RE: BMW M3 tester's notes: PH Blog

[epom]

Glad to see a turbo on an M3/M4 hasn't gotten everyone up in a heap and got under the collars.
I actually expected more hysteria tbh, so maybe it isn't as bad as everyone feared.
Only a new M car can get the likes of CH flustered

[darreni]

I have to say I like it.
As much as I love my CSL, using it daily can be a pain.

When are UK deliveries expected to start?

[ratty6464]

piston3461 said:

As an E92 M3 owner I can't believe some of the comments here.

You guys make out like the S65 has the torque of a first generation Nissan Micra under 4000rpm.
It pulls perfectly fine for daily driving, still far more than is needed in the low end.

Also, the car comes with something as standard called a gearbox. Change down gears and you have all the pull you'll need. Weird isn't it?
I think the people making this complaint should stick to a 6L V8 where you can stay in 3rd gear for every situation.

If it helps my last car was a 997 Turbo, so don't think I don't know what real torque is...

Edited by piston3461 on Saturday 17th May 07:55

Totally agree (as I'm a previous 1st gen micra, and currently e92 M3 owner). My only issue is the gearing is too long in the manual, and there are a fair few occasions where you really need to drop it into 2nd and not 3rd, which can be a pain in certain situations. I'm sure the DCT makes that issue irrelevant though.

[ratty6464]

Wills2 said:

Mermaid said:

What intriques me is that you never hear of anyone complain about the torque on the RS4. But you often hear that of the E92?

Different characteristic, horses for courses IMO. As I have said before, both amazing.

Hear from who? People on the internet that have read a review from someone like Sutcliffe? (yes Cerb.lee I know you thought it was gutless!)

Have a look at the s65 torque curve and see how long and flat is it is, it gives the car wonderfully long legs and goes and goes and keeps on going.

The s65 produces 90% of its torque between 2500-8000rpm (for most of that range it's at 95%) and produces maximum torque at little over 40% of available engine revs.

Its peak torque is comparable to the 335i and m135 etc.. cars that are not seen as "gutless" yet gives an additional 100hp into the bargain.

People read something like this "for the engine to really sparkle you have to be beyond 6k rpm" they then think there is nothing below that which is inaccurate IMHO.

It's a great engine below 6k but a stunning one after.

Personally I think the gearing is the issue, not the engine. The other cars you mentioned have relatively short gearing, especially the m135i. The M3 has pretty long gearing. If you take it near the limited in 3rd gear it's almost 115mph. I'd prefer a shorter 3rd 4th and 5th with a longer 6th gear. This is for the manual - as I said previously, I think the DCT pretty much solves this issue.

[Zod]

The same rubbish is always posted about new M cars.

The supposed lack of torque of the E60 M5 was a non-issue. It had a wonderful engine that revved enthusiastically to 8250. You just needed to change gear a lot more than in some other cars.

As for the gearbox, it really is nowhere near as bad as people claim. Sure, the auto mode is utterly incompetent, but in the faster manual modes it works fine. Newer dual clutch boxes are much better, but risk being too smooth. Their auto modes are mostly competent, although they still trip up at low speeds in town.

I enjoy different kinds of engine for their particular characteristics. I think my favourites will always be high output, normally aspirated engines, but the new turbos have their own advantages. The new M3 engine even revs to 7250. Their weakest point is noise.

[E65Ross]

Zod said:

The new M3 engine even revs to 7250. Their weakest point is noise.

7500rpm I think, certainly higher than 7250. Which is still higher than most other engines out there. As you say though, the noise is a disappointment.

Does the noise (or lack of) have a result of how they work their turbochargers, or that they might be more "strung out" than AMG equivalents, for example?

The 5.5L AMG "only" churns out about 100bhp/litre from a turbocharged unit, whereas this one is chucking out over 140bhp; will that potentially "weaken" the noise?

[cerb4.5lee]

ratty6464 said:

Wills2 said:

Mermaid said:

What intriques me is that you never hear of anyone complain about the torque on the RS4. But you often hear that of the E92?

Different characteristic, horses for courses IMO. As I have said before, both amazing.

Hear from who? People on the internet that have read a review from someone like Sutcliffe? (yes Cerb.lee I know you thought it was gutless!)

Have a look at the s65 torque curve and see how long and flat is it is, it gives the car wonderfully long legs and goes and goes and keeps on going.

The s65 produces 90% of its torque between 2500-8000rpm (for most of that range it's at 95%) and produces maximum torque at little over 40% of available engine revs.

