RE: BMW M3 tester's notes: PH Blog
Discussion
Dave Hedgehog said:
s m said:
Patrick Bateman said:
Noise is a huge part of the driving experience in a car like this, it's a given.
He did say it sounded better with the Sport setting. More 'woofle and bass'..... but a synthetic edgeIt's a twin test with the Jag F- type S coupe in Portugal
Is 8.7 to 100mph now just too fast for public roads? How many times are you going to get to the top end of 3rd in this car? I think that the torque increases lower in the rev range may actually improve driver enjoyment in this case.
With high revving naturally aspirated engines you want to be in the top 30% of the rev range most of the time, but in most modern performance cars that's already well above the NSL.
With high revving naturally aspirated engines you want to be in the top 30% of the rev range most of the time, but in most modern performance cars that's already well above the NSL.
CJP80 said:
Is 8.7 to 100mph now just too fast for public roads? How many times are you going to get to the top end of 3rd in this car? I think that the torque increases lower in the rev range may actually improve driver enjoyment in this case.
With high revving naturally aspirated engines you want to be in the top 30% of the rev range most of the time, but in most modern performance cars that's already well above the NSL.
If it's quicker I suspect you could spend more time around the top of 3rd than something that's slower with similar gearing. With high revving naturally aspirated engines you want to be in the top 30% of the rev range most of the time, but in most modern performance cars that's already well above the NSL.
ab80 said:
It's absolutely right that the cost of the carbon ceramic brakes is off-putting. The problem for people (like me) with one of these on order is that there are no reviews of cars on standard brakes with which to make an educated call.
Chris, do you have any insight into the normal brakes?
If it's any help, my current Aston has CC brakes. My previous DB9 didn't and I've driven V8 Vantages with the steel brakes. I've also owned four M cars with steel brakes. The quick summary is that the CC brakes on my car are astonishingly good, compared with any of the others I mentioned.Some cars with CC brakes are criticised for lack of initial pedal feel, but mine (and from what CH says, the new M3's) have great progressive feel. The stopping power is just immense.They are so good that you get used to them and have to readjust in cars with normal brakes.Chris, do you have any insight into the normal brakes?
" I just wish leading enthusiast coverage would lead mainstream opinion a bit more, not follow it.
[/quote]"
So true. If the press would at least advocate for cars with real control feel (granted some writers do at times) they would be doing a lot more than they have been for the last few years. It seems now that if a car handles well, and get good mileage that's enough to get the five stars or similar that the makers are asking/looking for. Personal customized cars cannot come soon enough, buy a carbon chassis and engine with the basic regs satisfied, and you can make it drive however feel-some you want. martin
Edited by cmoose on Friday 16th May 12:02
[/quote]"
So true. If the press would at least advocate for cars with real control feel (granted some writers do at times) they would be doing a lot more than they have been for the last few years. It seems now that if a car handles well, and get good mileage that's enough to get the five stars or similar that the makers are asking/looking for. Personal customized cars cannot come soon enough, buy a carbon chassis and engine with the basic regs satisfied, and you can make it drive however feel-some you want. martin
s m said:
irish boy said:
Hard to believe it's been 6 odd years since chris harris last did a test on the new m3 when it cam out!
I remember him standing by the Severn Bridge with his white one and doing a piece for Autocar videos!
Looking at the factory wax run off/excess in the shutlines and under the doors.
Leins said:
Mermaid said:
one is all charisma/charm/mechanical handing/feeling - the other is not so. 
But it's a 4-cyl!!!! Does not compute!!! 
Interesting it gets chosen so often as best of breed by different journos .....despite no 6/8 cylinders.
Too much of an icon?
Chris Harris said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Jeremy - I'm going to call you by your real name Mr.Laird because I think you often represent yourself as being 'in the trade' and people like us - journalists - don't really have the right to hide behind soubriquets.Before presenting yourself as the arbiter of what all car enthusiasts should want in an everyday, fast saloon car, it might be best to drive the new M3. If you do and still think the engine is bland, it'll confirm that my opinion on the subject of what is usable, enjoyable and an acceptable loss in 'feel' in the face of ever more stringent emissions and safety regulations is very different to yours. Of course mine is just another opinion, as is yours, but If you'd like to openly discuss which of us better understands this end of the marketplace,and what buyers are actually looking for, then I'm happy to do so here. And admit my mistakes. But as far as I can recall, I have never edited a car magazine devoted to electric cars and hybrids. However, I have lived with pretty much every car in this class for tens of thousands of miles at a time.
Of course your blanket dismissal of people like me spending too much time in GT3s to be able to judge what someone might want from a single performance car is ludicrous, so I won't bother to explain it.
What I will reiterate is that torque is far more useful than outright power in a street car. And I think more absorbing for a daily driver over time. The new M3 has torque and too end. I ran an E92 M3 everyday, for 11,000 miles to confirm that'll had too little of the former. But I also drove a few Zondaghinis during that period, so according to your theory, I'm not qualified to state that I had to drive the buttons off it to stay ahead of turbodiesels and I just couldn't enjoy that amazing top end enough.
Fuel economy? Read again - I'm talking about range. Range is what matters to people who can afford a £60k car. Spending less time at horrid fuel stations. And that is sadly quite closely related to fuel economy. Again, my frequent exposure to Ferraris must mean that I don't quite understand the range issue on the E92.
Sorry if you think I've given you both barrels unfairly, but I don't think it's fair to jump chameleon-style between being forum punter and journalist when it suits you. And then to have pops from the sidelines .
The M3 is a cracker in my opinion. Anyone who thinks the powertrain is boring needs their head looking at. But that's just my opinion. What really matters is what owners think of the car. I hope to be one of those at some point. And I'll still drive the odd GT3.
Typed on my phone, so apologies for typos etc
I completely agree with cmoose and despite being able to afford a £60k car couldn't give a toss about range which is apparently impossible according to your post.
In my humble experience, most people who can afford these cars in the UK (new at least)live in/around London and usually only drive at weekends as a car isn't needed for the commute. Why would a dull turbo motor be preferable to an inspiring NA when you can come back from a weekend drive remembering that stretch when you nailed it to the red line?
If you only drive a few 1000 miles per year (look at the Classifieds and I think it's more-or-less undeniable this is the case for most of these types of cars) then an extra 100 mile range or an extra 10mpg doesn't make the blindest bit of difference and money-wise will save you less than the tax or insurance on one of these cars.
s m said:
They never make a perfect M3 for everyone do they.
Interesting it gets chosen so often as best of breed by different journos .....despite no 6/8 cylinders.
Too much of an icon?
Not sure wrt the Sport Evo, but the non-Evo E30 M3 is very much my favourite "base" M3 I think (I've very little experience with the E92 version TBH). I just love the way they handle, sound, look, feel, etc.Interesting it gets chosen so often as best of breed by different journos .....despite no 6/8 cylinders.
Too much of an icon?
Mermaid said:
In its time, an amazingly quick road car (964 C2 fast?) that seats 4 comfortably and carry plenty of luggage. And I forgot the race success.
True.... but that 4-pot would be a non starter for many later M3 fans reading some of the comments on here - they'd like a B6 3.5S ...or an E36/E46.Edited by Mermaid on Friday 16th May 18:53
If you don't like the current M3 ... There's probably a previous version you do ...or vice versa.
Mermaid said:
I can understand that.
Road & race is different. Alpina's race car was a 4 pot, not the wonderful autobahn cruiser - the nose heavy B6S.
Yes, those 4-pots caused some dissent amongst the road car buyers initially though - even though there was a reason for their selection. Plus it was road cars that EVO reviewed ....and the 4-pot won the day.Road & race is different. Alpina's race car was a 4 pot, not the wonderful autobahn cruiser - the nose heavy B6S.
Still, another journo ....another verdict
JMo22 said:
A bizarre and arrogant response Mr. Harris, which seems to take cmoose's posts as a personal attack and misses his point, IMO.
I completely agree with cmoose and despite being able to afford a £60k car couldn't give a toss about range which is apparently impossible according to your post.
In my humble experience, most people who can afford these cars in the UK (new at least)live in/around London and usually only drive at weekends as a car isn't needed for the commute. Why would a dull turbo motor be preferable to an inspiring NA when you can come back from a weekend drive remembering that stretch when you nailed it to the red line?
If you only drive a few 1000 miles per year (look at the Classifieds and I think it's more-or-less undeniable this is the case for most of these types of cars) then an extra 100 mile range or an extra 10mpg doesn't make the blindest bit of difference and money-wise will save you less than the tax or insurance on one of these cars.
Agreed on all points.I completely agree with cmoose and despite being able to afford a £60k car couldn't give a toss about range which is apparently impossible according to your post.
In my humble experience, most people who can afford these cars in the UK (new at least)live in/around London and usually only drive at weekends as a car isn't needed for the commute. Why would a dull turbo motor be preferable to an inspiring NA when you can come back from a weekend drive remembering that stretch when you nailed it to the red line?
If you only drive a few 1000 miles per year (look at the Classifieds and I think it's more-or-less undeniable this is the case for most of these types of cars) then an extra 100 mile range or an extra 10mpg doesn't make the blindest bit of difference and money-wise will save you less than the tax or insurance on one of these cars.
I fit squarely into the weekend-using potential-M3-owning London-dwelling enthusiast camp you describe and very much share that view of what I want in terms of engine and experience.
Sadly, I recently had to sell my e92. I miss that engine soooo much. M3s have always been high-revving screamers that really need to be worked to show their best - e30 through to e92 all shared that core characteristic. I don't want a low-down torquey turbo'd lump, ta very much. It just isn't what the M3 is about in my head.
I was also somewhat disappointed by the attack on Moosey. Whatever his name, background and career he ought to be allowed to spout forth on here with anonymity like the rest of us (provided he sticks to the rules, natch).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff