RE: BMW M3 farewell diary

[Tony B2]

LoonR1 said:

Thanks, doesn't mean much to me as it's techie speak of sorts. Either way I love mine and it still makes me smile every time I drive it and means I won't be selling it after two years which is the first time in over 15 years that I've not chopped a car in after two years.

In summary - much sharper feel, more responsive to steering inputs, rides better at speed and is both more pointy and more stable.

[ghibbett]

urquattroGus said:

Yes, but the standard c63 is atrificially De-tuned, I seem to recall that the throttle body doesnt quite open fully on the standard engine, 500 is it's natural output, or 630 in the related M159 in the sls black

Indeed this is correct. I had the throttle restriction removed (by Eurocharged) on my C63. Dyno run before yielded 455bhp and after was 507bhp.

[krallicious]

ratty6464 said:

krallicious said:

ratty6464 said:

scoobyPPP said:

I have a Manual E92 and after reading all these comments about the DCT I really wish I had bought one, hopefully it wont be too difficult to shift it when I come to sell it.

I've got a few similar pangs today! Have a comp pack manual car which I love, but wonder what it would be like to have a DCT car. I completely ruled out DCT without even driving it first. Since then, I've had a test drive where it didn't bowl me over - although it was probably only 15 miles. I'd like one for a longer time to compare.

I had a DCT car for a day when I thought of replacing my manual. After an hour I found it quite boring. I can understand the need for DCT if you drive in stop/start traffic a lot of live on a race track but it removed quite a bit of pleasure from driving the car. Same with Porsche's PDK.

The only upside to having the extra gear was during daily driving as it removed a flatish sport between 2nd to 3rd but when using the whole rev range the manual was perfect.

Are dealerships inclined to loan a DCT for a day? That might be a good shout to sort it in my mind once and for all.

Is the DCT a gearbox that grows on you like the rest of the car or for people is it generally a quick like or loathe feeling?

I was given the car because the dealer was trying to convince me I should order my new one with DCT. As I said, after an hour I had made my mind up. The novelty of being able to change down the gears while braking into corners and the 'thump' from the exhausts was fun for a bit but it removed too much from the driving experience. In short, the car became far too easy to drive quickly.

[foresterlad]

After one of the early manual E 92 cars I also tried a DCT as a logical progression particularly since I liked the SMG in my earlier CSL. However much as Tony B found the transmission left me bored in day to day drives and much against dealer advice I bought a new manual with the competition pack in 2011. This left me after 30k miles and provided a challenging track drive as well as an involving daily driver.At the price point I don't see any other car which is so capable ,although the M4 will no doubt feel quick surfing it's torque wave.

[mlhj83]

Journalists have gotten weight figures incorrect again.

The E92 M3 DCT has an EU unladen weight (90% tank filling, 68kg driver and 7kg luggage) of 1675kg. The manual E92 M3 is 1655kg - 20kg lighter.

The M4 with DCT has an EU unladen weight of 1612kg.

All figures are from BMW. So when both have DCT and are similarly spec'd, the M4 is 63kg lighter than the E92 M3.

But when the manual M4 and is compared to a manual E92 M3, the weight difference is larger. The EU unladen weight of the M4 manual is 1572kg while the E92 M3 manual is 1655kg - a 83kg weight difference.

The reason for this is because the DCT for the F8X M3/4 has gotten heavier than the DCT for the E9X M3, while the manual has gotten lighter.

I hope they correct it for the sake of accurate journalism.

[Gus265]

Sorry - very late to this as been away. I had an E46 M3 which I loved and then decided to px for the E92 manual. Test drive was great but not epic. Best memory was fantastic view over the more impressive bonnet bulge! If the BMW dealer hadn't rubbed me up the wrong way I would have signed there and then as that engine sound at full chat was mega. As others have said, engine on tick over disappointing. Anyway, drove home in my immaculate E46 and no amount of man maths could justify the change. Kept E46 as E92 not special enough.

Then drove Jonathan Palmer one at Bedford and that was epic. New child put paid to changing car then though.

Then saw M4. Total game changer - that car looks brilliant (but not in mustard yellow). I am in the minority but I think it looks way better than the new M3 (but I do like my 2 door coupes). I will have one but probably after a 911 first. You have to do that don't you?

[Wills2]

mlhj83 said:

Journalists have gotten weight figures incorrect again.

The E92 M3 DCT has an EU unladen weight (90% tank filling, 68kg driver and 7kg luggage) of 1675kg. The manual E92 M3 is 1655kg - 20kg lighter.

The M4 with DCT has an EU unladen weight of 1612kg.

All figures are from BMW. So when both have DCT and are similarly spec'd, the M4 is 63kg lighter than the E92 M3.

But when the manual M4 and is compared to a manual E92 M3, the weight difference is larger. The EU unladen weight of the M4 manual is 1572kg while the E92 M3 manual is 1655kg - a 83kg weight difference.

The reason for this is because the DCT for the F8X M3/4 has gotten heavier than the DCT for the E9X M3, while the manual has gotten lighter.

I hope they correct it for the sake of accurate journalism.

Yep the article is very misleading!

[E65Ross]

jamespink said:

daz05 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

I apologise for not saying the E92 M3 is the best car in the world.

You miss my point, you seem obsessed with putting your rather lame point across in every single related M car post(you have to rev an M car - that's the point) get over it and buy that turbo GTR you lust after so we dont have to endure any more of it.

My E39 M5 also "struggles" with its weight, until it gets to about 2000 rpm. Doesn't seem to much of an issue from there to the red line though

Less power and more weight and a torque curve shape that isn't any better than the M3 with gearing which go to similar road speeds.

Basically, in any given gear, at any given road speed, the E39 M5 is never quicker than the M3. I don't recall anyone EVER saying the E39 M5 struggles with its weight. Quite frankly that's an absurd suggestion. Anything that does 0-100 in around 10seconds isn't something that struggles!

[cerb4.5lee]

Gus265 said:

Test drive was great but not epic. Best memory was fantastic view over the more impressive bonnet bulge!

I thought that was a nice feature of the E92 & its surprising how much I missed it when I sold mine its a nice touch.

[Patrick Bateman]

E65Ross said:

Less power and more weight and a torque curve shape that isn't any better than the M3 with gearing which go to similar road speeds.

Basically, in any given gear, at any given road speed, the E39 M5 is never quicker than the M3. I don't recall anyone EVER saying the E39 M5 struggles with its weight. Quite frankly that's an absurd suggestion. Anything that does 0-100 in around 10seconds isn't something that struggles!

I wouldn't say that. If you work out the power figures at lower revs the M5 does have a slightly better power to weight ratio. So in situations like being in a higher gear at low revs the M5 will be slightly faster, but that's semantics.

Take below 3000rpm for example-

[E65Ross]

Patrick Bateman said:

I wouldn't say that. If you work out the power figures at lower revs the M5 does have a slightly better power to weight ratio. So in situations like being in a higher gear at low revs the M5 will be slightly faster, but that's semantics.

Take below 3000rpm for example-

And if you multiply the M3's power by (8400/7000) to account for the fact it's always revving higher in any specific gear? Then also take into the fact it weighs what, 200kgs less it's much quicker in any gear than an E39 M5.

[Patrick Bateman]

E65Ross said:

And if you multiply the M3's power by (8400/7000) to account for the fact it's always revving higher in any specific gear? Then also take into the fact it weighs what, 200kgs less it's much quicker in any gear than an E39 M5.

Ultimately, but I wasn't talking about redlining it. I'm talking about when people say it feels lacking low down.

The graph doesn't go below 2500rpm but you can see the fair difference in torque from 3500rpm down, I can only presume that's what those who have driven both refer to when they say the M3 feels lacking in comparison if you're not wringing its neck.

[JapFreak786]

Drove around with the roof down + windows up,heated seats on and fans angled towards me and the DCT proves a right treat when holding a latte in your other hand while driving at 10 mph through some side roads. Was only 4.5c but my god the engine and exhaust note is just pure bliss,haven't driven with the roof down in the M3 for 2 months, real attack on the senses,should also mention my drive involved a few tunnels

For DCT owners,drive using the paddles,only way I drive my car unless I'm having a coffee like above

If I was to buy an E9X M3 again,be another DCT however for track/fast road a manual is so much more involving. Pretty sure I said that before.

[E65Ross]

Patrick Bateman said:

E65Ross said:

And if you multiply the M3's power by (8400/7000) to account for the fact it's always revving higher in any specific gear? Then also take into the fact it weighs what, 200kgs less it's much quicker in any gear than an E39 M5.

Ultimately, but I wasn't talking about redlining it. I'm talking about when people say it feels lacking low down.

The graph doesn't go below 2500rpm but you can see the fair difference in torque from 3500rpm down, I can only presume that's what those who have driven both refer to when they say the M3 feels lacking in comparison if you're not wringing its neck.

This is where people are thinking of it wrongly. The M3s engine revs 20 percent higher than that M5 engine. So if both cars are doing 30mph in a gear which is geared to 100mph then it's obvious the M3 will be revving higher. Or, unfairly, if both cars were to floor it from the same speed from the same rpm the M3 will effectively be 1 gear higher up the gearbox, giving you the impression it lacks low down. Rpm for rpm yes it does. But if you think of it as percent of max rpm and road speed/max road speed in a gear the M3 engine doesn't lack low down, not in the slightest. Peak torque is made at under half max rpm which is rare in an NA engine.

[anonymous-user]

First time I've thought the E90 looks a little dated.

[Mr Whippy]

Patrick Bateman said:

E65Ross said:

And if you multiply the M3's power by (8400/7000) to account for the fact it's always revving higher in any specific gear? Then also take into the fact it weighs what, 200kgs less it's much quicker in any gear than an E39 M5.

Ultimately, but I wasn't talking about redlining it. I'm talking about when people say it feels lacking low down.

The graph doesn't go below 2500rpm but you can see the fair difference in torque from 3500rpm down, I can only presume that's what those who have driven both refer to when they say the M3 feels lacking in comparison if you're not wringing its neck.

It's all perception based in the end.

If a car goes better up top then you feel it's lacking down low. So because the M3 has such a sparkly top end vs the E39 M5, the M3 is apparently a bit gutless down low...

In sensation terms that is true, but in pure figure terms the M3 is very grunty all over the available rev range (idle to the rev limiter)

If anything the fact it's technically capable, but also has that sensational spike is exactly what you want in an engine on such a car!

So it's fast day to day, more than fast enough even holding tall gears in a manual gearbox, and then also excites with that special top end.
That shouldn't be seen as a flaw, that should be seen as a desirable sports car characteristic.


Though I still think the E46 was the last decent M3. I still really want an M3 CS or CSL more than any M car before or since.

[LoonR1]

I'd support that and use my HP4 bike as an example. It is insane over 9000rpm to the redline at 15000. Low down people say its gutless but it was easily capable of matching most cars up to my mates GTR low down. Then all hell breaks loose. Never run it side by side with my M3 though.

[E65Ross]

Exactly. If you had an engine which can be driven between 1k rpm and a redline of 2k rpm with peak torque throughout.... It's developing 1/2 power low down but doesn't offer much more.

You wouldn't compare these figures with an M3 because it goes from 1k rpm to over 8k rpm. Because low down in the first engine may be 1200rpm, yet that's 60 percent of what it gives you, which is over 4k in the M3 which isn't, oddly, classed as low down.

A diesel at 2k is revving higher (proportionately) to the M3 at 3k...

[Wills2]

Don't you also have to take the gearbox ratios into consideration as that is transferring the output to the road, I read a very interesting thread on a US forum comparing the torque at the wheels M3 Vs. c63 and the results were, well not what everyone would expect.

I'll try to find the link.

[E65Ross]

Wills2 said:

Don't you also have to take the gearbox ratios into consideration as that is transferring the output to the road, I read a very interesting thread on a US forum comparing the torque at the wheels M3 Vs. c63 and the results were, well not what everyone would expect.

I'll try to find the link.

Precisely my argument. Basically if you have 1 engine which revs to 10k rpm and makes 200lb ft and another revs to 5k and makes 400lb ft and the SHAPES of the torque curves are the same, in any gear which is geared to the same road speed then no car would be quicker.

You couldn't argue that one car has pathetic low down grunt because if doing 2k at 30mph in the 5k rpm redline engine in 4th gear you'd be doing 4k in the other engine, unless you were in 6th gear which gets to a much higher road speed so totally irrelevant comparison. Basically, drive these high revving engines as if you would any other by shifting gears at road speed not rpm and they aren't slouches at all. Is 2k rpm "low down" in an engine which only revs to 2.5k? No. Is it in an engine which revs to 10k? Yes. So why compare rpm with rpm on totally different engines. The most important thing is the gear ratios and the shapes of the torque curves. The M3 actually makes peak torque much lower down its respective rev range than the C63.