2007 BMW M3 (E92) | Review
The new V8 powered M3 is here. Adam Towler is one of the first journalists to drive it. Is it worthy of the badge?
Still, you could wedge a RAF hangar door open with the BMW press pack handed out on the launch. The book devoted purely to the engine is a reference tome in itself, but then technology and lots of it is one of the new car’s principal weapons.
Of course, there’s that new hi-tech all-alloy 4.0 litre V8 featuring double-VANOS, individual throttle butterflies and producing 420hp with 295lb ft of torque at 3,900rpm. That’s a huge increase over the old ‘six’ and BMW are quick to point out that it weighs 15kg less than the old engine too.
Elsewhere there’s a carbon fibre roof, lightweight suspension, MDrive facility with different setting programmable into an M button on the steering wheel (a la M5) and (optional) electronic dampers with three different settings. For now, a six speed manual gearbox is the only transmission available although some form of semi-auto ‘box will follow. Despite their best efforts, the M guys admit the new car weighs slightly more than the old one. As for the looks, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
‘Is it any good though’, you’re thinking. The answer is yes, but not quite in the way you might be expecting.
Unsurprisingly, the new car is dominated by its engine. Even when you first sit in the car, you’re immediately struck by the ‘powerdome’ bonnet that seems much more prominent from behind the ‘wheel. The V8 starts with a cultured growl and settles to a respectable idle. Around town it is well-behaved, and apart from the sometime clunkiness of the transmission at low speed it’s all very effortless to drive. The ride seems very composed too, certainly more comfortable than the old car, although we won’t really know until we’ve driven it in the UK.
As soon as you press the accelerator a bit more however you can hear the voice of the new engine: a tight, V8 chord with a hint of muscle car from low to middling revs. Extend it further and it howls like a modern race car: a single, focused note that sadly doesn’t alter much in tone but just heightens in pitch. At this point, you’ve still got 3,000 rpm to go…
The final charge of the V8 towards its 8,300rpm is really quite a remarkable thing. This is where the power is truly ferocious. Up until now, the M3 can feel slightly constrained by its weight and what feels like a longish set of gear ratios, but once you’ve tapped into that final band you’re really flying and the noise the thing makes as it falls into the soft limiter is unforgettable.
So why is it that I miss the old straight ‘six’ – even though it was incapable of such powermeister heroics? Thing is, the V8 is just so, well, sensible. It doesn’t rattle like the old straight six did at times; it doesn’t spit and crackle and sound as if it’s digesting its own internals on occasion, because frankly, it isn’t. It’s a new engine, operating with micro-millimetre precision against a strict computer leash, and no doubt in this original iteration well within its own limits, unlike the old stager. The outright anger inherent in the old car has vanished, and with it some of the urgency of purpose, the sharpness of throttle response – even with the new car in its most aggressive setting. It’s a question of character.
We hack across the mountains of southern Spain, making our way from the launch resort towards the Ascari Race track inland. On these roads the new M3 is punishingly, absorbingly, illegally fast. Imagine the old Spa circuit without the rain and you’re about there: long, gently curving downhill straights that stretch out into the distance followed by sweeping, plunging and rising compound curves. It’s mainly third and fourth gear stuff in this car and it’s in its element. The chassis feels poised and secure, and there always seems to be more revs to play with, and consequently more power.
It’s when the road changes on the other side of the mountain that things aren’t quite so impressive. The road is tighter now, with more corners that are less predictable in their curvature and often blind. It exposes the new cars biggest flaw - the steering, something that was never the strong point of the previous car either. It’s light (even in ‘sport’ setting let alone ‘normal’) and after a numb region around the straight-ahead becomes very quick without building any reassuring weight. Most of all though it’s remote from what the wheels are doing. Consequently, on a twisting road such as this, you’re always circumspect about your turn-in speed and often find yourself steering in two chunks on the entry to a corner to try and inform yourself of what’s going on down at the tyres. Bottom line: it’s competent and quick, but you just know in a Porsche Cayman you’d have a huge grin plastered all over your face on a road like this, and in the new M3, you just don’t…
It’s hard to comment too much on the brakes – it was said that every press car on the launch had upgraded brake pads, ostensibly to cope with the circuit work at the Ascari track – but they hauled the M3 down from big speeds on the road without drama.
