e92 m3...best car ever?

[JMBMWM5]

cerb4.5lee said:

Rare on two accounts that...one its a saloon and two you don't see many with the 18" rims, completely agree regards no torque and having to rev its arse off and I just literally ended up hating mine, and the only thing I missed when I sold it was the look of the quad pipes and the fact I could save CD`s to the hard drive.

The ironic thing was I really wanted one and I was massively excited about picking it up and hardly slept the night before, but then within a couple of weeks my dislike of it came very quickly and like someone else mentioned I just think I built the M3 up far too much in my head because of the hype and reputation of them.

The E9x M3 has so many flaws...poor brakes/poor economy/poor range/poor noise as standard/poor torque/only feels quick beyond 6k revs/feels just like any other 3 series inside/no specialness/relatively high kerb weight.

I did think it had a good chassis/LSD though.

Those wheels were the winters, these are summers

[cerb4.5lee]

JMBMWM5 said:

hose wheels were the winters, these are summers

Excellent the winters you used are better than most peoples summers!

[rassi]

JMBMWM5 said:

hose wheels were the winters, these are summers

I actually think the 18" are better looking than the 19", something about that concave look makes it look very butch!

[Slippydiff]

api330 said:

I don't get why every one is mad on torque, Is It because you have been reading lots on car mags going on about new turbo engines with lots of torque, Turbo cars have been about for years with loads of torque and lag and not revving very high and I have had my fair share scoobys, evo's various rs fords, I know new turbo's are better now with loads less lag and if that's your thing great and as I say I have had my fair share, But I just love revving mine though to 8,000 rpm and flicking paddle or lever and instantly hitting the next gear though all seven gears on the German roads or pushing hard in a few gears then sort shifting though rest of gears in England It sounds and feels great, Then when you had some fun put it in comfort mode and auto and have a nice relaxing drive home, As for the merc great car but you talk about M3 looking like standard bmw the merc looks like local taxi to the untrained eye,

I don't think it's unreasonable for a 4.0 litre V8 to have some half decent torque low down ? Sure it may rev to well past 8k rpm, but if it's relatively gutless below 6K rpm, it's hardly a complete package.

The near 17 year old 3.6 flat six in the back of my Mk1 96 GT3 feels stronger low down than the S65 lump, fast forward 3-4 years and the engine in Mk2 feels similarly torquey but stronger still at the too end. Fast forward to 2006 and the 997 GT3 still used the same basic engine which had been developed further to produce 415hp, waaaay more torquey than the S65 and still revs to 8.5k rpm. In fact the Gen 1 997 GT3 lump feels positively barrel chested compared to the S65.
Don't get me wrong, I've been driving BMW's 16 years now, and they make some great engines (M3 CSL and M6 V10 spring to mind) but the S65 isn't the performance panacea some would have you believe it to be.

Put bluntly, for all the praise heaped upon it, the S65 ain't all that, bring fuel economy into the equation and its actually rather laughable.

[api330]

Slippydiff said:

I don't think it's unreasonable for a 4.0 litre V8 to have some half decent torque low down ? Sure it may rev to well past 8k rpm, but if it's relatively gutless below 6K rpm, it's hardly a complete package.

The near 17 year old 3.6 flat six in the back of my Mk1 96 GT3 feels stronger low down than the S65 lump, fast forward 3-4 years and the engine in Mk2 feels similarly torquey but stronger still at the too end. Fast forward to 2006 and the 997 GT3 still used the same basic engine which had been developed further to produce 415hp, waaaay more torquey than the S65 and still revs to 8.5k rpm. In fact the Gen 1 997 GT3 lump feels positively barrel chested compared to the S65.
Don't get me wrong, I've been driving BMW's 16 years now, and they make some great engines (M3 CSL and M6 V10 spring to mind) but the S65 isn't the performance panacea some would have you believe it to be.

Put bluntly, for all the praise heaped upon it, the S65 ain't all that, bring fuel economy into the equation and its actually rather laughable.

You can have lots of torque from a V8, merc or tvr etc but bmw went for the high revving v8 you don't here many Ferrari owners saying I wish my n/a v8 had more torque it's part of the fun using all those rev's banging though the gears and don't say yes but you will be going silly fast when you do this because it's the same with a torque heavy engine if you use all that torque you will still be going very fast,,

If I drove my car using 6,000 rpm as my max rpm It would still be a very quick car though the gears, As to fuel comp I have had evo's and scoobs that where just as heavy on fuel if not heavier and they were bloody un comfy as well,

[cerb4.5lee]

api330 said:

bmw went for the high revving v8 you don't here many Ferrari owners saying I wish my n/a v8 had more torque it's part of the fun using all those rev's

Nothing wrong with using revs and it can be fun I agree but the reason Ferrari owners don't moan about wanting more torque is because their cars don't have to drag over 1600kgs around and that is one of the reasons why the M3 feels gutless low down.

[daz05]

Slippydiff said:

I don't think it's unreasonable for a 4.0 litre V8 to have some half decent torque low down ? Sure it may rev to well past 8k rpm, but if it's relatively gutless below 6K rpm, it's hardly a complete package.

The near 17 year old 3.6 flat six in the back of my Mk1 96 GT3 feels stronger low down than the S65 lump, fast forward 3-4 years and the engine in Mk2 feels similarly torquey but stronger still at the too end. Fast forward to 2006 and the 997 GT3 still used the same basic engine which had been developed further to produce 415hp, waaaay more torquey than the S65 and still revs to 8.5k rpm. In fact the Gen 1 997 GT3 lump feels positively barrel chested compared to the S65.
Don't get me wrong, I've been driving BMW's 16 years now, and they make some great engines (M3 CSL and M6 V10 spring to mind) but the S65 isn't the performance panacea some would have you believe it to be.

Put bluntly, for all the praise heaped upon it, the S65 ain't all that, bring fuel economy into the equation and its actually rather laughable.

You're a little of the mark here IMHO. You seem to be giving the engine a tough time but the issues you mention stem from the body it's in. GT3 is a different price point and correct me if I'm wrong but the figures aren't all that different to the gen 1 997.

The s65 is based upon the v10 in the m5/6 also so seems strange to me that you can like one but not the other....

[api330]

cerb4.5lee said:

Nothing wrong with using revs and it can be fun I agree but the reason Ferrari owners don't moan about wanting more torque is because their cars don't have to drag over 1600kgs around and that is one of the reasons why the M3 feels gutless low down.

430 Ferrari is nearly 1500kg, So that's about one large man difference,

[e21Mark]

bigtime said:

e21Mark said:

Although there were some bits I liked, such as the front end styling, rev happy V8 and blistering pace, there were too many things I didn't like quite so much. Apart from the awful MPG, the tiny range, the size, the weight and overall just too ordinary to look at. It just never felt special enough to me and driving was just never the event I wanted it to be.

Any suggestions what to replace it with for similar money though? 911's are over budget, AMG's and RS5's are even heavier and thirstier.

Admittedly it's a struggle but my cash would go on 2 cars. A daily hack and something more track orientated for the weekend. Either that or I'd opt for an E46 M3 CS.

cerb4.5lee said:

api330 said:

bmw went for the high revving v8 you don't here many Ferrari owners saying I wish my n/a v8 had more torque it's part of the fun using all those rev's

Nothing wrong with using revs and it can be fun I agree but the reason Ferrari owners don't moan about wanting more torque is because their cars don't have to drag over 1600kgs around and that is one of the reasons why the M3 feels gutless low down.

It was the ability to rev that I loved about that V8. Admittedly you need to adapt your driving style but I did that with the s14 in my E30. It was when being driven hard, that the revs and the DCT came into their own. It was in normal driving that I was disappointed.

[toasty]

Slippydiff said:

I don't think it's unreasonable for a 4.0 litre V8 to have some half decent torque low down ? Sure it may rev to well past 8k rpm, but if it's relatively gutless below 6K rpm, it's hardly a complete package.

The near 17 year old 3.6 flat six in the back of my Mk1 96 GT3 feels stronger low down than the S65 lump, fast forward 3-4 years and the engine in Mk2 feels similarly torquey but stronger still at the too end. Fast forward to 2006 and the 997 GT3 still used the same basic engine which had been developed further to produce 415hp, waaaay more torquey than the S65 and still revs to 8.5k rpm. In fact the Gen 1 997 GT3 lump feels positively barrel chested compared to the S65.
Don't get me wrong, I've been driving BMW's 16 years now, and they make some great engines (M3 CSL and M6 V10 spring to mind) but the S65 isn't the performance panacea some would have you believe it to be.

Put bluntly, for all the praise heaped upon it, the S65 ain't all that, bring fuel economy into the equation and its actually rather laughable.

Peak torque of E92 is 295lbft at 3900rpm compared to the 996.2 GT3 which is 284lbft at 5000rpm. Rather laughable? From what point of view?

[jayemm89]

Surely a vehicle's weight and gearing will have as much to do with the sensation of torque as the actual torque figure.

I don't know what the genuine weight of a cerbera is but I bet it's more than a couple of bags of sugar less than an E92!

[popeyewhite]

toasty said:

Peak torque of E92 is 295lbft at 3900rpm compared to the 996.2 GT3 which is 284lbft at 5000rpm. Rather laughable? From what point of view?

Well one POV might be that the C63 in standard guise has 150lb/ft more. That's over a third more than the M3 and the benefit is comfortable, lazy driving round town (tried that in a Ferrari?), easy overtaking without having to mash your foot to the floor and a lovely sensation of shove when you accelerate.

[cerb4.5lee]

api330 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Nothing wrong with using revs and it can be fun I agree but the reason Ferrari owners don't moan about wanting more torque is because their cars don't have to drag over 1600kgs around and that is one of the reasons why the M3 feels gutless low down.

430 Ferrari is nearly 1500kg, So that's about one large man difference,

I must admit I didn't realise how lardy Ferraris were! gutted the 430 still has more power and torque though, lightweight cars are certainly a thing of the past that's for sure.

Weight counts for a lot though and my M3 had 250bhp per tonne and pretty much never felt fast...my Cerbera had over 350bhp per tonne and always felt fast and that's the difference.

[api330]

jayemm89 said:

Surely a vehicle's weight and gearing will have as much to do with the sensation of torque as the actual torque figure.

I don't know what the genuine weight of a cerbera is but I bet it's more than a couple of bags of sugar less than an E92!

I think tvr's (or at least the one's I have been in) feel quick as they are more like a kit car and very low down to the ground and noisy where as bm merc's audi's etc are very well made so feel more planted,

[cerb4.5lee]

jayemm89 said:

I don't know what the genuine weight of a cerbera is but I bet it's more than a couple of bags of sugar less than an E92!

The Cerbera is between 1100kg and 1200kg the E92 M3 is about 1650kg and believe me it makes a difference and the Cerbera also has 85ft/ib more torque too!

[cerb4.5lee]

api330 said:

I think tvr's (or at least the one's I have been in) feel quick as they are more like a kit car and very low down to the ground and noisy where as bm merc's audi's etc are very well made so feel more planted,

That is a fair point and I have driven both a TVR and M3 at very high speed and the M3 is well more planted in comparison to the one built in a shed!

[jayemm89]

I always felt BMWs do an incredibly good job of hiding their speed. There is a corner somewhere near me, I have taken it at 50mph and felt like I was dicing with death, and taken it at 105mph feeling like I was being a bit of a wuss. Really depends on the car.

I wonder if the immediate pickup of some cars has something to do with the emissions regulations they must pass. I'm fairly sure an AJP8 wouldn't get Euro6 certification! It's a mighty motor though, and sounds awesome

[toasty]

popeyewhite said:

Well one POV might be that the C63 in standard guise has 150lb/ft more. That's over a third more than the M3 and the benefit is comfortable, lazy driving round town (tried that in a Ferrari?), easy overtaking without having to mash your foot to the floor and a lovely sensation of shove when you accelerate.

Fair point, I do love the C63 too but unfortunately I couldn't quite afford the facelift coupe when looking at them.

I was really referring the post about the much more focused, more expensive and much lighter GT3 having an utterly brilliant engine (which I don't doubt at all) and the M3 having a duffer when the torque figures were actually showing very similar figures. Strip an E92 back to near race car spec and I'm sure it'd feel a lot more pokey without making any change to the engine.

[Lefty]

Indeed, the engine is no duffer, the m3 is just a lardy sod. In a 1300kg car with a nice resonating carbon air box and a fruity exhaust the engine could be rather wonderful.

[jayemm89]

I find I experience the same thing with diesels/"M" units...

I've driven a fair few diesels which, just driving along at normal speed you give them a bit of a prod and you think "hmm, this is quite quick". But, when it comes to it and you get a clear road, or need to perform an overtake, you find out that hit of torque you get when you put your foot down was often all it had to give.

Many M cars by comparison might seem thoroughly disappointing if you give them a quick stab at 2,000 RPM. However, when they start to pick up at 4,000 rpm and you realise you've got half a tacho to do - then you get what they're all about.

I've driven a couple of older Ferraris and if you drove them like a diesel (Changing up at 3,500rpm) you would be very, very disappointed in them.

That being said, I recently had the pleasure of driving a C7 Corvette, and the poke provided by that at low revs was quite entertaining, coupled with the monster V8 noise.