RE: The new BMW M3

[Mr Whippy]

It's clear the game has moved on and you are right what you say.

Just a shame that it's another badge that has gone under the axe to suit the marketing. The CSL will be the real deal, just it's annoying that they have sold out the M badge.

Your criteria defined in your post doesn't require an M car to fill it. Just badge it a 340MCsi or some such. The M car should, imho, be the top model bar specials. Problem I have is that if the real deal M3 is now the CSL, then what will be the properly hardcore track model be, a CSL-R?

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

I'd have made one set of wheels, because making ugly standard 18's when everyone will buy the better proportioned 19's as a cost extra, upping the cost of what will essentially be the 'standard spec' even higher.
There, thats some money saved.

Dump all the electrics, the dampers can do their own thing. If the ride is too rough buy a 335Ci, that IS what it is there for. The M model is a drivers car, not a cosseting daily driver.

That saves weight and money.

Dump the power button, pointless. Thats 20 grammes saved and some more money.

Dump all the current styling additions and copy Alpina, there, some more money saved. Discrete yet agressive.

A carbon bonnet, bootlid and roof, and sack off the sunroof option. Who needs a sunroof if your buying a car that puts performance before comforts and kit? It's a load of weight right ontop of the car.
Save money designing two roofs and CAD'ing in a sunroof option, crash testing etc etc etc...

Take out half of the soundproofing that is clearly hiding the sound of that engine (from Evo review it sounds like it's quite muted inside)... save some more weight there, and money.

Throw those wing mirrors away. Just use the 335Ci ones. There is some money saved.

Chuck out what is probably a very heavy exhaust system, with silly valves so it can be quiet for the pansies that will buy it to drive around in just for posing, and fit a proper lightweight expensive system! It's scary what some of these exhausts weigh these days.

Hopefully by this stage I've saved about 100kg in weight, and got it down to the old M3's weight at least. Now we are down near the weight of that new Alpina B3 Biturbo... and any power we have now is worth a fair bit more... our brakes are now essentially upgraded, our tyres, grip, composure, dampers, springs, performance... ALL have had a boost in performance by actually saving money and weight!!! WOW!

Now, with the spare money, if there is any, go to Nowack and ask for their 9000rpm M3 engines with 407bhp. Touch wood and cross fingers and have something that just makes you want to wet your pants when you see one driving by with the foot flat at top rpm's, knowing the person who owns it WANTS an ///M car, not just a cosseting badge mobile that may as well be a 340Ci with a diff!

Still rekon the M3 is a good car, if this is the way BMW want to go fair enough, just I'm not quite as jump up and down with joy about it as I was about their previous cars. Never mind, plenty of people clearly love it and thats nice


After just reading the review of the Alpina sat here, you have to wonder why 90% of the M3 buyers would want an M3 if all the things they have mentioned in this thread are what they really want. Comfort, useability, real world pace, looks, rarity... it's a bloody bargain, and I know it makes a good noise too! Can't beat the sound of a good BMW 6 pot

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

Pugsey said:

taffyracer said:

But he does have some valid points though I believe, especially about the sport button and adjustable shocks, gimmicks IMO and we all pay the penalty for it in uneccessary weight and extra expense

Why does everyone bang on about weight!! It's a road car - you don't buy one of these if you're looking for a sports car/dedicated drivers tool.......... do you? As long as it handles it then a little weight makes for a more comfortable whilst still rapid road car IMO.

I bang on about weight because it's heavy vs the Alpina. Why?

The Alpina is automatic and if anything the focus is more on luxury and wafting, yet it's 75kg lighter... so the car that is supposedly the driving tool of the bunch is the heaviest? Makes no sense as it's badged. As said 340MCsi makes more sense to me.


As per 'which one will I buy' as posted by Whoami, none of them, I don't have £60k to spend on a single car.
If I did have £60k to spend, and for some reason a 911 GT3 and a nice E39 M5 couldn't somehow totally fullfill my requirements of 100% useable motoring nirvana (heaven knows why they wouldn't), then I'd buy the Alpina. Rare, just as fast in the real world, lighter, more interesting, better looking, cheaper, more comfortable (all from spec sheet, the Evo reviews, and understanding of Alpina's ethos, a much more 'knows what it's trying to be' package, unlike the silly M3 which appears to be lost in the realms of marketing led 'trying to be everything to everyone' ethos while sticking on loads of power to make some numbers looks better on bits of paper!

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

Mr Whippy said:

I'd have made one set of wheels, because making ugly standard 18's when everyone will buy the better proportioned 19's as a cost extra, upping the cost of what will essentially be the 'standard spec' even higher.
There, thats some money saved.

This point is invalid, because you pays your money and makes your choice. I've ordered 18s on mine.

Mr Whippy said:

Dump all the electrics, the dampers can do their own thing. If the ride is too rough buy a 335Ci, that IS what it is there for. The M model is a drivers car, not a cosseting daily driver.

How much weight do the electronic dampers have? Isn't PASM standard on 997 S and beyond? I've got PASM on my current car and it's a fantastic option. I would hazard a guess it adds less than 10kg for a fantastic amount of extra utility.

Mr Whippy said:

Dump the power button, pointless. Thats 20 grammes saved and some more money.

Please, if the third point of your criticism is saving 20g with a power button, you need to wake up. There's no scenario I can think of where a car you drive on the road would benefit more from saving 20g of weight, than it would lose from having a "make me useable everyday" button. It's all about cost/benefit.

Mr Whippy said:

A carbon bonnet, bootlid and roof, and sack off the sunroof option. Who needs a sunroof if your buying a car that puts performance before comforts and kit? It's a load of weight right ontop of the car.

Let people take the weight penalty and get a sunroof if they want it. Again, I'm sticking with the carbon roof myself. Bonnet and bootlid in GRP - how much extra cost versus saving in weight? (Consider the roof saves 7kg.) Would it really be worth it?

Mr Whippy said:

Take out half of the soundproofing... save some more weight there, and money.

Did the E30, E36 or E46 M3s have compromised soundproofing? (I can only think the E46 CSL did.) Why should BMW buck the M3 trend and make it even more hardcore than the last one?

Mr Whippy said:

Throw those wing mirrors away. Just use the 335Ci ones. There is some money saved.

So you should ADD weight to the car now, and reduce aero efficiency? I'm confused!

Mr Whippy said:

Chuck out what is probably a very heavy exhaust system, with silly valves so it can be quiet for the pansies that will buy it to drive around in just for posing, and fit a proper lightweight expensive system!

I'm 99% sure the exhaust system isn't active. How much cost would a fancy titanium exhaust add?

Mr Whippy said:

Hopefully by this stage I've saved about 100kg in weight, and got it down to the old M3's weight at least.

100kg? Not a chance with your shopping list above, I'd be surprised if you got much past 30kg.

Mr Whippy said:

Now, with the spare money, if there is any, go to Nowack and ask for their 9000rpm M3 engines with 407bhp.

And lose reliability, fail emissions tests, increase polar moments of inertia, and add engine weight. Are you adding weight or removing it?


Something you need to understand, is the more cars BMW split development costs over, the more they can spend on development. As an example, let's say £10 from every M3 sold can go into development. BMW predict they'll sell 150,000 M3s over its lifetime, so they get £1.5m for development. If they remove the soundproofing, they predict they'll sell 100,000 M3s. This means they've got £1m for development, instead of £1.5m. So you may have saved some weight, but it compromises the development of the car in other areas.

Right, if this was called a 340MCsi would you have bought it? If they made a lighter weight more basic car with less toys and comfort, and called THAT the M (what will really be the CSL) would you have waited for it instead, or bought the MCsi? Or is the 335Ci the perfect car for you, but it just doesn't have the M badge? Not having a go, genuinely interested in the package you wanted.

As per power button, weight saving 20g, dampers, it's ALL about cost AND weight. The power button and damper adjustments were never there on the E34 M5 were they, even though it had adaptive damping and a big engine?
The M car is meant to be a sporty car, why not just set it up with a sporty throttle map and dampers that **are still adaptive** but pre-set? I know

100kg vs 30kg, have you ever taken things out of a car of any type? Do you know how much sound proofing and the backboxes of modern cars weigh? It all adds up! The sound proofing probably wasn't as excessive as it was on past 3 series in the first place. WHY does this M3 weigh 70kg more than the 335Ci? Why does Evo magazine say it's very muted inside. Probably to make it quiet for the softies in the market who don't like noise?
Titanium exhuast, yes expensive, but it's not a pretend 'feature', it would really save weight and do something tangible. A bit excessive I agree but it's a valid point. The money comes from saving it elsewhere on gimmicky crap! I'd say just a well made thought out exhaust would do. Those pressed steel things look ugly hanging down the back of the cars. Cheap and fairly heavy.

As per engine reliability, ask Nowack, I have no idea. It's just a shot in the dark at making something interesting and being flippant because you have asked the same thing several times now. I wanted BMW to do something different, something interesting and against the obvious path. They chose the obvious path... weight and power. Ohhh, cunning solution there, going against the grain

Adding polar inertia, yeah, a fair chunk, but not the same as all the weight saved at the extents of the monocoque (we don't add weight in the void inside, seats don't add weight afterall)... afterall, it's ok to have those huge heavy exhausts that probably are active sat right out beyond the rear wheels.

The focus of my post wasn't literal, it was making points. How much money did that stupid vent on the bonnet cost to develop, that somehow feeds into the airbox, which is already ducted from the front grille? What does it do? To me it seems to serve little purpose but cost money!
Then they make a dummy one at the other side (for looks, was the whole thing an exercise in looks?), and that costs more money to machine a more complex bonnet. WHY?
The power button? Not much weight, but how much technical development goes into all these mappings for the engine? Why not just ONE map? How much money did having that button actually add overall?

At every step this car appears to have wasted money on gimmicks where it would have been better spent on real performance improvements, and then added weight where it's not needed and made token gestures with a carbon roof. The car weighs 70kg over the Alpina, but it's ok, the roof is carbon


Simple question. If they had made this car what the CSL is likely to be, would you have bought it?

If they had have made it more basic and more hardcore they'd loose sales, but it'd have been cheaper to make too.

335Ci sales would have gone up maybe?

Or do BMW know that they can sell the car to M enthusiasts on the back of sporty credentials (fine, but a shame because I think it could have been better still for those people), and then make a killing on people who now buy the car because it's safer, quieter, bigger numbers on paper, and then have that 'M' badge?
The 335Ci would really be the car for them, but they needed the badge. BMW M know they need the badge!

In a few generations no doubt the CSL will come with 10 disc multichanger and electric heated seats and a sunroof, as BMW realise that customers are seeing the CSL as the new 'bestest' model but are put off from spending their money on it because it's too hardcore.

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

Mr Whippy said:

The power button? Not much weight, but how much technical development goes into all these mappings for the engine? Why not just ONE map? How much money did having that button actually add overall?

If they had have made it more basic and more hardcore they'd loose sales, but it'd have been cheaper to make too.

Yes, the marginal costs would be lower, but the overheads would be higher. If the car was produced as you wanted it, I'd put money that it would be more expensive to make overall. (Taking into account development costs split over fewer units sold.)

Developments like the engine maps are essentially 'free'. They sell more units as a result of them, and split the development costs between more people. Job done.

I was very close to buying a 335i last year, the lack of a LSD was what made me decide against.

Fair enough, I understand the dynamics of sales vs cost etc. The original M3's were there for motorsport reasons, so the cost was borne by BMW. As time has gone by the M3 has existed to make money, and I'd say more and more all the time!

I just wonder where this will leave BMW M in a few more generations. Just a top-spec model, and not representative of any real ethos anymore?

As you have noted, is the 335Ci too much grunt without a diff? Will the next-gen replacement of this car have a diff? Will the M model slowly just become the 'best' model rather than a model all on it's own?


Not sure, it's certainly interesting, I just wished for something amazing and it is less than I'd hoped for.

Just glad Alpina are still doing what they have always done, and Audi and Mercede's appear to have become viable driving car options while BMW M appears to be toning down in that sector where it has always led a long way ahead

Interesing times!

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

Miguel said:

You're complaining that the new M3 is, among other things, too expensive and too marketing driven, yet you want to make it more expensive for the folks who want to choose the 18 wheels, which were chosen by the chassis engineers. BMW admits that the 19's are purely there for marketing reasons, yet you want them for aesthetic reasons

I'm being sceptical of BMW strategy. I know for a fact the majority of buyers will buy the 19's. Personally I'd have preferred BMW to offer one wheel size and optimise the car for it. One wheel to design, safety test, tyre to sign off etc etc etc...
Two wheels just adds lots of cost, and the reality is the 18 will be the forgotten wheel, just like it appears to have been on the E46. I've seen bugger all M3's on the 18's!

If I had the car 'made for my tastes' it'd have nicer looking 18's, the reality is, as with the E46, the 19's are a sublty more pleasing looking alloy. They could easily have made both styles almost identical, but they didn't, they made the 19 look different. Why would they do that? To help people visually see the difference, and be able to distinguish between the bigger 'better' wheels?

I'm afraid the wheels are a marketing drive, and by offering 19's if they corrupt handling and add so much to the cost anyway, that the M3 is a fair marketing exercise.

Why not offer just the 18's that look like the current 19's (which look better, even if they were 18's they would)? One wheel, one set of castings, one wheel to setup on, one bespoke tyre to design/sign off and road test?

The 19's are there purely to make money off the increasingly image concious market this car is aimed at... thats good business, but another shame on BMW's perception of the focus and integrity of the M brand.

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

Zod said:

Mr Whippy said:

Just glad Alpina are still doing what they have always done, and Audi and Mercede's appear to have become viable driving car options while BMW M appears to be toning down in that sector where it has always led a long way ahead

Interesing times!

Dave

Er:

1 Alpina are not doing what they have always done. They have changed into a producer of Autobahn cruisers;

2 Audi have certainly raised their game with the RS cars, but I seem to remember some rather good very sporting cars from quattro GmbH;

3 AMG are still replying on brute force. They may have moved on from superchargers, but they are now putting 6.3l engines in C Classes.

Define Autobahn cruiser? I'm pretty sure many E46 B3 owners will question you calling their cars autobahn cruisers. Autosport seem to regard the B3's highly, more like a more comfy/laidback take on the M models, but no less a pretty focussed car.
Alpina's have always been more about comfort but performance than rock solid chassis for track work. Even old E29 B9's feel more cosseting but also more chuckable to the cooking BMW models of the era and the 325i's, best comparison I have I'm afraid.

Audi and RS, well I was talking more about their modern cars under the S and RS badges. The contrast is clear to see though, Audi haven't done this for fun, they have clearly seen a market for their cars being more sporty and focussed, so the market is there! They have reacted to it, but in a good way I think we can agree?

Mercedes, yes still brute force, but they also had the old E190 Cosworth which was significantly different. They have all changed alot, but in modern times the Audi's and Mercs seem to be closing in on BMW's 'ethos' of driving cars, while still keeping their trump cards of 4wd and safety or big grunt and auto's, while BMW seem to be loosing the driving focus while hunting down on the competitions market.
It makes sense, BMW M's ethos was something that is easily lost, it's not something simple like 4wd and understeer limits like hotter Audi's, or big easy grunt like the Merc's, the M car was defined by driver focus and it seems that whatever they do it is move away from that!

Or is the E92 M3 now a more focussed car than the E46 M3? Genuinely interested if a keen driver would find the E92 more of a challenge and more fun?

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

Zod said:

Mr Whippy said:

Zod said:

Mr Whippy said:

Just glad Alpina are still doing what they have always done

Er:

Alpina are not doing what they have always done. They have changed into a producer of Autobahn cruisers

Define Autobahn cruiser? I'm pretty sure many E46 B3 owners will question you calling their cars autobahn cruisers. Autosport seem to regard the B3's highly, more like a more comfy/laidback take on the M models, but no less a pretty focussed car.
Alpina's have always been more about comfort but performance than rock solid chassis for track work. Even old E29 B9's feel more cosseting but also more chuckable to the cooking BMW models of the era and the 325i's, best comparison I have I'm afraid.

M car - high revving engine and manual or sequential gearbox = not Autobahn cruiser.

Alpina - torquey supercharged engine that does not need revs and automatic gearbox - Autobahn cruiser.

Alpinas are great at what they do, but miles away from M cars and from what Aplinas used to be. Drive an M and a B of the same series back-to-back. They are completely different.

How many Alpina's are supercharged? I've not seen many. The B10 V8s isn't nor the V8, the B3 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 6 pots are not. The E28 B9 was a 3.5 afaik, big NA 6 pot. Things haven't changed for a long time. Even the 3.2 E36 6 pot Alpina revved close to the 3.0 E36 M3, not really worlds apart.

It's only the very latest few cars that are supercharged, and yes perhaps they are now more autobahn cars than ever. I was ignoring the Alpina/Bangle saloons, though the Alpina Roadster looks interesting

I know they are different cars, but they are both still very good cars (E46 based), and I doubt the B3 is a slouch in the real world, or too soft to push on roads... the M3 only really makes total sense when compared to the B3 on a track I'd say. That is unless the M3 driver is on the ragged edge on the road.
Experience aside that is, as some people might like the Alpina, others the M car, just because thats their thing... but as quantifiably as possible in performance/satisfaction terms I bet they were quite close on the road for serving up alot of smiles

I think as you say the gap is bigger now which I'd agree with.

Ultimately all that is driven by the base BMW's having changed around BMW M and Alpina though I'd imagine. The B10 V8s and B3 3.4 seem to be the last of a breed of the Alpina's NA delivery.

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

Pugsey said:

Mr Whippy said:

Miguel said:

You're complaining that the new M3 is, among other things, too expensive and too marketing driven, yet you want to make it more expensive for the folks who want to choose the 18 wheels, which were chosen by the chassis engineers. BMW admits that the 19's are purely there for marketing reasons, yet you want them for aesthetic reasons

I'm being sceptical of BMW strategy. I know for a fact the majority of buyers will buy the 19's. Personally I'd have preferred BMW to offer one wheel size and optimise the car for it. One wheel to design, safety test, tyre to sign off etc etc etc...
Two wheels just adds lots of cost, and the reality is the 18 will be the forgotten wheel, just like it appears to have been on the E46. I've seen bugger all M3's on the 18's!

If I had the car 'made for my tastes' it'd have nicer looking 18's, the reality is, as with the E46, the 19's are a sublty more pleasing looking alloy. They could easily have made both styles almost identical, but they didn't, they made the 19 look different. Why would they do that? To help people visually see the difference, and be able to distinguish between the bigger 'better' wheels?

I'm afraid the wheels are a marketing drive, and by offering 19's if they corrupt handling and add so much to the cost anyway, that the M3 is a fair marketing exercise.

Why not offer just the 18's that look like the current 19's (which look better, even if they were 18's they would)? One wheel, one set of castings, one wheel to setup on, one bespoke tyre to design/sign off and road test?

The 19's are there purely to make money off the increasingly image concious market this car is aimed at... thats good business, but another shame on BMW's perception of the focus and integrity of the M brand.

Dave

If the driving experience is so vital to you I don't understand why you're banging on about wheels. The 19"s only make a small difference to the car. One that, in my experience, a lot of people can't detect although they happily regurgitate what the mag. testers have told them as if it's their own experience. Surely your concern should be the brakes which have been CRAP on prev M3s and don't appear to be much better on the new one. Isn't this is a much bigger area of concern to you?

The car is fine.

I don't think it's an 'M' car, though I realise why BMW are calling it one.

The brakes are an issue on this car by the sounds of things. Not an issue if it was a 340Csi as expectations of track ability are not as high. Over badged for what it is?

None of these issues people thinking I'm missing out on would BE an issue if it was significantly lighter anyway.
Afterall, how much do bigger brakes cost? Bugger all. Stick on the E60 M5 brakes and callipers on a car weighing the same as a 335Ci (lightweight M3)

It could run 19's or 18's or whatever sized wheels for all I care, as long as it's for the right reasons, not just for looks/an almost default for many expensive option.

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

I think it's fine BMW are going down this path, it's just gutting that the M badge means less and less what it did.

If BMW throw the M badge away further it will become almost meaningless in another generation of cars.

I'd have preferred the CSL to have been badged the M, and ultimately that is what the CSL will really be. But then thats berating the CSL ethos a little, which seemed to peak with the just gone E46 CSL.

All just a bit gutting from an enthusiast point of view.


As per Pugsey's point on spending loads of wonga, it's true, unfortunately. You wouldn't catch me spending £50k on an E30 kind of car today even if I had a billion squid. The market has moved on, with things like Evo IX's sat in the rapid focussed saloon car segment which would quite happily out-perform the Audi RS4 and M3 in probably all on-paper stats and track times, and then things like Nobles sat in the lightweight sports car market for the intimate race-car experience, which just were not there with such performance and low price back in the 80's...

But I don't really 'get' the idea of blowing that much money on what is ultimately just a fast saloon car that hasn't really raised the game to any new level whatsoever from what I can see either. If it had at least stood out in ONE area that put it out of the reach of any of the competition it'd be much more interesting, but it just hasn't.


Not saying the market doesn't exist though for an M3 built to the same levels of expectation as the E30. Going back to the 320Si, it's the only car BMW have made that has had to meet homogolation requirements, it's got just as many interesting detail changes to a normal 320i as the M3 has over a 330Ci here, except in the case of the 320Si it's changes purely for performance, not changes for the 'market'...

Considering how relatively cheap carbon is, you could probably roof, bonnet and boot a 320Si, drop in the current 260bhp valvetronic inline 6 and have a car that could live with the M3 on a track for about £30k if BMW were making it...

Oh no, no headline power figures, moderate acceleration figures, no fancy badge, no quad exhausts, no huge wheels, doesn't have the biggest price tag, doesn't have loads of toys that you really don't need, but it'd drive just as well for almost half the money.

Could the M model not have to be the 'bestest'? Could the 335Ci be the 'bestest expensiveist' car, and the M model be the one you'd buy if you wanted a toy?

What does 'M' mean to anybody else these days? To me it meant 'Motorsport' not sure what it means now... 'Money'

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 30th July 14:12

[Mr Whippy]

Sorry, but carbon is pretty cheap. You think the CSL was £22k more because of the roof being carbon?

The bonnet and boot don't need to be structural, which is the main benefit, they are not part of the monocoque, the cost is pretty low. Not sure what a structural crash-tested carbon roof would be mind you, probably more on a low-series run car...

320Si vs 130i, I'm sure once you have removed the Si's engine (at cost) and fitted the 3.0, it's not hugely more. A diff from a supplier is about £600-£1000, BMW must get/make these at a lower cost.

I think £30k for a diff fitted, 3.0 Valvetronic 260ps engined, carbon roof/bonnet/booted 320Si is realistic, especially since they probably have a huge margin on the 130i kinda car anyway.

£500 for a bonnet, £500 for a bootlid from a random producer, and BMW in-house will be able to match that with higher quality series produced at OE costs. £1k

320Si engine, at cost, probably + £4k from BMW, -£8k for the 3.0 one... so £4k

Thats £5k. Then £1k for a diff, £1k for the roof, thats £7k.

320Si, £25k + £7k so £32k.

Would perhaps be cheaper still as I've been fairly aggressive on the engine pricings. I bet the low-volume 320Si engine was quite expensive to produce. That said, their margin may have been lower. Who knows.

OK, might not be the profit making car BMW want, but the 320Si wasn't either. Too hardcore to sell in big numbers

~ 200bhp/tonne and 260ish bhp isn't exactly slow in a ~1300kg car. Afterall surely the M car is more about the experience than the kit/power?

BMW would probably compete better with Audi and Mercedes if they kept the M models as motorsport focussed, and then made cars like the 335Ci a 335Mcsi's and make those the big luxury bruisers with big power to compete on the autobahn etc, and keep the M for low-volume drivers cars that win hearts, not minds...

Just ideas, not saying they SHOULD

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 30th July 16:15

[Mr Whippy]

m12_nathan said:

No, not just the roof, the roof, the bumpers, the interior, the bootlid being made out of plastic, the lighter glass, lighter seats, the engine changes, the lighter exhaust, but overall making the lightweight version the did of the M3 cost significantly more than building the normal one with a margionally more powerful engine just because of the lightweight parts. It could be argued that BMW found most people were not happy to pay that much extra for a lighter car, hence the first owners taking a bath with residuals falling 20k in a year.

You seem to think you can do it cheaply - what about the cost of homologating these parts and ensuring crash regs are still passed with them? Bigger brakes required for the extra 90bhp you are planning on giving the car? Beefier gearbox? all of which is adding weight at a rate your carbon parts cannot match. Not sure on your 1k for a roof either, the bonding process takes quite a while and requires special tooling, it is around 3.5k for a new roof panel fitted - remember that it is a structual part.

A decent carbon bootlid or bonnet for my car retails at over 1100 each, where can you get a doubled skinned carbon bootlid or bonnet for £500? Proper autoclaved prepreg carbon is not cheap, look at the prices on the reverie website!

Times have moved on and cars are heavier now, it doesn't make them rubbish.

Edited by m12_nathan on Monday 30th July 16:24

I know the roof is structural, I mentioned it twice in my post if you'd have read it.

Cars are heavier now, it might not make them rubbish, but they are only heavy for 'perceptional' reasons. Ie, I want to 'feel' safer, I want to 'feel' nicer interior materials, I want to 'feel' more isolated.

I drive an old rattly 306 diesel that weighs a 'huge' 1131kg. Take out mainly sound proofing materials from the boot and under the back seats (no real noise anyway, diesel is quiet), fit a lighter backbox exhaust, spare wheel and cage (use foam) I'm already down near 1080kg... It still has crumple zones, alloy wheels, aircon, four airbags, four good sized seats, a CD player and multichanger. WHAT do these people want in their cars? What next, a kitchen and running water

I know we have advanced tech in our cars today to offset the weight, my point is, what if we stop wasting money on weighty features, and spend that money making cars lighter, then the benefits are two fold of that new technology!

I can't grasp the fact you think weight comes at no cost. It is THE most significant deterimental factor to ALL aspects of performance!

As per £3.5k for roof panel fitted. Is that by a BMW dealer or at the factory? I'm sure it's nowhere near that in actual BMW costs to do it. If it is that much, I'd rather the M3 have a steel roof and have £3.5k off the price + all the development costs considering the difference it will *really* make.
It's a token gesture, hence the reason it's on show. LOOK AT ME I'm a carbon component! £££

M3 would probably be £5k cheaper without a carbon roof then? But the sunroof version adds money?

Couldn't make it up.

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 30th July 16:54

[Mr Whippy]

I know I know, but thats not my point

My point is that BMW *could* have made something better, even just a bit, but they didn't.

And the 2nd issue is that they are selling out the meaning of the M badge each time they make a newer model. Why not call this a 340MCsi? Because it wouldn't sell as many? Not bashing those here who want one for the motorsport heritage or whatever.
But we have to agree that there is a majoirty in the marketplace now who just want it because it signified the 'best' one, and that M badge does the job of telling all onlookers that it was the most expensive without knowing much about cars. They are the ones who will buy the expensive 19's and line BMW's pockets nicely.

In their position I'd do the same I think. Easy £££. Just a shame that the more aspirational car lies with the CSL, and that a sporty cheaper car isn't viable at all anymore, even a more focussed but not necessarily fastest of the range... (ie, 320Si probably din't even pop up on alot of people's radar, even though as a car it is probably quite a good package for a hoon)

Soon the M won't mean anything but the biggest most powerfull well kitted car, with increasingly less to do with Motorsport as it once did. Fingers crossed for the 1 series and CSL products, or future more lairy homogolation cars like the 320Si!

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 30th July 17:19

[Mr Whippy]

Olf said:

Just seen top-gear mag's verdict on the M3. Tom Ford reckons it's the business. Oh hang on a minute, he's says no brake fade as well! I think he needs to hear from some people who haven't driven it.

Over to you boys.

Tom Ford eh...

Hmmmmm...

I think I'll wait for Tiff to give it some beans (he is always optimistic though, but honest), and then wait to see what some of the race drivers think of it as a track weapon. Afterall, thats why your paying £15-20k over a 335Ci isn't it, for it's peak performance potential!?

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

Bloody hell, any car is better than the car you have, so why haven't you gone and bought one?

Veyron for everyone, otherwise you don't know what your talking about

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

So many gimps.

No one has said it's a bad *car* it's just a bad M car because it's selling the M badge out.