Two positives stand out at the Ascari racetrack. Firstly, the straights give you the chance to extend the V8 right to the cut-out in a number of different gears and the resultant speeds are very impressive indeed. Secondly, with this much power the car can be pitched sideways and held there in a wanton drift (try that in a RS4) through a number of the slower corners – which is hilarious, although only when you’re not paying for the tyres. However, as a tool to whittle away at your lap time, the new M3 is a little less convincing. It’s the small, subtle stuff once again: the remote steering; the LSD that feels a little slower to react than the old car; the lack of razor aggression in the engines mid range. Altogether, they slightly but decisively blunt the experience in a playground such as this.
So, the new M3 is a good car – a really good car. Its talents when viewed purely objectively make a formidable package. It’s more comfortable than the old car: rides better, has more room inside and is kitted out with the latest tech available – at a cost. Apart from a worrying thirst – test cars were returning around 11mpg according to their trip computers, although they were driven hard – the new V8 is smooth, refined and perfectly suited to everyday use, yet with crushing reserves of performance.
It seems certain that many M3 buyers will find this new car a superb companion and that any thoughts are in the distinct minority when they contain phrases about ‘steering feel’ and ‘driver feedback’. Such things increasingly have little value in a marketplace obsessed with power.
But instead of relinquishing the keys with that gripping, longing, sadness in my gut that you’d assume would be there having driven ‘the new M3’, I find myself oddly detached from it.
That there really is room for a ‘CSL’ is not in doubt and my bet is it won’t be long in coming from what was and wasn’t said on the launch. Whereas the old CSL required plenty of in-depth fettling to extract that extra edge from an already focused package, it seems the positioning of this new car leaves a much easier gap in which to place a hardcore version.
Contrived, maybe; an exciting prospect, definitely. But in the meantime, perhaps just a little of the M3 magic has been lost…
SPECIFICATION | 2007-2013 BMW M3 (E90/E92)
Engine: 3,999cc, V8
Transmission: 6-speed manual (or 7-speed DCT), rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 420@8,300rpm
Torque (lb ft): 295@3,900rpm
0-62mph: 4.6 secs
Top speed: 155mph
Weight: 1,580kg
MPG: 22
CO2: 295g/km
On sale: 2007 - 2013
If I won the lottery tomorrow I still wouldn't buy one, an E46 M3 CS seems a much better 'small' fast sports saloon...
Feels from the way it's described that the E36 ethos has shown it's head again...?
I think it's the looks and E39 size that puts me off, even if everything else is spot on.
Dave
A few of the journos who visited Marbella last week really need to pause and consider just what it was they were expecting the new M3 to be like. A little more considered reflection seems necessary IMO.
There will be the chance for a 'proper' test later next month, driving it on UK roads so I would recommend you hold fire on the doom mongering until after then.
Can't wait for the next M3. 1800kg and 500bhp, oh hang on, thats the M5 we've just had.
This is basically to replace the old E39 M5. The M1 is the car you want to be looking out for to find anything resembling the older M3's!
Dave
Going back to my comments on an old thread, would have been nicer to have seen BMW do something different and new with this car. The 335Ci does the wafty fast well kitted poseur and pace BMW 3 series, the M3 should have been a 'less is more' than a just more more more car.
6 pot CSL motor and a total emphasis on weight reduction!
Dave
What about the fun factor?
Never see many people mention fun these days, just how fast it is and the headline figures of power and torque or something.
Not putting down the E60 M5, it really is a tour de force, but I'm quite sure that it need not have been and still been *a good car* in isolation.
I think BMW today worry too much what their competitors are doing.
E34 M5, yes please, with Nordschliefe suspension and M parallels please!
How fun and basic can it get? RWD, 6spd manual, 6 pot simplicity (all in a line!). Done.
