RE: Spotted: BMW M3 CS

[s m]

Matt Bird said:

s m said:

darreni said:

Heres a list of CSL specific parts, not all of them as there are many other changes, the battery is different, all of the brake calipers are CSL specific as are springs & dampers, boot floor, trim, drive shafts, etc etc.


BMW OEM M3 CSL PARTS PRICE LIST
OEM PART DESCRIPTION OEM PART NUMBER CA RETAIL PRICE INC VAT
19" CSL FRONT WHEEL EACH 36 11 2 282 650 £494.70
19"CSL REAR WHEEL EACH 36 11 2 282 999 £494.70

Are the rears bespoke only to the CSL? Or used on the CS as well? Were there special lightweight versions originally for the CSL that have been superceded now and the same rears are specced for CS/CSL on replacement? Are the CS wheels that look the same actually lighter overall than the CSL as they only run an 8x19" version at the front?
Were the CSL Cup tyres significantly lighter than the Pilot Sports?

Genuine CSL wheels are lighter than the reps on a CS. The wheels are the CS are believed to be lighter than the standard M3 19s I think.

I did wonder that - the Style 163 CS wheels certainly seem to be lighter than the 19" polished Style 67s on the normal M3 by some 2.5kg per rear wheel and approx 2.2kg per front wheel. Nearly 10kg overall

However, the part number that 'darreni' has given for the bespoke CSL rears seems to resolve as the same part number for the CS rear wheels now, 36 11 2 282 999?
The CSL fronts are unique as they are 8.5" x 19s whereas the CS are just 8" and have a different offset.
That's why I wondered if the original CSL rear wheels weren't available any longer and they'd just gone to CS rears.
Any CSL nut know the comparative weights of the CSL fronts vs the CS fronts and CSL rears vs CS rears?
Did the CSL used to use Style 127s and they've now morphed to to a 163 variant?

[Leins]

s m said:

I did wonder that - the Style 163 CS wheels certainly seem to be lighter than the 19" polished Style 67s on the normal M3 by some 2.5kg per rear wheel and approx 2.2kg per front wheel. Nearly 10kg overall

However, the part number that 'darreni' has given for the bespoke CSL rears seems to resolve as the same part number for the CS rear wheels now, 36 11 2 282 999?
The CSL fronts are unique as they are 8.5" x 19s whereas the CS are just 8" and have a different offset.
That's why I wondered if the original CSL rear wheels weren't available any longer and they'd just gone to CS rears.
Any CSL nut know the comparative weights of the CSL fronts vs the CS fronts and CSL rears vs CS rears?
Did the CSL used to use Style 127s and they've now morphed to to a 163 variant?

I started looking into wheel weights earlier in the year as was interested to see why a good few Japanese CSLs were running Rays TE37s

Anyway, the general consensus that I found on CSL and Comp Pack (CS) wheels were that the rears were the same, but the CSL fronts were slightly lighter, despite being wider:

Front ZCP: 19x8 et47 23.0 lbs
Front CSL: 19x8.5 et44 22.8 lbs
Rears both: 19x9.5 et27 24.2 lbs

[s m]

Leins said:

s m said:

I did wonder that - the Style 163 CS wheels certainly seem to be lighter than the 19" polished Style 67s on the normal M3 by some 2.5kg per rear wheel and approx 2.2kg per front wheel. Nearly 10kg overall

However, the part number that 'darreni' has given for the bespoke CSL rears seems to resolve as the same part number for the CS rear wheels now, 36 11 2 282 999?
The CSL fronts are unique as they are 8.5" x 19s whereas the CS are just 8" and have a different offset.
That's why I wondered if the original CSL rear wheels weren't available any longer and they'd just gone to CS rears.
Any CSL nut know the comparative weights of the CSL fronts vs the CS fronts and CSL rears vs CS rears?
Did the CSL used to use Style 127s and they've now morphed to to a 163 variant?

I started looking into wheel weights earlier in the year as was interested to see why a good few Japanese CSLs were running Rays TE37s

Anyway, the general consensus that I found on CSL and Comp Pack (CS) wheels were that the rears were the same, but the CSL fronts were slightly lighter, despite being wider:

Front ZCP: 19x8 et47 23.0 lbs
Front CSL: 19x8.5 et44 22.8 lbs
Rears both: 19x9.5 et27 24.2 lbs

Ah good stuff Leins - that's what the part numbers seemed to suggest too, that the CSL and CS rears are now quoted as the same part number. I did wonder if there'd been a lighter version of the CSL rear available at some point. So effectively, unless the Cup tyres on the CSL are substantially lighter than the CS pack OE tyre, there's probably very little difference between a CS and CSL in wheel/tyre package weight?