Its peak torque is comparable to the 335i and m135 etc.. cars that are not seen as "gutless" yet gives an additional 100hp into the bargain.

People read something like this "for the engine to really sparkle you have to be beyond 6k rpm" they then think there is nothing below that which is inaccurate IMHO.

It's a great engine below 6k but a stunning one after.

Personally I think the gearing is the issue, not the engine. The other cars you mentioned have relatively short gearing, especially the m135i. The M3 has pretty long gearing. If you take it near the limited in 3rd gear it's almost 115mph. I'd prefer a shorter 3rd 4th and 5th with a longer 6th gear. This is for the manual - as I said previously, I think the DCT pretty much solves this issue.

You are right regards the gearing with the manual and I always used third gear as a prime example as to enjoy it you had to turn a blind eye to speed limits but you could also argue that to enjoy any relatively powerful car you have to do that anyway.

You are also spot on regards the DCT as that seems to eliminate the serious cog swapping you need to do with the manual to keep the engine on the boil.

[Tony B2]

Wills2 said:

Hear from who? People on the internet that have read a review from someone like Sutcliffe? (yes Cerb.lee I know you thought it was gutless!)

Have a look at the s65 torque curve and see how long and flat is it is, it gives the car wonderfully long legs and goes and goes and keeps on going.

The s65 produces 90% of its torque between 2500-8000rpm (for most of that range it's at 95%) and produces maximum torque at little over 40% of available engine revs.

Its peak torque is comparable to the 335i and m135 etc.. cars that are not seen as "gutless" yet gives an additional 100hp into the bargain.

People read something like this "for the engine to really sparkle you have to be beyond 6k rpm" they then think there is nothing below that which is inaccurate IMHO.

It's a great engine below 6k but a stunning one after.

Absolutely agree Neil!

So much crap spouted here by those who have not driven an E9x M3, and by the stuck record TVR obsessive.

No good as a daily driver - utter rubbish. I use mine just this way, with a mixture of long range commutes, and very short stuff thrown in. With the masterpiece that is the S65 every single journey, long or short is an event to be enjoyed.

Doesn't sound good unless your revving the nuts off it? What is the audio equivalent of "should have gone to specsavers"..... The engine sounds fantastic, whether at full throttle, light throttle medium revs, trailing throttle low revs. You just have to listen to it. Turn off the ZZ Top. I cannot believe that someone who professes to be a car guy/ petrolhead, as Harris does, would suggest that a dull sounding engine is not a problem, just crank up the stereo.

And even if the range is a bit less than I would like, at least the fuel stops give me the chance to see and enjoy the car's style from the outside. And wind it out to the red line when I re-join the road.

The new M3/M4 might well be a great car, but it no longer possesses what makes - or has made - M cars really special. A fantastic, razor sharp, high revving screamer of an engine.

It is not about the numbers, its about the "how".

And yes, Harris displayed considerable rudeness and arrogance in his unnecessary rant.

Nothing new there, then.....

[jon-]

Leins said:

Ah SMG, those of us old enough to remember when a flappy paddle gearbox had character and involvement, unlike all these new fangled gearboxes that do everything for you! I know it's supposedly progress, but some things were more fun back in the good old days

I'd take SMG over DCT anyday. Faster than a manual, but you're still part of the gear change.

[E65Ross]

jon- said:

Leins said:

Ah SMG, those of us old enough to remember when a flappy paddle gearbox had character and involvement, unlike all these new fangled gearboxes that do everything for you! I know it's supposedly progress, but some things were more fun back in the good old days

I'd take SMG over DCT anyday. Faster than a manual, but you're still part of the gear change.

I was just about to post that's a load of rubbish but actually, it's quite the opposite. With the DCT no matter what you do, every shift is basically seamless, smooth and insanely fast. With SMG it's jerky and rather rubbish unless you learn how to use it, get it in the right mode, lift off the throttle a little on up changes and so on.....you have to do a bit more to get the best from it.

One thing I personally find disappointing with these DCT boxes is I absolutely love the "kick in the back" you get on fast cars between gear changes....for example in a manual you floor it in 2nd, and clutch down, acceleration stops, shift into 2rd and foot back down on the accelerator and you get the "kick" of acceleration again. That's lost on the DCT boxes as it's just a continuous surge forward.

Both have their merits and whilst, technically, the DCT is superior, it's quite a personal choice for car enthusiasts and neither is right or wrong. I'd have to drive a DCT car more to see what I'd really like. There's no doubt for something like an M5 or M6 I'd definitely want the DCT over a manual version because it's more suited to the car (likewise, I wouldn't ever want a manual Mercedes S class!) but in an M3 it's a bit touch and go...

[Mermaid]

E65Ross said:

There's no doubt for something like an M5 or M6 I'd definitely want the DCT over a manual version because it's more suited to the car (likewise, I wouldn't ever want a manual Mercedes S class!) but in an M3 it's a bit touch and go...

400ps is about the level at which I would prefer DCT/PDK, and perhaps 1.8 tonnes onwards

[RMac]

Please can we have an estate? Ideally with a tow bar option too.

[Chris Harris]

RMac said:

Please can we have an estate? Ideally with a tow bar option too.

Put that to the man from BMW. His response " You always say that, but when we build one, not many people buy it'"

[Mermaid]

Chris Harris said:

RMac said:

Please can we have an estate? Ideally with a tow bar option too.

Put that to the man from BMW. His response " You always say that, but when we build one, not many people buy it'"

But never a 3 series M Touring.

More M3's are sold than M5's - bigger target audience.

[Zod]

Mermaid said:

400ps is about the level at which I would prefer DCT/PDK, and perhaps 1.8 tonnes onwards

I rather like a manual box with 500bhp. I'd never buy a sporting car with an automatic, but SMG/DCT are acceptable.

[piston3461]

jon- said:

I'd take SMG over DCT anyday. Faster than a manual, but you're still part of the gear change.

You're crazy....SMG is a clunky POS. Automatic mode is actually unusable.

[jon-]

piston3461 said:

jon- said:

I'd take SMG over DCT anyday. Faster than a manual, but you're still part of the gear change.

You're crazy....SMG is a clunky POS. Automatic mode is actually unusable.

Not going to argue, but it's why I don't ever end up in auto, unlike DCT boxes.

The clunking is part of the character, if you know how to use them, the clunks are nearly none existent (apart from down to first while moving, which is similar on the manual m3)

[joedesi]

E65Ross said:

I was just about to post that's a load of rubbish but actually, it's quite the opposite. With the DCT no matter what you do, every shift is basically seamless, smooth and insanely fast. With SMG it's jerky and rather rubbish unless you learn how to use it, get it in the right mode, lift off the throttle a little on up changes and so on.....you have to do a bit more to get the best from it.

One thing I personally find disappointing with these DCT boxes is I absolutely love the "kick in the back" you get on fast cars between gear changes....for example in a manual you floor it in 2nd, and clutch down, acceleration stops, shift into 2rd and foot back down on the accelerator and you get the "kick" of acceleration again. That's lost on the DCT boxes as it's just a continuous surge forward.

Both have their merits and whilst, technically, the DCT is superior, it's quite a personal choice for car enthusiasts and neither is right or wrong. I'd have to drive a DCT car more to see what I'd really like. There's no doubt for something like an M5 or M6 I'd definitely want the DCT over a manual version because it's more suited to the car (likewise, I wouldn't ever want a manual Mercedes S class!) but in an M3 it's a bit touch and go...

Good post but not entirely true i'm afraid.

On the E92 M3 - slip DCT into manual and choose either level 5 or 6. On full bore changes you get a nice whack in the back of the head

[Palmball]

The M5/6 DCT also thumps abruptly into gear in its 'M3' (most aggressive) setting. It's purposefully designed to do so, specifically for SMG fans. I don't mind it, but the gear change itself is no faster than in M2.

I think the BMW DCT is probably the joint best gearbox I've driven with Porsches PDK, although in beefing it up to handle the M5/6's torque, it's lost a little smoothness at very speeds (1st/2nd gear) when slowing down compared to the e92 M3. Although this jerkiness as you slow dow could just as likely be the result of, or made worse by, the added engine braking you seem to get from the brake regeneration system. Regardless, I'm hoping the new M3 is an improvement.

[matsoc]

"Absolutely. I loved my E92, but it was surprisingly limited as my daily driver. Opportunities to enjoy that motor beyond 7,000 were predictably limited, the lack of torque left you exposed to turbo hot hatches"

I belive Harris is right here but we have to consider that not all the M3 buyers were looking for a daily driver. Some were looking for a car to use mostly in weekends or spirited drive BUT retaining boot and seats for 4 and also 4 doors if you need it. I owned a V8 Vantage, astonishing car but for a number of reasons I managed to use it way less than I would have been able to do with an M3.
In other words I can't consider levaing the V8 good news...