The simplicity and focus on the driver is the appeal, not the headline figures which mean bugger all on UK roads
Dave
What about the fun factor?
Never see many people mention fun these days, just how fast it is and the headline figures of power and torque or something.
Not putting down the E60 M5, it really is a tour de force, but I'm quite sure that it need not have been and still been *a good car* in isolation.
I think BMW today worry too much what their competitors are doing.
E34 M5, yes please, with Nordschliefe suspension and M parallels please!
How fun and basic can it get? RWD, 6spd manual, 6 pot simplicity (all in a line!). Done.
The simplicity and focus on the driver is the appeal, not the headline figures which mean bugger all on UK roads
Dave
It IS fun. I defy anyone to drive one outside town and not enjoy it. OK, so I have to shave off more speed before tight bends than I did in the CSL, but I can come out of them incredibly quickly. It's easy to read reviews and imagine it's like playing a PS game, but it's nothing like that. It's a car with a massively powerful engine, four big tyres, a very clever LSD and a gearbox that some love and some hate. Believe me, if you get it wrong driving an M5, it punishes you. If you get it right, it is fantastic. It is not some pre-programmed ride on rails.
Drive one for a weekend and see.
What I'm getting at is that it's nothing exciting because where it matters it's not progressed beyond any of the previous M3's except in weight and on-paper statistics (from what I can see)
Thats why I'm not thrilled.
Dave
What about the fun factor?
Never see many people mention fun these days, just how fast it is and the headline figures of power and torque or something.
Not putting down the E60 M5, it really is a tour de force, but I'm quite sure that it need not have been and still been *a good car* in isolation.
I think BMW today worry too much what their competitors are doing.
E34 M5, yes please, with Nordschliefe suspension and M parallels please!
How fun and basic can it get? RWD, 6spd manual, 6 pot simplicity (all in a line!). Done.
The simplicity and focus on the driver is the appeal, not the headline figures which mean bugger all on UK roads
Dave
It IS fun. I defy anyone to drive one outside town and not enjoy it. OK, so I have to shave off more speed before tight bends than I did in the CSL, but I can come out of them incredibly quickly. It's easy to read reviews and imagine it's like playing a PS game, but it's nothing like that. It's a car with a massively powerful engine, four big tyres, a very clever LSD and a gearbox that some love and some hate. Believe me, if you get it wrong driving an M5, it punishes you. If you get it right, it is fantastic. It is not some pre-programmed ride on rails.
Drive one for a weekend and see.
What I'm getting at is that it's nothing exciting because where it matters it's not progressed beyond any of the previous M3's except in weight and on-paper statistics (from what I can see)
Thats why I'm not thrilled.
Dave
Ultimately boiled down to something along the lines of being flawed, to give it character and charm.
A big flawed six pot, dimensionally under-specced (for Ring work) tyres, that make it fun on real roads, a focus on being lightweight, rather than a focus on power output, afterall, who ever said a powerfull car was a good car?
CSL engine and spend the money saved developing that V8, and spend more money on carbon fibre to make it lighter! Then it won't fade it's large sliding callipers as easily, it'll be easier on the fuel and tyres, it'll be more pointy and it can use smaller tyres and give more feel back to the driver.
All I see is a fat flabby car with a big engine, big tyres and stiff suspension that will set blistering track times, be a hoot on the track, and likely get nowhere near it's performance edge on the road. How is it *ANY* better in any performance road car sense than the E46 M3 CS?
All I can see it having is more weight and power and questionable looks.
When Audi and Merc were using turbo V8's or big V8's or Supercharged V8's in their M5 and M3 competitors, BMW were making inline sixes that revved hard like race engines, or big V8's with NA delivery rather than FI like the RS6 or charged like the Merc units.
But today Audi makes an engine that matches the M unit in their medium/large saloon, so BMW have done nothing amazing there, and the RS6 will have a V10 like the M5, so BMW really haven't done anything stunning there either. And Mercedes are sticking their 6.3 V8 into everything they can, ultimately BMW have been left trying to compete with Audi and Mercedes and have forgotten their niche (imho) to a certain extent.
Will they secure more sales because they have diluted their focus and covered the appeal of the other manufacturers? I honestly don't think so as right now the RS4 and new Merc C class with a 6.3 V8 engine have tons more going for them from my POV, their flaws give them appeal.
BMW for me was about more than the power and technology, it was about the simple drive centric focus and decent six pot engines with rwd.
Just my 2p of course. M3 CSL should be all anyone wants if they want a sporty saloon car with seats for the kids and a boot!
Dave
They tend to be bloody heavy, their height plays havoc with bonnet crash regs, their length gives rise to packaging issues with regards ancillaries like manifolds, rads etc.
From a performance perspective, the limitations of their specific output tend to come about from having arsing great pistons thundering up and down the bores exceeding the 25fps rule.
As a driver experience they're wonderful
As a piece of automotive engineering they are inherently flawed.
I think the E46 3.2 M3 engine was their swansong as aspirated performance engines.
But I must say that the challenge of the 3.2 engine to do what it did is what inspired and awed me. When Nowack tuned the lump to 9000rpm and 400bhp! When M made the CSL with that stupendously optimised intake system and induction noise to make you wet your pants!
The new engine is 'better' but it's not something I'll just gorpe under the bonnet for. I wouldn't really give it a second glance to be honest
Maybe it's just me, I just like things that go against the grain JUST to be different!
The underdog winner
Dave
I'm all for modern engines and things, it's just you have to be careful because alot of marketing speak can often be misleading.
Just as an example, alot was made of the LP640 Murc engine output, but it's almost identical from 2000-6500rpm to the old Murc output, but it just holds onto a touch more torque over 6500rpm meaning that it pushes the power 60bhp up.
In the articles it reads like a powerhouse, but it's only when you draw the curves for new and old with the usual (80% of peak at 2000rpm) or whatever that you see that the new engine isn't really much until the higher rpm...
What really counts on the LP640 is dramatically shorter gearing! Thats whats really made it move and use that extra 60bhp properly as it's allowed the torque to be multiplied loads more.... point being that we think the engine is worlds apart from the lower capacity V12, but it's not really. The marketing speak/articles I read said nothing of the gearing!
Dave
Isn't the issue fade which is a function of cooling and thermal mass?
Look at the big single piston sliders on the Conti GT...
Only real benefit I see to multi-piston is they are lighter and have more pad area on a road car, with a higher clamping peak, but the current gear can lock the wheels anyway. Surely if they just put even bigger single pistons on it'd resolve the issue?
Not wanting to get into a big brake discussion, but if the Conti GT gets away with it then why can't the BMW's?
Dave
Personally I think they are backwards steps for a "Motorsport" car...
If people want wafty well specced cars BMW's 335Ci is perfect in that regard?
Again not putting it down, but this focus on making cars faster and faster just makes them worse and worse for enjoying on public roads because you can go too fast without even breaching 4000rpm or 25% of the grip/handling envelope! And then on track that torque spread is pretty irrelevant as your never down under 4000rpm anyway. I can see the attraction for on-paper stats and selling points vs the competitors, but in the real world is it really a better driving car because of it?
Dave
Isn't the issue fade which is a function of cooling and thermal mass?
Look at the big single piston sliders on the Conti GT...
Only real benefit I see to multi-piston is they are lighter and have more pad area on a road car, with a higher clamping peak, but the current gear can lock the wheels anyway. Surely if they just put even bigger single pistons on it'd resolve the issue?
Not wanting to get into a big brake discussion, but if the Conti GT gets away with it then why can't the BMW's?
Dave
The Conti gets away with it because you are not doing track days in it
Try it for two consecutive laps at the Ring and let's see what happens when you approach Breidscheid and you need to slow down pronto... 
Wonder how Sabine manages with a laden E60 M5 at the Ring then?
Dave
Hmm, BMW now employing Alistair Campbell for their press releases?
Maybe you should remove your Porsche blinkers.
