RE: The new BMW M3

[Mr Whippy]

I was expecting, 'the king is dead, long live the king' kinda statements, but it seems like the Audi's and Mercs have brought the game alot closer, along with BMW moving towards Audi and Merc's kinda brief...

As per Havoc's points, thats my issue. What good is a car with 414bhp and 1550kg if it's just too fast for the roads before you get any sense of fun or feedback?

The roads I've seen the car being driven on in video's so far, are smooth open roads, and in that environment the Merc C63 is just going to be so much better.

Back-road blasting in the UK with rwd and that weight and power in an M3, hmmm, would rather have an RS4 with that sort of power and weight on UK roads and with our weather.

The M3 worked, but with the power and weight it now has, what is it? Is it a luxury barge with a turn of speed (C63) or a backroad blaster (Evo IX), or a jack of all trades (RS4)... I just think the E46 M3 sat in it's own place, and justified that place on the merits of the package.
Right now it's just a splodge and I can't think why I'd pick one over the competition 'on the face of it' in terms of the package... it's not the lightest, most powerfull or has the best all-weather prospects.

And ok I haven't driven an E92 M3, but if I were out purely for an involving driving car which might be the only thing going for it vs the others, and found the E92 M3 better than the others, then I'd get a CSL or even a CS to get an EVEN better driving car than the E92 for that purpose!

Just where is the E92 M3 fitting in? Too many cars I'd rather have that look prettier, have bigger numbers on paper for the 'woooo' factor, or make more sense!

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 20th July 16:39

[Mr Whippy]

Well ok, fair point.

But I still stand by my point that it looks crap. 335Ci, 330Ci, lovely cars. M3, yuck!

Wing mirrors look really bad. Bonnet top vents and buldge are at odds with the flame design seen elsewhere. Side-vents being indented and swept back, but only just in time for the door to not need another panel, looks horrible and cheap. Wheel design doesn't suit the car/flame styling, this isn't an E46 M3.

Basically, everything that is new on the M3 against a nice E92 looks crap, contrived, chavvy, ugly or just plain wrong!

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My thought process for putting the deposit down on the E92 was:

1) Get back from skiing and have the Evo with the "concept" E92 M3 on the front
2) Wow, that looks great
3) I've had a lot of fun in BMW 3 series in the past
4) The E46 M3 got good reviews
5) F*ck it, they can't get it THAT wrong can they?
6) Mr. Dealer, please take this £1000
7) Oops, did I make the right decision

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and in my eyes it's ugly

Now the Car Feb07 magazine 'impression' was infinitely nicer. My issue is with poorly resolved details and alloys that just don't suit the car. How have BMW managed to make the M E60, Z4 M's and stock E92's so nice, but made the M E92 so pig ugly? I said it a long while ago, in my view the Bangle look doesn't take to butching up, and I think the issue here is trying to use E46 'butch' features on a Bangle E92... it's just turned out looking crap!

Miguel said:

Stuff

Yes, you are right, it is the best car to suit the market right now. It's just a shame that, ultimately, that ///M has moved it's goalposts as expectations have changed, and now what ///M really was is now the CSL brand, and ///M is like a premium sports brand.

Hey ho, never mind. Just a secondary shame about the looks as the E30, 36 and 46 are all good lookers with the M bits on, but personally I don't see many 335Ci owners wanting to mimick the looks of the M model this time round

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 20th July 20:43

[Mr Whippy]

StuH said:

Mr Whippy said:

Well ok, fair point.

But I still stand by my point that it looks crap. 335Ci, 330Ci, lovely cars. M3, yuck!

Wing mirrors look really bad. Bonnet top vents and buldge are at odds with the flame design seen elsewhere. Side-vents being indented and swept back, but only just in time for the door to not need another panel, looks horrible and cheap. Wheel design doesn't suit the car/flame styling, this isn't an E46 M3.

Basically, everything that is new on the M3 against a nice E92 looks crap, contrived, chavvy, ugly or just plain wrong!