Ah well.

Rose tinted specs on... "wow, this new M3 is ace, it just has to be, it's a BMW M car"

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

So I'm not allowed an opinion because I don't have £20k+ spare to just blow on a car? I'll have to watch your posts and as soon as you mention anything you can't afford there and then, I'll pull you up on it.


BMW M *was* about a homogolation special.

Yes BMW can do what they like with it, I would if I just wanted money. Just a shame BMW have sold it out as of all the manufacturers 'special' brands it was one of the purest. It was all about Motorsport.

Just gutted because the market demands the M badge irrespective of what it means, and while AMG and RS reinforce their ethos BMW water theirs down.

Good going!


And after all that, the details are still cheap and crap, and I'm allowed an opinion on how it looks at least

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 31st July 09:27

[Mr Whippy]

Pugsey said:

Mr Whippy said:

So many gimps.

No one has said it's a bad *car* it's just a bad M car because it's selling the M badge out.

Ah well.

Rose tinted specs on... "wow, this new M3 is ace, it just has to be, it's a BMW M car"

Dave

So, are you suggesting I'm a gimp for buying one!

You're the one bothered about mere badges - not me!

No rose tinted glasses for me - as posted some time ago I've driven it - it IS ace. What didn't you like about it.

For a very fast, well spec'd,comfortable, practical road car offering a bit of character and fun along the way it fits the bill for me. If BMW offer a lighter, stripped out version later as you suggest it will hold no interest for me as it will be compromisd on the road and still rubbish on track where a Caterham, Radical or similar will destroy it both in terms of driver involvement and outright pace. I like my cars to fulfill one roll properly you seem to want some sort of compromise solution - I still wouldn't insult you by calling you a gimp though matey.

But everyone is reading past my posts and making up that I think it's a BAD car, and that as you've all noted a million times, I cannot know, and don't even think! Thats why I mentioned gimps. Read the posts as they stand and don't read into them!

It's clearly NEVER going to be a bad car, I just wanted a sign from BMW M of something new, something interesting, something WOW, because thats what BMW M has always offered, that driver appeal, put the driver enjoyment before everything else!

It's not 'wow' for me, and thats a first for an M car, which is why I'm gutted as a BMW fan because I know they make very good cars, and I'm gutted because it no longer holds the appeal of even the RS4 or C63AMG, which both 'look' like they are just doing what they do best, but even better.


Please keep reading past my points and thinking I just hold an ignorant opinion of what the car is like, hate it, think it's crap, and keep stating 'why don't you buy one' when it's quite clear I don't have £60k to plonk on a car, or the £15k to blow in 1st year depreciation! And even if I did have £60k to spend on car/s, I would never buy a car brand new anyway, I'm too tight with my money

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

It's an opinion on the facts at face value, and at best reviews from not bad sources (Evo magazine)

You are suggesting that my opinions on the facts are just bollarks, which is fair enough, but they are no more valid as counter arguements than mine in the first place.

Could it have been lighter?

Could it have been more powerfull?

Could it have been cheaper?

Could it have been better?

I'm just doubting BMW did their best here, and thats gutting as a fan of M cars. I'm sure the older M cars were more about the cars than the marketing stategy, mainly because their sale numbers were smaller so they had nothing to gain from purposely making the M model a bit less than it could have been, to make people jump for the CSL in a few years! (which I'm guessing will not be E46 CSL style, because it's just not market viable (if BMW M are taking that stance which everyone seems to think they are), and they could sell more cars in something thats more half way.

I'm only discussing anyway. I'm happy and interested to read others posts, I just don't get why it always comes down to if I'm going to buy one or not, and then attacking my financial choices or position as a reason why I'm just 'wrong' (the Veyron vs F1 thread went on for ages and hardly anyone here will buy one or can afford one)

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

squeezebm said:

900T-R said:

squeezebm said:

Oh he doesn't buy any of the cars that he is very knowledgable about or even drive any of them,just trolls on and on and on about them.

Says the man with the diesel Cortina... erm, 3-series.

The SAAB monkey is back,been missing you

Handbags away chaps

Saabs and diesel BMW's are both fine motors if thats what you want, as long as they are good ones

Dave