It could be 20s faster, or 30s faster, but it's still an ugly saloon (now)
Dave
Maybe i should go buy a HDI then i could be an expert too
If we will get into what others drive/own then I'll wonder why you have stumped for a diesel E92 that pushes the scales at a lofty 1650kg and the noise is err, well, still not 'performance car'...
I could sit myself in a real 'performance car' tomorrow so I don't see what the issue is there... I choose to drive a cheap diesel car and admit it. I have a list as long as my arm of some of the best sports cars ever made that I could run, the issue for me is choosing one, and being a tight git and throwing money at depreciating assets makes me cringe, hence the selection. E30 M3, Elise 160S, TVR Griff 4.3, an E39 M5, S2 111S, RS2, E36 M3 GT (rhd)...
I may well not have spent much time with the real cars to say much about them, but I spent a good four years making a simulation E39 M5 and E46 M3. I might not know how they feel, but I know what makes them seriously focussed saloons, and why!
I don't make comments about how they drive, I point out the technical disparity, that anyone who can read a few technical specifications can notice. Weight kills performance in all aspects, and just adding power doesn't make up for the weight except in one way, acceleration (hardly a performance car prerequisite)...
But to counter the performance hit of that weight in other areas, requires MUCH more work. I dobut BMW have engineered the car that well to make it as though the added weight wasn't there... if they had their F1 team should use the same technology and win the constructors year on year!
Anyway, I love loads of BMW's for what they are. New Z4M Roadster and Coupe are amazing, flawed inline six and all. E60 M5 is nice, though the E39 is my fave. E46 M3 CSL is stunning.
I like the 330Ci E92 as well.
Just NOT keen at all on BMW's latest 'weight' exercises, and on their technically brilliant but rather uningenious engines... 3.0 TT petrol, 3.0 TT derv, new M V8. All at a time when Audi and Mercedes are moving back to rampant NA power, BMW's preserve of the past, BMW are moving towards FI or at best just doing what Audi have just done. Just lost that awe factor.
And it's still bloody ugly, the 330Ci is actually pretty in comparison, and it's weight/ugliness REALLY shows in what should be the most desireable sporty red colour! Bangle cars are delicate. Butch worked on the Z4M's, but it's not working here
Dave
Better yet, a £40k mk1 911 GT3 that will depreciate bugger all if it's for weekend blats, and then a nice £20k E46 M3 to take the miles as a daily hack.
£60k better invested against depreciation and twice as many cars
Dave
I think it's fair that the press ask why the M cars are not really M cars anymore.
The M cars today *feel* to some extent to just be the fastest version of a given series car, not a totally different type of car.
The 320Si was in engineering/focus terms just as much an M car as this new M 3 series is, but it doesn't sell loads. Wonder why. The reality is people don't want M cars, but they like the M badge.
Dave
I think it's fair that the press ask why the M cars are not really M cars anymore.
The M cars today *feel* to some extent to just be the fastest version of a given series car, not a totally different type of car.
The 320Si was in engineering/focus terms just as much an M car as this new M 3 series is, but it doesn't sell loads. Wonder why. The reality is people don't want M cars, but they like the M badge.
Dave
The 320si could never be positioned as a M car. It's not true to the M philosophy. The 318is and 320si were and are positioned for markets where larger engine sizes mean big tax. They are not an all out racer.
Hand built, higher compression, carbon lid, throttle butterflies, it's more a racing engine than any other 3 series unit bar the new V8...
The car is a WTCC homogolation car, and is more in line with why the E30 M3 was built the way it was (for being a touring car), than the E92 will ever be.
My point is the M3 is no more 'special' than the 320Si in actual driver centric terms. Unless of course 100kg+ of extra flab and loads more grunt and excessive grip make a better drivers car. A faster one maybe, but I bet a 320Si would be just as fun to punt around a track or on the road as the new M3...
Point is fast doesn't automatically = fun, and the 320Si is probably just as much fun, and for what it's worth when buying any 'interesting or sporty' car, then that is just as important as pub banter statistical drivel or Ring lap times which for 99.99% of drivers mean bugger all until their balls only just fit in the car, and are total 100% bo
ocks for fun road use!Dave
Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff