alpinas are lovely cruise machines with torquey engines and auto gearboxes, but nothing like an M car.
I despair.
Agreed, but you know 'experts'. Done nothing, know everything I despair.
Its easier to jump on a bandwaggon than stand out from the masses.
Edited by housemaster on Monday 9th July 11:08
Zod said:
And there is someone who'd rather have an Alpina - Alpinas are lovely cruise machines with torquey engines and auto gearboxes, but nothing like an M car.
I despair.
It was I who suggested (rather more tongue-in-cheek than you assume) that I 'think I'll save 5 grand and get an Alpina B3' - that's the new Biturbo one by the way, and it produces 360bhp and 368lb/ft of torque - the latter more than 24% more than the new M3 even if the BMW has a corral more horses. In last week's Autocar Steve Sutcliffe hinted that the Alpina may be the better everyday road car and the better of the two, unless the new M3 'rewrites the rule book' - which Adam Towler suggests is doesn't.I despair.
I have owned two M3s, both the E46 variant. I bought a 6-month old M3 SMG in 2003 and a new manual CSL in 2004 which (thank god) I sold pretty fast, only because the depreciation turned out to be off-the-edge-of-a-cliff. I loved both, and still prefer the looks of the E46 M3 to the new one.
One thing you can't deny about an Alpina - it's a rare sight, whereas an M3 is almost ubiquitous. One of the things about car ownership I hate the most is depreciation - the biggest cost by far - and it's a safe bet that in 5 years' time a 2007 Alpina B3S will be worth MORE than a 2007 M3 even though it cost less in the first place. And Alpina spec 'em up well, too.
Maybe I'd change my mind after driving both, but at the moment it's the exclusivity of the Alpina that appeals.
pistonbroak said:
Zod said:
And there is someone who'd rather have an Alpina - Alpinas are lovely cruise machines with torquey engines and auto gearboxes, but nothing like an M car.
I despair.
It was I who suggested (rather more tongue-in-cheek than you assume) that I 'think I'll save 5 grand and get an Alpina B3' - that's the new Biturbo one by the way, and it produces 360bhp and 368lb/ft of torque - the latter more than 24% more than the new M3 even if the BMW has a corral more horses. In last week's Autocar Steve Sutcliffe hinted that the Alpina may be the better everyday road car and the better of the two, unless the new M3 'rewrites the rule book' - which Adam Towler suggests is doesn't.I despair.
I have owned two M3s, both the E46 variant. I bought a 6-month old M3 SMG in 2003 and a new manual CSL in 2004 which (thank god) I sold pretty fast, only because the depreciation turned out to be off-the-edge-of-a-cliff. I loved both, and still prefer the looks of the E46 M3 to the new one.
One thing you can't deny about an Alpina - it's a rare sight, whereas an M3 is almost ubiquitous. One of the things about car ownership I hate the most is depreciation - the biggest cost by far - and it's a safe bet that in 5 years' time a 2007 Alpina B3S will be worth MORE than a 2007 M3 even though it cost less in the first place. And Alpina spec 'em up well, too.
Maybe I'd change my mind after driving both, but at the moment it's the exclusivity of the Alpina that appeals.
pistonbroak said:
Zod said:
And there is someone who'd rather have an Alpina - Alpinas are lovely cruise machines with torquey engines and auto gearboxes, but nothing like an M car.
I despair.
It was I who suggested (rather more tongue-in-cheek than you assume) that I 'think I'll save 5 grand and get an Alpina B3' - that's the new Biturbo one by the way, and it produces 360bhp and 368lb/ft of torque - the latter more than 24% more than the new M3 even if the BMW has a corral more horses. In last week's Autocar Steve Sutcliffe hinted that the Alpina may be the better everyday road car and the better of the two, unless the new M3 'rewrites the rule book' - which Adam Towler suggests is doesn't.I despair.
I have owned two M3s, both the E46 variant. I bought a 6-month old M3 SMG in 2003 and a new manual CSL in 2004 which (thank god) I sold pretty fast, only because the depreciation turned out to be off-the-edge-of-a-cliff. I loved both, and still prefer the looks of the E46 M3 to the new one.
One thing you can't deny about an Alpina - it's a rare sight, whereas an M3 is almost ubiquitous. One of the things about car ownership I hate the most is depreciation - the biggest cost by far - and it's a safe bet that in 5 years' time a 2007 Alpina B3S will be worth MORE than a 2007 M3 even though it cost less in the first place. And Alpina spec 'em up well, too.
Maybe I'd change my mind after driving both, but at the moment it's the exclusivity of the Alpina that appeals.
Zod said:
There is ONE person on this thread who has driven the car and his view is that the new car feels lighter on its feet than the old one and more raw. Despite this everyone wants to jump on the "M3 gone soft" bandwagon. I read misinformation that the car is 120kg heavier than it is. I see the same old "no torque" idiocy, which just shows a misunderstanding of the M GmbH ethos (go buy an AMG if you just want torque). And there is someone who'd rather have an Alpina - Alpinas are lovely cruise machines with torquey engines and auto gearboxes, but nothing like an M car.
I despair.
TWO infact - and we appear to agree. Hilarious that, based on a couple of early and hardly exhuastive road test reports, everyone seems to know for a fact exactly how heavy, soft, lacking in torque etc etc. the new car feels. In fact there are some who seem to have a better feel for the car than me - without having driven it! All done by ESP I guess.I despair.
pistonbroak said:
I have owned two M3s, both the E46 variant. I bought a 6-month old M3 SMG in 2003 and a new manual CSL in 2004 which (thank god) I sold pretty fast, only because the depreciation turned out to be off-the-edge-of-a-cliff. I loved both, and still prefer the looks of the E46 M3 to the new one.
Manual CSL?Olf said:
If I was the editor I'd be asking for a rewite on crud like that. How does it compare to the 4 seat merc, how does it compare to the forthcoming RS5 (if there's one the S5 if not)...
Hi Olf, I am the site manager and Adam, who wrote the piece, is the PH Editor and a hugely experienced road tester- being road test ed for Autocar previously. We wanted a first drive and that's what this piece is, it's not supposed to be a comparison test (that will follow- as you will realise we can't take competitor cars along to launches). When I saw the copy I was more than happy with it, I didn't see it as crud as you suggest.
I'm happy with the piece, as Adam says at the end, the car will suit most people- I guess you can say the same about the feature?
G
m12_nathan said:
pistonbroak said:
I have owned two M3s, both the E46 variant. I bought a 6-month old M3 SMG in 2003 and a new manual CSL in 2004 which (thank god) I sold pretty fast, only because the depreciation turned out to be off-the-edge-of-a-cliff. I loved both, and still prefer the looks of the E46 M3 to the new one.
Manual CSL?Edited by housemaster on Monday 9th July 12:34
RS4 - I don't want 4WD
RS5 - Looks horrible to my eyes
M3 - So far reviews have been underwhelming
C63 AMG - Very positive reviews, maybe this is the small performance saloon of choice?
I'd love to see a group test of these cars, with an LSD-equipped 335i and 911 thrown in for good measure.
RS5 - Looks horrible to my eyes
M3 - So far reviews have been underwhelming
C63 AMG - Very positive reviews, maybe this is the small performance saloon of choice?
I'd love to see a group test of these cars, with an LSD-equipped 335i and 911 thrown in for good measure.
Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff