RE: BMW M3 farewell diary

[cerb4.5lee]

You lot have brain washed me now & I am just going to accept that my M3 picked up like a rocket at 2k revs in 6th gear & was faster than anything else on the road.

Ross if you haven't already owned a E92 M3 you need to get one purchased soon as the love you have for its engine is unmatched that's for sure.

[Wills2]

cerb4.5lee said:

You lot have brain washed me now & I am just going to accept that my M3 picked up like a rocket at 2k revs in 6th gear & was faster than anything else on the road.

Good lad, knew you'd see it our way eventually.

[cerb4.5lee]

Wills2 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

You lot have brain washed me now & I am just going to accept that my M3 picked up like a rocket at 2k revs in 6th gear & was faster than anything else on the road.

Good lad, knew you'd see it our way eventually.

[E65Ross]

cerb4.5lee said:

You lot have brain washed me now & I am just going to accept that my M3 picked up like a rocket at 2k revs in 6th gear & was faster than anything else on the road.

Ross if you haven't already owned a E92 M3 you need to get one purchased soon as the love you have for its engine is unmatched that's for sure.

You've missed my point again

[Mr Whippy]

cerb4.5lee said:

You lot have brain washed me now & I am just going to accept that my M3 picked up like a rocket at 2k revs in 6th gear & was faster than anything else on the road.

It did pick up like a rocket.

If you added more low-down torque, then it'd have *felt* flatter at the top end... so then you'd say it was gutless at the top end and ran out of breath.

Perception isn't equal to reality quite a lot of the time.

But this is why the NA M3's should be celebrated, because they are actually amazing all-round engines.


It's sad that BMW can't do something NA for their M cars. Ferrari and Lamborghini still manage to make NA motors with high specific outputs and passing emissions regs. It's only money in the end of the day.

But I guess that is the issue. The widening demographic for this car doesn't want the zingy engine, they just want bland torque everywhere. So at the same time as offering an easier power-plant solution they are also widening the market appeal.

You can see why BMW are going down that road, but it's sad none the less.

No wonder M3 CSL prices don't seem to be dropping hehe.

Dave

[cerb4.5lee]

E65Ross said:

cerb4.5lee said:

You lot have brain washed me now & I am just going to accept that my M3 picked up like a rocket at 2k revs in 6th gear & was faster than anything else on the road.

Ross if you haven't already owned a E92 M3 you need to get one purchased soon as the love you have for its engine is unmatched that's for sure.

You've missed my point again

I understand its a very well designed engine & offers reward if you can be bothered to rev its backside off but given the choice of the V8 4.8 from my old X5 4.8iS or the V8 from my E92 M3 I would prefer the V8 4.8 from my X5 under the bonnet of the M3.

I just don't understand the love you have for the S65 when the engine under the bonnet of your car has more in common with my old X5 & I found the engine in that far more rewarding for more of the time than the S65 was.

[cerb4.5lee]

Mr Whippy said:

cerb4.5lee said:

You lot have brain washed me now & I am just going to accept that my M3 picked up like a rocket at 2k revs in 6th gear & was faster than anything else on the road.

It did pick up like a rocket.

Trust me it doesn't!!

In fairness the M3 wasn't for me as I have found out I prefer activity lower down some prefer the epic top end but that was wasted on me but the majority love it...only they don't because BMW don't make high revving engines anymore!

[Tony B2]

Mr Whippy said:

It did pick up like a rocket.

If you added more low-down torque, then it'd have *felt* flatter at the top end... so then you'd say it was gutless at the top end and ran out of breath.

Perception isn't equal to reality quite a lot of the time.

But this is why the NA M3's should be celebrated, because they are actually amazing all-round engines.


It's sad that BMW can't do something NA for their M cars. Ferrari and Lamborghini still manage to make NA motors with high specific outputs and passing emissions regs. It's only money in the end of the day.

But I guess that is the issue. The widening demographic for this car doesn't want the zingy engine, they just want bland torque everywhere. So at the same time as offering an easier power-plant solution they are also widening the market appeal.

You can see why BMW are going down that road, but it's sad none the less.

No wonder M3 CSL prices don't seem to be dropping hehe.

Dave

Absolutely agree.

And on the "other manufacturer's can do it without turbos" subject, add Porsche (higher specific outputs and lower emissions) and Lexus.

The thrill of the ever increasing shove from the S65 is all about a flat torque curve spread over a huge rev range.

Loads of low rev turbo torque might equal "convenience" and "easily accessible", but it does not equal thrilling.

I can still remember the first occasion when I opened up an E36 Evo and let it rev all the way to the red-line, and the giggle/gasp zone above 5.5k. That was what convinced me to buy one, and has kept me hooked across 3 generations of M3. And the fact that that giggle/gasp zone was only rarely accessed just kept it special.

Instant easy access to turbo-provided torque, means it becomes the norm and the norm = boredom after a while.

[Wills2]

cerb4.5lee said:

Trust me it doesn't!!

In fairness the M3 wasn't for me as I have found out I prefer activity lower down some prefer the epic top end but that was wasted on me but the majority love it...only they don't because BMW don't make high revving engines anymore!

And more's the pity, Porsche/Ferrari and lambo still do though, pity I'm not rich!

[E65Ross]

cerb4.5lee said:

E65Ross said:

cerb4.5lee said:

You lot have brain washed me now & I am just going to accept that my M3 picked up like a rocket at 2k revs in 6th gear & was faster than anything else on the road.

Ross if you haven't already owned a E92 M3 you need to get one purchased soon as the love you have for its engine is unmatched that's for sure.

You've missed my point again

I understand its a very well designed engine & offers reward if you can be bothered to rev its backside off but given the choice of the V8 4.8 from my old X5 4.8iS or the V8 from my E92 M3 I would prefer the V8 4.8 from my X5 under the bonnet of the M3.

I just don't understand the love you have for the S65 when the engine under the bonnet of your car has more in common with my old X5 & I found the engine in that far more rewarding for more of the time than the S65 was.

But the 4.8 doesn't offer more low down grunt

If you're driving along at 25mph in 3rd in a 3 series with that 4.8 in it and that 3rd gear goes to 100mph, and you line up another IDENTICAL car in terms of weigh, aero etc etc with the S65 in it, the S65 car also doing 25mph in 3rd gear in The gear which goes to 100mph and floor both at the same time.... You seem to think the 4.8 would be quicker? You're wrong. Sounds like you drove your M3 as the same rpm as you would any other car.

Do you drive a diesel and think "fk me this is quick low down" compared to an NA petrol at the same rpm? Without paying any remote attention to the gear you're in?

[cheddar]

E65Ross said:

But the 4.8 doesn't offer more low down grunt

If you're driving along at 25mph in 3rd in a 3 series with that 4.8 in it and that 3rd gear goes to 100mph, and you line up another IDENTICAL car in terms of weigh, aero etc etc with the S65 in it, the S65 car also doing 25mph in 3rd gear in The gear which goes to 100mph and floor both at the same time.... You seem to think the 4.8 would be quicker? You're wrong. Sounds like you drove your M3 as the same rpm as you would any other car.

Do you drive a diesel and think "fk me this is quick low down" compared to an NA petrol at the same rpm? Without paying any remote attention to the gear you're in?

I tell you what Ross, you're a solid tryer but your posts just get more and more confusing.

You said: "The M3 actually makes peak torque much lower down its respective rev range than the C63."

'Respective' is the key word here but I'm afraid you're still confusing things.

The C63 produces 370ftlb torque @ 2000rpm (and 442lbft maximum) whereas the M3 produces a maximum of 295lbft and not until 3900 rpm.

Yes, the M3 does rev to 8300rpm but the C63 redline is only 800rpm lower @ 7500.

Put simply, the C63 hauls much harder from low revs than the M3.

For information I adore the M3's engine, prefer it to the Merc's in fact, I just want to clarify the maths.

Edited by cheddar on Wednesday 5th February 20:48

[E65Ross]

cheddar said:

I tell you what Ross, you're a solid tryer but your posts just get more and more confusing.

Is it hard to understand that if you have 2 cars doing a rolling stary drag race that you wouldn't have 1 car in 3rd and another in 5th and later claim that the car in 5tg has no low down power?

If 2 cars are side by side. One revs to 10k, 1 revs to 5k. All gearing is the same such that 1st goes to 40mph, 2nd to 70, 3rd to 100 and so on and say 6th to 200mph.

Now, if doing a rolling start from 30mph would you start them both in, say, 3rd gear to test low down grunt (1 doing 1500rpm the other 3k rpm) or would you have 1 car in 3rd doing 1500rpm and the other in 6th doing 1500rpm? I get the impression from most people they'd do the latter.

[cerb4.5lee]

Wills2 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Trust me it doesn't!!

In fairness the M3 wasn't for me as I have found out I prefer activity lower down some prefer the epic top end but that was wasted on me but the majority love it...only they don't because BMW don't make high revving engines anymore!

And more's the pity, Porsche/Ferrari and lambo still do though, pity I'm not rich!

I agree, on the right road at the right time there isn't much more rewarding than a high revving N/A powerplant...a lambo is my ultimate dream car maybe we can club together for the funds!!

[cheddar]

E65Ross said:

cheddar said:

I tell you what Ross, you're a solid tryer but your posts just get more and more confusing.

Is it hard to understand that if you have 2 cars doing a rolling stary drag race that you wouldn't have 1 car in 3rd and another in 5th and later claim that the car in 5tg has no low down power?

If 2 cars are side by side. One revs to 10k, 1 revs to 5k. All gearing is the same such that 1st goes to 40mph, 2nd to 70, 3rd to 100 and so on and say 6th to 200mph.

Now, if doing a rolling start from 30mph would you start them both in, say, 3rd gear to test low down grunt (1 doing 1500rpm the other 3k rpm) or would you have 1 car in 3rd doing 1500rpm and the other in 6th doing 1500rpm? I get the impression from most people they'd do the latter.

Previous post edited to add maths.

[Wills2]

You'd use the cars power band be that 2.5-6.5k or /4-8k I think the point some are making is they prefer the 2.5-6.5k power band like the C63?

All achieve the same result but at differing rpm.

[cheddar]

Wills2 said:

You'd use the cars power band be that 2.5-6.5k or /4-8k I think the point some are making is they prefer the 2.5-6.5k power band like the C63?

All achieve the same result but at differing rpm.

Pretty much this. Although the Merc's 'useable' powerband is more like 1500 to 6800, and between those RPM's it will pull harder than the M3.

Still prefer the M3's screamer motor though, the C63 is almost too quick too easily.....

Here you go:


M3 C63
0-30 2.0 2.2
0-40 2.8 2.9
0-50 3.9 3.7
0-60 4.9 4.7
0-70 6.2 5.8
0-80 7.6 7.1
0-90 9.1 8.6
0-100 10.7 10.3
0-110 12.9 12.2
0-120 15.3 14.4
0-130 17.9 17.1
0-140 21.8 20.4
0-150 25.8 24.5
1/4 MILE (Sec) 13.2 12.9
Mph 111.4 113.8
IN-GEAR TIMES (3RD)
20-40 3.3 2.7
30-50 3.1 2.6
40-60 3.0 2.5
50-70 3.0 2.4
60-80 3.0 2.5
70-90 3.1 2.8
80-100 3.2 -
IN-GEAR TIMES (4TH)
20-40 4.2 4.7
30-50 4.2 3.9
40-60 4.1 3.7
50-70 3.9 3.5
60-80 4.0 3.5
70-90 4.2 3.5
80-100 4.3 3.5
90-110 4.5 3.8
IN-GEAR TIMES (5TH)
20-40 4.8 5.3
30-50 4.8 4.2
40-60 4.9 4.4
50-70 4.8 4.4
60-80 4.5 4.3
70-90 4.9 4.3
80-100 5.3 4.4
90-110 5.5 4.7
100-120 5.7 5.2
110-130 6.3 5.2
120-140 7.0 5.7
IN-GEAR TIMES (6TH)
30-50 6.2 5.0
40-60 6.2 5.2
50-70 5.9 5.2
60-80 5.8 5.1
70-90 5.9 5.1
80-100 6.2 5.1
90-110 6.7 5.4
100-120 7.4 5.8
110-130 8.1 6.2

Edited by cheddar on Wednesday 5th February 21:13

[E65Ross]

Would be a bit closer if that was the 7 speed DCT M3 as the Merc is 7 speed

Of course the Merc will be faster, it has more power

My arguments are largely those that think something with say 300bhp is quicker low down against the M3 simply because it has more torque. My engine has more torque than an M3 but if you were to swap engines but keep the same overall gear ratios to road speed it wouldn't be quicker despite having more torque.

[cerb4.5lee]

cheddar said:

Wills2 said:

You'd use the cars power band be that 2.5-6.5k or /4-8k I think the point some are making is they prefer the 2.5-6.5k power band like the C63?

All achieve the same result but at differing rpm.

Pretty much this. Although the Merc's 'useable' powerband is more like 1500 to 6800, and between those RPM's it will pull harder than the M3.

Still prefer the M3's screamer motor though, the C63 is almost too quick too easily.....

I am in this camp too & just prefer the 2.5-6.5k revs powerband in a daily driver...if there was a way I could have all the roads to myself though then the 8400rpm would fit the bill nicely as you could enjoy it all of the time.

[Mr Whippy]

Wills2 said:

You'd use the cars power band be that 2.5-6.5k or /4-8k I think the point some are making is they prefer the 2.5-6.5k power band like the C63?

All achieve the same result but at differing rpm.

And in the end if you covered the rpm gauge and wore thick ear muffs to mask the noise, you could be driving a big diesel, a small capacity high revver, or a big lazy V8 petrol.

It's 90%+ perception based given roughly equal power to weight ratio matched cars.


But like I said, that is why we have choice. Just a shame BMW are going a bit blander. It'll still be a good car, but for some the revvy zingy engine was all part of the M experience.

Dave

[findtomdotcom]

Not wishing to start a firestorm, but in my experience the M3 will get its power down much better than a C63. Yes the engine in the Mercedes is outstanding, but it is a one trick pony. I'm not sure I ever got the C63 to set off a line cleanly, at least not on a typical UK weather day.....

As cars to live with day to day the BMW is a much better car, (and the tech works, try getting the command online to work with iPhone)!

Also it is not just about outright power. Yes the C63 is 450bhp+ but to put that in context, my 991 with 350bhp would leave it for dead so the M3 developing less torque does not make it the lesser car. The better gearbox in the M3 (manual or DCT), more than makes up for the lower power.

Again day to day I think that the M3 is better, well at least it was for me.

Edited by findtomdotcom on Wednesday 5th February 22:17