[Leins]

s m said:

Ah good stuff Leins - that's what the part numbers seemed to suggest too, that the CSL and CS rears are now quoted as the same part number. I did wonder if there'd been a lighter version of the CSL rear available at some point. So effectively, unless the Cup tyres on the CSL are substantially lighter than the CS pack OE tyre, there's probably very little difference between a CS and CSL in wheel/tyre package weight?

That's what I'd have thought anyway, although no idea how a Cup tyre shapes up against a PS2 or a PSS in terms of weight

Also, it turned out that the TE37 wheels seemed to be a bit lighter again in the same size, so it wasn't just that the Japanese were going for their own wheel brand

[s m]

Leins said:

That's what I'd have thought anyway, although no idea how a Cup tyre shapes up against a PS2 or a PSS in terms of weight

Also, it turned out that the TE37 wheels seemed to be a bit lighter again in the same size, so it wasn't just that the Japanese were going for their own wheel brand

Has your CSL got the aircon option chap?

Ever weighed the car? Did it come out about 1415 -> 1420kg?

[Leins]

s m said:

Has your CSL got the aircon option chap?

Ever weighed the car? Did it come out about 1415 -> 1420kg?

Yeah mine has aircon, xenons and CD, but no parking sensors. It actually came with 19" M-spokes & standard tyres (plus the factory delimit ), but the original owner swapped those at some point for the CSLs

Never weighed it mind, must do and see

[MattOz]

Leins said:

I started looking into wheel weights earlier in the year as was interested to see why a good few Japanese CSLs were running Rays TE37s

Anyway, the general consensus that I found on CSL and Comp Pack (CS) wheels were that the rears were the same, but the CSL fronts were slightly lighter, despite being wider:

Front ZCP: 19x8 et47 23.0 lbs
Front CSL: 19x8.5 et44 22.8 lbs
Rears both: 19x9.5 et27 24.2 lbs

And some CS's left the factory with 8.5" fronts too. Imagine that?!

[Gruber]

Pr1964 said:

For the same price £13k

Yes the E92 335i isn’t as hard core as an M3 but it’s not that far behind.

I personally can’t see the appeal of the older E46 M3’s which are now looking a little dated and will just need constant maintenance and there’s the issue of the rear end to worry about even more as time marches on….

Are you serious?

I'm sure the 335i is a very able car, but "not far behind" an M3? Don't talk daft.

[s m]

MattOz said:

Leins said:

I started looking into wheel weights earlier in the year as was interested to see why a good few Japanese CSLs were running Rays TE37s

Anyway, the general consensus that I found on CSL and Comp Pack (CS) wheels were that the rears were the same, but the CSL fronts were slightly lighter, despite being wider:

Front ZCP: 19x8 et47 23.0 lbs
Front CSL: 19x8.5 et44 22.8 lbs
Rears both: 19x9.5 et27 24.2 lbs

And some CS's left the factory with 8.5" fronts too. Imagine that?!

Not the first time they've used the leftovers up.....

[s m]

Leins said:

Yeah mine has aircon, xenons and CD, but no parking sensors. It actually came with 19" M-spokes & standard tyres (plus the factory delimit ), but the original owner swapped those at some point for the CSLs

Never weighed it mind, must do and see

I've seen someone weighed a German one with a/c at 1425kg and a Jap one at 1430kg.

Most normal M3s seem to start at about 1540kg and head up to 1580kg depending on options

[Leins]

Pr1964 said:

For the same price £13k

Yes the E92 335i isn’t as hard core as an M3 but it’s not that far behind.

I personally can’t see the appeal of the older E46 M3’s which are now looking a little dated and will just need constant maintenance and there’s the issue of the rear end to worry about even more as time marches on….


E46 M3
Fuel consumption (urban) 13.8 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 30.4 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 21.1 mpg
0 - 62 mph 5.2 seconds
Top speed 155 mph
Cylinders 6
Valves 24 v
Engine power 343 bhp
Engine torque 269 lbs/ft

E92 335i
Fuel consumption (urban) 21.6 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 40.9 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 30.7 mpg
0 - 62 mph 5.7 seconds
Top speed 155 mph
Cylinders 6
Valves 24 v
Engine power 306 bhp
Engine torque 295 lbs/ft


A low budget option open top.

E93 330i convertible

Fuel consumption (urban) 26.9 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 45.6 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 36.2 mpg
0 - 62 mph 6.5 seconds
Top speed 155 mph
Cylinders 6
Valves 24 v
Engine power 272 bhp
Engine torque 236 lbs/ft

I have a fundamental issue with judging cars on stats. It tells you little to nothing of character

MattOz said:

And some CS's left the factory with 8.5" fronts too. Imagine that?!

Interesting, first time I've heard that. Wonder if they took them from the wrong pile!

s m said:

I've seen someone weighed a German one with a/c at 1425kg and a Jap one at 1430kg.

Most normal M3s seem to start at about 1540kg and head up to 1580kg depending on options

Only other thing I know about the Jap ones (and there were quite a few, over 150 I believe) is that they were all LHD. No idea why they'd be heavier though

[SidewaysSi]

Like kambites, I love the physical interaction with a car. Blipping the throttle, heel and toeing every downchange etc are what I enjoy in a car. Having to thrash a car to make it come alive should not be needed. I think the very best cars should be interactive at walking pace and just get better the faster you go.

And 1400kg is just too much for a daily driver..

Edited by SidewaysSi on Thursday 6th December 18:30

[Mermaid]

SidewaysSi said:

..
And 1400kg is just too much for a daily driver..

1200kgs a lot better - E30 M3 weight.

[Leins]

SidewaysSi said:

Having to thrash a car to make it come alive

Makes it sound like a chore!

[Gruber]

Pr1964 said:

Gruber said:

Are you serious?

I'm sure the 335i is a very able car, but "not far behind" an M3? Don't talk daft.

Not daft talk at all. V’s a standard M3.
335i has more torque it's only .5 of a second slower to 60mph.
Yes I'm serious for every day use the 335i is probably going to be just as much fun.

And that’s even more likely when comparing a newer lower mileage e92 335i to some leggy old e46 M3 which has lost 10%+ power over the years and has suspension which needs a rebuild.

If you need an every day car then the later e92 is the way to go.

If you want a track day car then the M3 would probably be a better choice but even then I'm sure the 335i would still be a lot of fun around a track.

Personally I tootle around town 90% of the time so a 330i E93 with a manual box works for me the best compromise it’s definitely no M3 .. but still a fantastic drive.

If all you care about it stats on a piece of paper, then I think you've chosen the right car. Enjoy it.

[s m]

Leins said:

MattOz said:

And some CS's left the factory with 8.5" fronts too. Imagine that?!

Interesting, first time I've heard that. Wonder if they took them from the wrong pile!

s m said:

I've seen someone weighed a German one with a/c at 1425kg and a Jap one at 1430kg.

Most normal M3s seem to start at about 1540kg and head up to 1580kg depending on options

Only other thing I know about the Jap ones (and there were quite a few, over 150 I believe) is that they were all LHD. No idea why they'd be heavier though

I guess 5kg is here nor there allowing for fuel loads/scale discrepancy.

The 1380-1385 ish CSL figure is presumably for a non aircon car, maybe on Cup tyres?

[SidewaysSi]

Leins said:

SidewaysSi said:

Having to thrash a car to make it come alive

Makes it sound like a chore!

No chore but road conditions do not allow it. I love quick driving like anyone but having a car that is great fun at 40mph which then ups its game at faster speeds is more fun more of the time..

[SidewaysSi]

Pr1964 said:

Gruber said:

Are you serious?

I'm sure the 335i is a very able car, but "not far behind" an M3? Don't talk daft.

Not daft talk at all. V’s a standard M3.
335i has more torque it's only .5 of a second slower to 60mph.
Yes I'm serious for every day use the 335i is probably going to be just as much fun.

And that’s even more likely when comparing a newer lower mileage e92 335i to some leggy old e46 M3 which has lost 10%+ power over the years and has suspension which needs a rebuild.

If you need an every day car then the later e92 is the way to go.

If you want a track day car then the M3 would probably be a better choice but even then I'm sure the 335i would still be a lot of fun around a track.

Personally I tootle around town 90% of the time so a 330i E93 with a manual box works for me the best compromise it’s definitely no M3 .. but still a fantastic drive.

Interactivity, responsiveness etc can't be measured by numbers! That's where never cars tend to fall down. Including a turbo'd BMW

[Mermaid]

SidewaysSi said:

Interactivity, responsiveness etc can't be measured by numbers!

This ^

[kambites]

Mermaid said:

SidewaysSi said:

Interactivity, responsiveness etc can't be measured by numbers!

This ^

Something that manufacturers, journalists and probably also buyers seem to have forgotten recently.