Dave

In your opinion

Looks the boocks in my opinion, albeit not a patch on a Pug 306

Haha, but my car cost £3k, and I don't pretend it looks pretty or is the best thing since sliced bread. A £60k price and an M badge doesn't make this M3 a default choice or warrant being called 'dogs boocks'... BMW showed they could get it very wrong with the 7, at least people said it how it was rather than pretended it was nice somehow!

Your comments on it's looks are fair enough though, it is all opinion based, so I'd like to know if you think it looks nicer than the 330Ci or 335Ci? I'm also genuinely interested how you view the changes vs those models... how well are they executed in your mind.

It's just gone all Halfords aftermarket bling for me in regards to that question, and the new details are cheap, had the side vents moved into the doors they'd look better and not look cheap (having a linear slope out just so they stop in time for the panel gap is so laughably cheap for a car that cost £55k+), and the bonnet vent is very E46 M3, and that just doesn't sit well with the E92 style... the Z4 M has a nice rise in the bonnet with nipped peaks down the panel that suit the flame styling, again, the bulge is just cheap and doesn't match, it looks tatty aftermarket... then the wing mirrors, what is wrong with the M5/6 ones, again they don't even blend with the styling in my view, they don't match with any other features of the car and just appear as stand alone additions with no cues to anything else, who wants a wolf in tacky wolfs clothing?

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Sunday 22 July 21:53

[Mr Whippy]

Zod said:

Wolfsbait said:

Zod said:

<checks profile>Yes, he drives an Audi. (it's a TDI, so he'd love an RS4, but.......)

go drive your exciting car and leave us to enjoy our M cars, please.

RS4 Avant arrives a week on Sunday....and yes I will enjoy it.

(M5 Touring is too big, too flabby and too errr dull...sorry chaps)

driven an M5 Touring then, have you?

You are just trolling here.

You don't need to drive one to not want one, or not like it.

It is bigger than the RS4 so fair point there, it is in my view dull compared to the RS4 as well, another fair point for Wolfsbait to make.

I think if you want the biggest fastest estate car going then the M5 Touring is king, but I don't think that every buyer of a fast estate simply wants the fastest and biggest car!

Cripes, the idea of a 500bhp, or even 400bhp estate in the first place sounds loony... the old biturbo RS4 seemed and was excessive when it came out, and that was cool, but to pretend it's sensible is even worse I think the M5 Touring is trying to be a sensible car, and in doing so is dull.

No I've not driven a Veyron either, but there are many threads on here with people having opinions on it, best go bitch slap them as trolls too

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Sunday 22 July 21:51

[Mr Whippy]

StuH said:

I'd have to agree on the wing mirrors, but otherwise i still think it looks excellent. Like all new designs they take a while to grow on you. I hated the new 5 and 6 series on release but now really appreciate their styling. I remember the same comments when the M3 went from E36 to E46, i had both. A year after release the E36 looked incredibly dated. I'd expect the same to happen with the new model.

I'm happy to accept that its not everyones cup of tea, but what makes me laugh about these threads, is that the knockers openly state they've never driven this (or often ANY M car!), have no intention of buying one, and in most cases couldn't afford it if they did. Yet they think we should consider their opinion - Thankfully we all have the freedom of choice

I have to be honest and say when the E46 M3 came out I did like it right away, and at the same time the E36 looked sooo dated.

However, today, I actually like the E36 M3 more than I did before the E46 M3 came out. It's long-term charm is now shining through as they are less and less common!

I'm not sure what will happen to the E46 M3, but purely on the face of it I prefer the sixers, and I don't like the V8.

You are right that I'm knocking it without alot of exposure in the driving seat, I'd never buy an E46 or E92 M3, but the E36 is certainly an option, as is an M Roadster... and I'm a long-term fan of all the M models to date! This car, for some reason, just doesn't interest me half as much as it could or should, and as a straight up 'M' fan, that isn't so good, and thats why I'm gutted because I genuinely did want it to be flapping ace! I'll let it off the weight and engine, because the M3's have gained weight, capacity and cylinders since the start, but the looks are just not composed enough for me. If it looked like a 335Ci but with twin exhausts rather than singles it'd be spot on for me...

I think an opinion on looks and ethos is valid no matter what you own, but I agree that an opinion on 'how good it really is vs another car' should be kinda left to the owners or those with alot of experience.
However, the Veyron vs F1 thread went on for pages, and hardly anyone here owns one, let alone both...

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

Mr Whippy said:

BMW showed they could get it very wrong with the 7, at least people said it how it was rather than pretended it was nice somehow!

The 7 (and the 5) grew on people, and turned out to be quite well received and a very clever move by BMW.

I've just got my delivery date for the M3, very happy chap.

There wasn't really much wrong with the 5 was there? Certainly not like the 7, which was never really praised, and BMW made a significant facelift too!

As said, the E92 generally is nice, I like the Saloon E90 and the Coupe E92. It's just these poorly resolved odd details that just look out of place.

It's like seeing an E36 M3 with E46 M3 19's, or with the shark fin on the back of the roof, they are just wrong!

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

Boulder said:

My E28 will be more fun than any of this Over Hyped,Over Marketed Knob extension-with half the power!

And this M3 will be faster, more comfortable, more reliable, safer, and easier to live with than your E28. What's your point?

Faster, I wonder how much more in the real world?

More comfortable? How comfortable do you NEED to be? The E28 is hardly a rock hard race car. Get some new dampers if yours isn't like silk to be inside.

More reliable, fair, but being 15 years newer and costing over ten times more today you'd hope so.

Safer? Well if you crash, then yes, so just don't crash. If you are so bothered why are you getting a car that will rip your face off in the first place? Better off in an over-protective Ovlov instead?

Easier to live with? What does that mean? You just get in it and drive it around. Or does the new car wipe your arse for you? If anything the four door car is easier to get passengers in and out of than a three door with flippy forward seats.

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 23 July 19:11

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

Mr Whippy said:

Safer? Well if you crash, then yes, so just don't crash. If you are so bothered why are you getting a car that will rip your face off in the first place? Better off in an over-protective Ovlov instead?

Think that comment nicely sums up your whole post, what a pile of rubbish! You don't choose whether you are crashed into, you don't choose to have a tyre blowout on the motorway, and you don't choose to crash as a result of diesel on the road at night, in the rain. Wake up!

I have woken up.

I've seen lots of small vehicle crashes and people walk away ok, and I've seen enough 'big new safe' cars crash and you'd expect people to get out fine and they have fatal injuries.

And you DO choose whether you are crashed into to a fairly large degree. Yes there are always one off random accidents you simply cannot avoid, but they are very few and far between. To extend on this point, a smaller car is more likely to find a space to avoid an oncoming car.

Tyre blowout. Please. How many have you seen? How fast are you going? Do you really drive that agressively to find this a major issue? Are these risks actually worth driving a bigger car that will likely be harder to stop in a high speed loss of control in the first place? Your low profile rubber band tyres are more likely to be damaged than a more moderately sidewalled tyre, and so perhaps risk is increased.

Diesel on the road, fair point, but are you going to go about your whole life worrying like that? Do you live in a bungalow to avoid the perilous stairs? I'd go as far as saying a slower car that is harder to drive fast, and gives more sensation at reasonable speeds (E28) is far safer than say an E60 because chances are you'll be going a fraction slower when you hit the diesel in the first place, while having fun!

Lets just stop going down this path anyway. The E28 is a fine car, and as an 'M' car it's clearly up there with the best of them. Since when did fine shades of grey with respect to comfort, useability and real world cross-country pace actually come into it when we are talking about cars you own to drive? The M cars were meant to be the ultimate **driving** machines, not the fastest machines for people who just want a car with the biggest numbers all over everything on the spec sheet.

Maybe thats the issue, too many people are now buying them on the 0-60 times and power figures. I rekon the E28 is better because you could use alot more of it's performance more of the time, at slower speeds, and be safer doing it while having more fun too!

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 23 July 21:57

[Mr Whippy]

m12_nathan said:

Whereas a modern M chassis will be enjoyable on a wet road late a night.

Why do people think that imcreased capability = less fun?

I have more fun in my CSL than I did in the integra, yet the integra's limits were much, much lower, and it is 300kg lighter.

If you cant have fun in a modern M car then it isn't the car you need to be looking at.

Well you can have fun in lots of different ways. Intimacy, outright speed/fright, sound, sense of occasion, ego massaging etc...

The CSL has the sound and the brutal performance and intimate ride. I'm sure if you drove anywhere near 7/10ths on most roads you'd be going too quickly. Maybe on some wide sweeping A roads you'd push harder and get the intimate thrills from toying on the limit... I had 'fun' in an Evo VII, but to drive it to that level all the time to have fun would see you through a hedge or in prison! As soon as you drop to 7/10ths pushing on or 5/10ths it's just a bit crap 'for what it is'

The Teggy is a car where you get fun from dancing on the limits. The engine is rather raw and it is ultimately fwd and not THAT fast on paper. It'll still breach the speed limits and safe speed on most roads fairly quickly though! You can almost drive with the flow of traffic and be buzzing! Again, off the cams and limits of grip it's not *that* great, but you can get near the limits of grip and use the revs every day in limited speed zones and on smaller roads quite easily.


And if the modern M car is so good for having fun in, then why are people buying Caterhams, Atom's and bikes if it's the driver that is limiting the fun as you suggest?

Wouldn't they be better off in a CSL or E92 M3?? I think the reality is the more raw, intimate and responsive cars are those that give the biggest thrills. Thats why the CSL is desireable over the stock M3 in the first place. Surely that trend continues to lighter cars, or does the trend end at the M3 CSL, which just so happens to be the car you own

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 24th July 10:57

[Mr Whippy]

m12_nathan said:

Not saying that caterfields etc aren't more raw and more fun but to infer that you cannot have fun in a car with high limits is nonsense, the limits of a caterham R500 are very high, you can still enjoy yourself below that...

Every roundabout is a laugh, the fact that you can overtake people in short gaps rather than being stuck behind them means you can get on with enjoying yourself. who is having more fun, the guy in the integra approaching the limits of his skinny tyres or the guy behind him, with the tail at 30 degrees despite big tyres as he has power to the correct wheels and an LSD? No different, both drivers just having fun.

I maintain that it is possible to have fun in any car you want to have fun in, the new M3 will be a blast. What was your first car? Fun I bet, whatever it was, and that doesn't have to change as you get more capable cars IMO.

Anyone who cannot have fun in a 400bhp rwd car with LSD and 8k rpm has no imagination.

Skinny tyres are all that is needed for 1100kg. It's the compound that is the issue for grip. The skinny tyres might be R888's and allow more ultimate grip than a wider standard road tyre.
Having them narrower and taller walled means there is more pliancy in the contact patch, which is fine when you have low weight and power. Add weight and you need power, circular feedback loop, and you need big wide stiff tyres, so they don't overheat when deformed.
They are not better, they are ultimately a sign of having to over-engineer, and their downsides are clear and evident!

Tail at 30 degree's and LSD? I've never seen anyone do that on the road. Maybe once or twice on a roundabout but my old £300 Sierra XR4x4 on narrow tyres did that perfectly fine too. Fun, but not limited to a £55k M3.
And to be honest, going sideways 30 degrees in a £55k car on the *public roads*, and it weighing 1500kg+ isn't ever going to be THAT fun is it? Maybe if your Tiff Needel, but your average M3 buyer... hmmmm....

Not saying it's not fun, the point was that the E28 M5 is likely just as much fun to go **drive** around in, irrespective of the fact on paper it looks a bit slower.

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 24th July 12:07

[Mr Whippy]

m12_nathan said:

My Noble weighed 1050kg and had 265/35/18 tyres, in your opinion it should have skinny tyres with tall sidewalls, after all, that is all that is required. I noticed the motoring press didn't spot the "clear and evident" downsides to the tyre configuration when praising it as one of the best handing road cars ever....

It's got a shit load of power and is likely to be driven using it alot of the time! The Teggy example uses lots of revs and low torque and weight, but still only ~ 200bhp. The Noble has at least 300bhp and alot of torque too.

It probably could have used smaller tyres though. And it's not my 'opinion', it's the science of tyres. Big doesn't = grip, stickier = grip! Run it on slicks and you could in theory go narrower to get the same on-track lap times as the wider road tyres.

Bigger = take more heat, deform less, but thats not limited to big tyres. A narrow well made tyre can be very sticky and rigid still. Dimension is probably the least significant factor determining a tyres performance.

http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/handling/...

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_0996/printArticle.h...

You need wide tyres, but only so much and you can see over-tyred cars, ie, 318Ci on mega wide low profile tyres. Adding weight and then needing power in a circular feedback system (ie, every M3 since new (not attacking, just saying)) means we need wider tyres, though advanced tyres offset the full issues of this. My point is that if we had the V8 and the same weight of the E46, but with newer tyre tech, we could keep the same width as the E46 (lighter, lower rolling friction etc), but have the performance of the V8 in a lighter car. The weight here was an issue, and it's meant the full advantages of the new tyre tech and engine are not fully realised
Not having a go at it, just another reason I'm a bit disappointed thats all, it's still good, but it could have been so much better

Pugsey said:

Mr W. - you seem to be of the school that doesn't like people hooning in modern or 'expensive' cars. No-one's disagreeing that fun can be had in older, cheaper and/or less powerful cars and quite right too but that isn't a reason to dismiss newer faster ones. That appears to be a sort of reverse snobbery. For the record I'm very happy to hold my F430 at 30 degs. and doubt it'll be a prob. in the new M3 either - usual caveats re time and place oncoming traffic blah blah blah apply. Have you actually driven any of these over powered over tyred monsters you're talking about. The previous poster also made the point that fun can be had in other ways such as overtaking in short gaps etc. - and there of course power rules.

Nooo, don't get me wrong, I think hoonage in anything is good. As I said 'fun' can be had from intimacy, speed, brutal acceleration, awe inspiring sensations, or combinations of all of them + loads more that you could list.

The point was mainly E28 M5 vs E92 M3 for fun, because someone brought it up earlier. My point is that any car that was setup as a fun sports car will be just as fun as another in some ways. BUT, I'd say the E28 will offer more sense of speed and sensation of working harder/reward because it's ultimately slower, wheras the newer M3 will offer more awe from the brutal pace, and enjoyment from that.. though you have to agree an old Mini ragged to the edge of it's life is still only just keeping up with your average fast saloon or hot hatch. One driver is having alot more of the 'driving hard' fun! The new M3 driver will be held back eventually due to sheer speed in at least one area, which is the 'driving hard' fun.


Surely comparing an Evo VII blat vs a TVR V8 blat is the perfect example. The Evo would wipe the floor with the TVR, and the driver wouldn't hardly break a sweat, even though it's only the same power and weighs more, with smaller tyres and higher cofg, less race inspired chassis too (non double wishys etc)

The Evo is fun driven hard too, as is the TVR, probably equally just as fun to punt to the limits... BUT, slow down, and the TVR even at 5/10ths needs concentration, and is fun because of that, and the occasion and noise, but the Evo can start to feel like any other saloon car, it sounds normal, feels normal, looks normal, a bit boring. So how it's driven can effect the 'fun factor' alot imho.


Fun is pretty hard to measure, just like how nice a car looks is all down to what people like from their cars.
Again, I've said in previous comments in this thread that I bet it will be a great car outright, and be fun to drive, I just expected/wanted MORE as an ///M car fan, and I'm not keen on the visual details.


People are reading my comments and thinking I'm arguing against the M3. I'm not, I'm just making points arguing how it could have been better by making reference to other cars that do a good job of being fast, intimate, brutal, comfortable, and showing how they achieved it.

Wide tyres, big engines and a massive turn of speed doesn't == a fun car by default, I know we all know that, but some people keep arguing those points like thats why it's better than the previous cars or other cars! (ie, the E92 M3 is just totally better than the E28 M5 in every way, including as a drivers car) It's just ignorant and stupid as saying an Elise is crap because it's got no power and skinny tyres and is hard to get into. Different cars are better and worse for different reasons. The new M3 isn't "better", it's just a good different car!

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 24th July 12:44

Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 24th July 12:46

Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 24th July 13:01

[Mr Whippy]

m12_nathan said:

to say big doesn't = grip is untrue.



This has 265 fronts and 315 rears and has more grip and traction than the standard 235 front, 265 rear combination. People ofter use 265 fronts to reduce understeer, again, bigger = more grip. Elise S2 owners go from 175 fronts to 195 fronts to move away from the understeer led stance that lotus introduce. Real world examples where big does = more grip.

No, bigger = possible tighter optimum slip angle at a lower load, which means the front end generates more lateral force sooner than the rears = less understeer, but potentially no more ultimate grip when they load up fully.

Wider/stiffer = changed load sensitivity, perhaps meaning under lateral load changes we get less or more grip.

It's NOT down to wider = more grip. Please go read some tyre tech links (posted above) and then delve deeper... My points are over-simplified, tyres are bloody complicated and I can only begin to fathom their properties, but it's far from as simple as wider = grippier best rule is stickier = grippier, but even then you might not optimise them on a road car suspension (ie, slicks on road car setup)...

Wide tyres should really be the last resort as they add weight, inertia, drag etc. Better to adjust the suspension setup first to make it oversteer naturally. The peak lateral grip I'm pretty sure will be about the same if the tyre compounds stay the same on a like for like car! The handling attitude however will change, but that isn't grip driven...

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 24th July 13:10

[Mr Whippy]

Sorry for being boring and pessimistic everyone

Don't dislike the car (apart from the weird visual details), just enthusiastic about what how even better it could have been!

I await the CSL with the anticipation and eagerness that I had for this new one

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 24th July 13:31

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

Mr Whippy said:

People are reading my comments and thinking I'm arguing against the M3. I'm not, I'm just making points arguing how it could have been better

Seriously, starting with an E92, how would you have made a "better" M3? (Ignore the looks, beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc.)

Z4 M style pinched edges to the bonnet buldge, sack off the weird little droplet vents in the bonnet and have one at the back ala E46 M3 bonnet (subtle and discrete), make the door panels involve the shark fin gills, so they don't perfectly linearly taper out onto the panel gap (grim detailing that is), and some more Banglesque wheels.
Standard 'M' styling principles don't work on Bangle cars, and I think a quick look at the quirky cool Z4M's perfectly shows that, all the 'M' additions are fresh and new looking and fitting with the car!

Looks aside, which are all details (the form is lovely, as shown in the 330Ci and 335Ci), the fact a sunroof option (as seen on alot of models) means the CofG and weight savings are gone because of a metal roof. Why not make the bonnet and bootlid carbon fibre so all the models benefit irrespective of spec?

I know of ALL the complexities here why a V8 is best etc, but the old E34 M5 had a big 3.8 6 pot inline engine back in 1993 ish, with 340bhp and 300lbft. Surely with todays tech pushing a new but similar engine to even 375bhp would be ample with an offset in weight?

Even if it ended up being inferior and slower, I'd love it more for the pure silliness of having a big six when others are just going the 'obvious' route with fast v8's... I like engineering against the grain, proving it can be done, Porsche still bunging their flat 6's over the back of the rear axle makes them intersting. Doing the obvious easy thing is dull (for me) even if the result is stunning on paper!

Hey ho, thats just me. Personally I don't care how fast cars are to that extent, or how big the numbers are on a piece of paper, character, charm and driving dynamics would be key. The E46 M3 was already very good, and ultimately all they have done here is add more weight and power... What is genuinely NEW here? It hasn't pushed any boundaries has it?
The first next-gen model to be no more heavy and have a superior power to weight ratio than the last one, now THAT would grab my attention... engineering against some limitations!

I'd have prefered a big fat 6 pot and 75kg shaved off by use of more exotic materials. Even the CSL engine and then save the money spent on that new engine/development on loads of carbon to make the car light!

Just bored of fat powerfull cars. I'm looking forward to something light with an engine that doesn't need more brawn to make it perform better than the previous model.

It's not progress is it? Surely progress would be lighter and more powerful? Anyone can make a big car and just stuff it full of power!

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 27th July 10:06

[Mr Whippy]

An angry E39 M5 sort of sound...

So the sound of a V8 then. Hardly something to 'make' the car is it. Maybe if it was flat plane and Cerb style!

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

havoc said:

edb49 said:

Mr Whippy said:

People are reading my comments and thinking I'm arguing against the M3. I'm not, I'm just making points arguing how it could have been better

Seriously, starting with an E92, how would you have made a "better" M3? (Ignore the looks, beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc.)

Lighter. Simple as that.
...can't say much else as I haven't driven it, and it sounds like the engine's sublime already.

Right, and how would you make it lighter without making it more expensive to produce? (Bare in mind you're starting with an E92 coupe, which is 1600kg unladen in base 335i form.)

Edited by edb49 on Saturday 28th July 15:44

Spend the money you did developing that engine on CF. Tadaa!

Rip out the sound proofing, tadaa!

Don't buy an M car if you are only buying it to look good in, because it's a Motorsport car, not a poseur car!

Sorted

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

havoc said:

edb49 said:

Mr Whippy said:

People are reading my comments and thinking I'm arguing against the M3. I'm not, I'm just making points arguing how it could have been better

Seriously, starting with an E92, how would you have made a "better" M3? (Ignore the looks, beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc.)

Lighter. Simple as that.
...can't say much else as I haven't driven it, and it sounds like the engine's sublime already.

Right, and how would you make it lighter without making it more expensive to produce? (Bare in mind you're starting with an E92 coupe, which is 1600kg unladen in base 335i form.)

Edited by edb49 on Saturday 28th July 15:44

Spend the money you did developing that engine on CF. Tadaa!

Rip out the sound proofing, tadaa!

Don't buy an M car if you are only buying it to look good in, because it's a Motorsport car, not a poseur car!

Probably no good for the BMW bean counters who are using M to make money more and more, but hey ho thats their perogative. I think the Evo review sums it up. It's good, but does it have a character? The RS4 appears to have more interesting things about it, and the Merc certainly will. BMW have dropped a bollock in my view. And it still looks too bloody big and blobby in pictures, not sure how when the 330Ci and 335Ci, and even the Alpina over the page look so damn good!

Ah well, not like I'm a buyer, I'll just see it as a flash expensive 340i rather than an M car.

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Saturday 28th July 15:57

[Mr Whippy]

Again, I'm sure it's a fantastic car, but it's far from a Motorsport inspired car at the weight it's at now, for the class of car it is. Please tell me what it does have going for it over any of the other cars it's up against, or the older M cars available.

As per costs, well how on earth did the E46, using a relatively 'shared tech' engine manage to cost so little vs this new car that is also sharing technology?

As much as I wanted to like this car it's just not very special or interesting is it. Not one outstanding 'new' feature, just an engine similar to the one Audi had developed 24 months ago, and thats really it's only new feature.
The rest is questionable bodykit, weight and a huge price tag. Sorry but how is that meant to be exciting?

Harry M (Evo man) even said what I said on the first post in this thread ... '3dr E39 M5 replacement?' vs 'Perhaps more like a coupe version of the previous M5 than an updated version of what the M3 used to stand for'

It's glaringly obvious from where I'm sat. It's more marketing exercise and £££ than an awe inspiring new M product that has moved the game on! Thankfully the E60 and Z4 M models have hot the spot... missed the mark with the 3 series one though, trying to cover too much of the market and they've done a Munson

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

Motorsport inspired goes beyond some stupid engine limitations. DTM is V8 but even then it's not the engine that makes the cars stunning performers, it's a lack of lard and some proper focus!

As per contradiction. Fantastic car, the engine is a peach, but it's nothing new. The chassis and everything else is likely tuned to BMW M perfection. But so was the E46 M3...

So it's a good car, but it's nothing new, there is nothing that grabs my attention. Wow, another heavier more powerfull next generation model with more emphasis on day to day usage and comfort. Crikey they really are pulling out all the stops this year

Dave