RE: BMW M4 CS (F82) meets BMW M3 CS (E46)
Discussion
Nimerino said:
It always seem to me that reviewers endlessly rationalise the damn-near dangerous handling traits of the F82, and the trend seems only to have become more prominent since the release of the CS gave it an aura of being ‘special’. It’s not, it’s a tarted-up marketing exercise. Nothing of genuine worth was transferred from the GTS and the price is a joke.
Being unable to handle the torque through the rear wheels at lateral load on anything other than marble-smooth roads (and the utter unpredictability of the behaviour) aren’t exciting traits, they’re potentially catastrophic. How did we get to the point where the inability to trust a car’s kinematics became a desirable trait? And if the CS is so much better-resolved, given pretty much identical suspension hardware, why didn’t the standard cars receive the same treatment? The answer certainly isn’t £27k worth of anything.
The F82 must be completely different to drive than the F80 then as I never noticed any issues other than the fact that 430hp through just the rear wheels dictates when you apply the throttle and when you don't (just like all power rwd cars). Being unable to handle the torque through the rear wheels at lateral load on anything other than marble-smooth roads (and the utter unpredictability of the behaviour) aren’t exciting traits, they’re potentially catastrophic. How did we get to the point where the inability to trust a car’s kinematics became a desirable trait? And if the CS is so much better-resolved, given pretty much identical suspension hardware, why didn’t the standard cars receive the same treatment? The answer certainly isn’t £27k worth of anything.
The car was a wonderful drive and easy to make very quick progress in across all types of road.
Wills2 said:
Nimerino said:
It always seem to me that reviewers endlessly rationalise the damn-near dangerous handling traits of the F82, and the trend seems only to have become more prominent since the release of the CS gave it an aura of being ‘special’. It’s not, it’s a tarted-up marketing exercise. Nothing of genuine worth was transferred from the GTS and the price is a joke.
Being unable to handle the torque through the rear wheels at lateral load on anything other than marble-smooth roads (and the utter unpredictability of the behaviour) aren’t exciting traits, they’re potentially catastrophic. How did we get to the point where the inability to trust a car’s kinematics became a desirable trait? And if the CS is so much better-resolved, given pretty much identical suspension hardware, why didn’t the standard cars receive the same treatment? The answer certainly isn’t £27k worth of anything.
The F82 must be completely different to drive than the F80 then as I never noticed any issues other than the fact that 430hp through just the rear wheels dictates when you apply the throttle and when you don't (just like all power rwd cars). Being unable to handle the torque through the rear wheels at lateral load on anything other than marble-smooth roads (and the utter unpredictability of the behaviour) aren’t exciting traits, they’re potentially catastrophic. How did we get to the point where the inability to trust a car’s kinematics became a desirable trait? And if the CS is so much better-resolved, given pretty much identical suspension hardware, why didn’t the standard cars receive the same treatment? The answer certainly isn’t £27k worth of anything.
The car was a wonderful drive and easy to make very quick progress in across all types of road.
The newer ones are less edgy, and I think the criticisms would be harder to completely uphold in terms of a comp pack car.
I do have a tremendous amount of common ground with the idea that 450hp and a wall of torque through the back wheels is always going to need care, attention and responsibility but I do appreciate and agree that if a linear, benign experience is what you want then the F80 cars are not for you - they are definitely a bit wild!
Julian Thompson said:
I do have a tremendous amount of common ground with the idea that 450hp and a wall of torque through the back wheels is always going to need care, attention and responsibility but I do appreciate and agree that if a linear, benign experience is what you want then the F80 cars are not for you - they are definitely a bit wild!
I’m not talking about whether they are benign. I have no problem with cars being wild. However, being wild is an outcome related to an equation at the design stage. My issue with the F82 (and I have driven all the versions other than the GTS) is that it’s unpredictable. Its handling characteristics change immensely with the underlying surface, and are simply compounded by the fact that it seems to be set up without regard for the fact that vertical loads will change the way the suspension behaves when on the edge of grip and facing turbocharged torque inputs. The directness of the front end writes cheques the rear cannot cash when trying to go quickly.I say this with all respect, but if a car is set up in such a way that the only way of dealing with its handling foibles is to drive it slowly, or to constantly feather the throttle because the power delivery cannot be predicted accurately on a given surface and road (again, unrelated to whether that power delivery is linear), it is objectively not a very well set-up car.
GTEYE said:
I’m loving the look of the M4 CS in that colour but it’s hard to avoid mentioning the price - nearly 100 large - wow that’s not a great buy!
And still charges extra for sun protection glass and CarPlay .... at this price level...
That's why you buy a slightly older M4, have the software done (Plenty of clever people can do it for 50 quid) and fit some coilover suspension of your choice and end up spending less than £40k all in.... !!And still charges extra for sun protection glass and CarPlay .... at this price level...
Nimerino said:
Julian Thompson said:
I do have a tremendous amount of common ground with the idea that 450hp and a wall of torque through the back wheels is always going to need care, attention and responsibility but I do appreciate and agree that if a linear, benign experience is what you want then the F80 cars are not for you - they are definitely a bit wild!
I’m not talking about whether they are benign. I have no problem with cars being wild. However, being wild is an outcome related to an equation at the design stage. My issue with the F82 (and I have driven all the versions other than the GTS) is that it’s unpredictable. Its handling characteristics change immensely with the underlying surface, and are simply compounded by the fact that it seems to be set up without regard for the fact that vertical loads will change the way the suspension behaves when on the edge of grip and facing turbocharged torque inputs. The directness of the front end writes cheques the rear cannot cash when trying to go quickly.I say this with all respect, but if a car is set up in such a way that the only way of dealing with its handling foibles is to drive it slowly, or to constantly feather the throttle because the power delivery cannot be predicted accurately on a given surface and road (again, unrelated to whether that power delivery is linear), it is objectively not a very well set-up car.
MrGeoff said:
While the SMG box is not perfect I think a lot attack it because they believe the manual is better. Once you take time to actually live with the SMG box it’s great fun and very rewarding, it’s not got the finesse of a modern box but that doesn’t matter, it’s all the better for it.
It just wrecks my head when you see 'it needs a manual' or 'I'll have mine with a manual' in comments by delusional idiots who wish to give the impression they are some driving god or automotive purist. Manuals had their day, but back then, we chose manuals NOT because they gave us more 'feel' or 'connection', it was because there was no option, or if there was an auto option, it was so cod-damed awful! An NSX, 928 or even hot-hatches with slushboxes? Awful, awful, awful - just no, no, no. But I think that when the balance started to tip towards autos (and I use the term 'auto' as an umbrella term, instead of trying to decipher PDK/SMG/Double Clutch/Robo-Manual/etc., etc.!!) as a more superior performance device to a manual, they were still a bit too brutal in action, and yes, did give a feeling of alienation from the 'driving experience'. But modern autos are so good now, that they do nothing but enhance the driving experience. Cars are so quick now, with incredible suspension, electronics, tyres, etc., that to keep taking your hand of the wheel to twiddle some stick poking out of the floor completely detracts from the driving 'experience' (Cheezuz, sounds so knobbish going on about driving 'experience'!). How can you possibly feel more 'connected' to the car, when you are constantly breaking the connection by taking your hand off the wheel? When if you are ripping around in anything from an A110 to a GT2 RS, you cannot be any MORE connected than having your hands permanently on the wheel, gearchanges at your fingertips allowing you to focus on hitting each apex and braking point, etc., etc. I have an old 205 1.9GTi and a 944S2 Cabrio - anything but a manual would be unthinkable. But even a Fiesta ST makes as much power as that old Porker, so a manual does add to the fun. But something from this decade? Give me fingertip control any day! 
The E46 is so damn pretty. For me the proportions were absolutely perfect; it has enough presence to know that it’s more than an ordinary model without ever being too shouty.
I do like the F series 3 but they look very big against the E46 and the M3/4 are a bit shouty. I’m not a fan of the engine note either which seems very contrived and OTT. That is also a crazy amount of money for an M4 (yes I know cars are expensive but nearly £100k list?). The standard spec is stingy if you still have to pay for privacy glass and Apple car play.
I’m also in the auto camp. Modern gearboxes are just so damn good and change gear better than most of us can.
I do like the F series 3 but they look very big against the E46 and the M3/4 are a bit shouty. I’m not a fan of the engine note either which seems very contrived and OTT. That is also a crazy amount of money for an M4 (yes I know cars are expensive but nearly £100k list?). The standard spec is stingy if you still have to pay for privacy glass and Apple car play.
I’m also in the auto camp. Modern gearboxes are just so damn good and change gear better than most of us can.
Arsecati said:
MrGeoff said:
While the SMG box is not perfect I think a lot attack it because they believe the manual is better. Once you take time to actually live with the SMG box it’s great fun and very rewarding, it’s not got the finesse of a modern box but that doesn’t matter, it’s all the better for it.
It just wrecks my head when you see 'it needs a manual' or 'I'll have mine with a manual' in comments by delusional idiots who wish to give the impression they are some driving god or automotive purist. Manuals had their day, but back then, we chose manuals NOT because they gave us more 'feel' or 'connection', it was because there was no option, or if there was an auto option, it was so cod-damed awful! An NSX, 928 or even hot-hatches with slushboxes? Awful, awful, awful - just no, no, no. But I think that when the balance started to tip towards autos (and I use the term 'auto' as an umbrella term, instead of trying to decipher PDK/SMG/Double Clutch/Robo-Manual/etc., etc.!!) as a more superior performance device to a manual, they were still a bit too brutal in action, and yes, did give a feeling of alienation from the 'driving experience'. But modern autos are so good now, that they do nothing but enhance the driving experience. Cars are so quick now, with incredible suspension, electronics, tyres, etc., that to keep taking your hand of the wheel to twiddle some stick poking out of the floor completely detracts from the driving 'experience' (Cheezuz, sounds so knobbish going on about driving 'experience'!). How can you possibly feel more 'connected' to the car, when you are constantly breaking the connection by taking your hand off the wheel? When if you are ripping around in anything from an A110 to a GT2 RS, you cannot be any MORE connected than having your hands permanently on the wheel, gearchanges at your fingertips allowing you to focus on hitting each apex and braking point, etc., etc. I have an old 205 1.9GTi and a 944S2 Cabrio - anything but a manual would be unthinkable. But even a Fiesta ST makes as much power as that old Porker, so a manual does add to the fun. But something from this decade? Give me fingertip control any day! Nimerino said:
I’m not talking about whether they are benign. I have no problem with cars being wild. However, being wild is an outcome related to an equation at the design stage. My issue with the F82 (and I have driven all the versions other than the GTS) is that it’s unpredictable. Its handling characteristics change immensely with the underlying surface, and are simply compounded by the fact that it seems to be set up without regard for the fact that vertical loads will change the way the suspension behaves when on the edge of grip and facing turbocharged torque inputs. The directness of the front end writes cheques the rear cannot cash when trying to go quickly.
I say this with all respect, but if a car is set up in such a way that the only way of dealing with its handling foibles is to drive it slowly, or to constantly feather the throttle because the power delivery cannot be predicted accurately on a given surface and road (again, unrelated to whether that power delivery is linear), it is objectively not a very well set-up car.
100% this.I say this with all respect, but if a car is set up in such a way that the only way of dealing with its handling foibles is to drive it slowly, or to constantly feather the throttle because the power delivery cannot be predicted accurately on a given surface and road (again, unrelated to whether that power delivery is linear), it is objectively not a very well set-up car.
Julian Thompson said:
Well thought out response - definitely some agreement there from me also about the behaviour of the car - it doesn’t make me love it less but it definitely has some of those foibles you mention. I can’t say I have suffered at its hands, however, and I don’t drive it slowly although I confess to leaving a big safety margin in the wet. Which I tend to anyway, regardless of car, to be honest. I do believe the large wheels these cars run has a bearing, and I do believe that the static suspension settings need to be looked at to try and establish the changes that bmw were making from original > comp > gts > cs to see what direction they were going in.
Agreed. It is also a good sign that the M2 Comp ended up such a sweet-handling car. It’s difficult to imagine that such a small decrease in the torque output would be totally responsible for its more predictable handling manners, and that bodes well for any future M4. My old E92 M3 also required consideration at the limit, but that sharpness was perhaps dulled by the limited torque of the S65. I’m sure there is a middle ground here that allows the car to be fast and lairy, but also better-resolved. I just hope that solution isn’t to simply make it 4WD.
Nimerino said:
Julian Thompson said:
Well thought out response - definitely some agreement there from me also about the behaviour of the car - it doesn’t make me love it less but it definitely has some of those foibles you mention. I can’t say I have suffered at its hands, however, and I don’t drive it slowly although I confess to leaving a big safety margin in the wet. Which I tend to anyway, regardless of car, to be honest. I do believe the large wheels these cars run has a bearing, and I do believe that the static suspension settings need to be looked at to try and establish the changes that bmw were making from original > comp > gts > cs to see what direction they were going in.
Agreed. It is also a good sign that the M2 Comp ended up such a sweet-handling car. It’s difficult to imagine that such a small decrease in the torque output would be totally responsible for its more predictable handling manners, and that bodes well for any future M4. My old E92 M3 also required consideration at the limit, but that sharpness was perhaps dulled by the limited torque of the S65. I’m sure there is a middle ground here that allows the car to be fast and lairy, but also better-resolved. I just hope that solution isn’t to simply make it 4WD.
I shall keep my manual M4 comp long term, and might investigate some suspension changes to try and sharpen the steering (particular the around straight ahead) as we move forwards.
C.MW said:
Though I'm currently running an auto, I prefer to have a manual where I can and I don't think that makes me any more of an idiot than you are. It is very ignorant of you to define what driver engagement is and force everyone on PH to take it like it's the only truth. If anything, it is you who tries to give people impression that you're some sort of "driving god".
Wow, sensitive much??Arsecati said:
It just wrecks my head when you see 'it needs a manual' or 'I'll have mine with a manual' in comments by delusional idiots who wish to give the impression they are some driving god or automotive purist. Manuals had their day, but back then, we chose manuals NOT because they gave us more 'feel' or 'connection', it was because there was no option, or if there was an auto option, it was so cod-damed awful! An NSX, 928 or even hot-hatches with slushboxes? Awful, awful, awful - just no, no, no. But I think that when the balance started to tip towards autos (and I use the term 'auto' as an umbrella term, instead of trying to decipher PDK/SMG/Double Clutch/Robo-Manual/etc., etc.!!) as a more superior performance device to a manual, they were still a bit too brutal in action, and yes, did give a feeling of alienation from the 'driving experience'. But modern autos are so good now, that they do nothing but enhance the driving experience. Cars are so quick now, with incredible suspension, electronics, tyres, etc., that to keep taking your hand of the wheel to twiddle some stick poking out of the floor completely detracts from the driving 'experience' (Cheezuz, sounds so knobbish going on about driving 'experience'!). How can you possibly feel more 'connected' to the car, when you are constantly breaking the connection by taking your hand off the wheel? When if you are ripping around in anything from an A110 to a GT2 RS, you cannot be any MORE connected than having your hands permanently on the wheel, gearchanges at your fingertips allowing you to focus on hitting each apex and braking point, etc., etc. I have an old 205 1.9GTi and a 944S2 Cabrio - anything but a manual would be unthinkable. But even a Fiesta ST makes as much power as that old Porker, so a manual does add to the fun. But something from this decade? Give me fingertip control any day!
A manual in the E46 makes the CS a better car IMV. Better (but not great) box, and more interactive than an auto box, especially the mildly recalcitrant SMG version of auto. Alpinestars said:
A manual in the E46 makes the CS a better car IMV. Better (but not great) box, and more interactive than an auto box, especially the mildly recalcitrant SMG version of auto.
And I honestly could not disagree with you. I think the vast majority of cars from that era are/were still better suited to the manual, more fun and involving too. But with the latest generation of performance cars, they are just so capable and evolved, and I just find the thought of having to take my hands of the wheel to change gear now distracting - apex's arrive a hell of a lot quicker than they used to and modern rubber makes their ability to go round corners a thing of witchcraft. Even though someone else here tried to suggest I was making myself out to being some sort of 'driving god', that couldn't be further away from the truth: I 'need' my hands on the wheel at all times, just to have any chance of getting around! Arsecati said:
It just wrecks my head when you see 'it needs a manual' or 'I'll have mine with a manual' in comments by delusional idiots who wish to give the impression they are some driving god or automotive purist. Manuals had their day, but back then, we chose manuals NOT because they gave us more 'feel' or 'connection', it was because there was no option, or if there was an auto option, it was so cod-damed awful! An NSX, 928 or even hot-hatches with slushboxes? Awful, awful, awful - just no, no, no. But I think that when the balance started to tip towards autos (and I use the term 'auto' as an umbrella term, instead of trying to decipher PDK/SMG/Double Clutch/Robo-Manual/etc., etc.!!) as a more superior performance device to a manual, they were still a bit too brutal in action, and yes, did give a feeling of alienation from the 'driving experience'. But modern autos are so good now, that they do nothing but enhance the driving experience. Cars are so quick now, with incredible suspension, electronics, tyres, etc., that to keep taking your hand of the wheel to twiddle some stick poking out of the floor completely detracts from the driving 'experience' (Cheezuz, sounds so knobbish going on about driving 'experience'!). How can you possibly feel more 'connected' to the car, when you are constantly breaking the connection by taking your hand off the wheel? When if you are ripping around in anything from an A110 to a GT2 RS, you cannot be any MORE connected than having your hands permanently on the wheel, gearchanges at your fingertips allowing you to focus on hitting each apex and braking point, etc., etc. I have an old 205 1.9GTi and a 944S2 Cabrio - anything but a manual would be unthinkable. But even a Fiesta ST makes as much power as that old Porker, so a manual does add to the fun. But something from this decade? Give me fingertip control any day!
So it wrecks your head when someone suggests they prefer a different gearbox to you? For most of the driving that we will do day to day, the auto/manual decision isn't going to save you any time in your average journey which ever way you go, so who cares if people would rather change gear as they go? I love an M3/4
From the back they look like a wide hipped, small waisted lady.
No one pays £100k for the new ones either. They're all leased for a year or 2 then given back. The 1st owner loses less than depreciation and the next person to buy it used saves the depreciation.
On paper BMW are the ones that lose out, but the top line numbers are basically made up.
From the back they look like a wide hipped, small waisted lady.
No one pays £100k for the new ones either. They're all leased for a year or 2 then given back. The 1st owner loses less than depreciation and the next person to buy it used saves the depreciation.
On paper BMW are the ones that lose out, but the top line numbers are basically made up.
PHMatt said:
I love an M3/4
From the back they look like a wide hipped, small waisted lady.
No one pays £100k for the new ones either. They're all leased for a year or 2 then given back. The 1st owner loses less than depreciation and the next person to buy it used saves the depreciation.
On paper BMW are the ones that lose out, but the top line numbers are basically made up.
That’s probably the case for most cars up to this sort of price. It’s at least a relative measure of cost, ie, even if they are leased, the costs reflect the RRP, or at least the discounted price when new. From the back they look like a wide hipped, small waisted lady.
No one pays £100k for the new ones either. They're all leased for a year or 2 then given back. The 1st owner loses less than depreciation and the next person to buy it used saves the depreciation.
On paper BMW are the ones that lose out, but the top line numbers are basically made up.
Love this! What a great read.
Sure the M4 CS is very expensive but most RS5’s on AT have been specced to 90ish grand, all of them have a list price close to that and the RS5 isn’t anywhere near as special or exciting. A C63S premium plus with a few options can also easily nudge 85-90k so I don’t think it’s a big deal considering you’re getting a limited edition run out special BMW with that powertrain.
I recall the E46 CSL having an eye watering price back when it was launched and it was pretty basic, it’s properly stripped out and probably not that good to live with on a daily basis unlike the current M4 that still has everything you need.
I’m sure there were people moaning about the CSL’s price at the time who now hail it as a legendary car and the greatest M car ever made, it’s just a cycle isn’t it. I haven’t driven the M4 CS but I trust the word of every journo who has driven it, they all say it’s an incredible car.
The same people moaning about the M4 CS’s price will be hailing it as the greatest M car in years to come.
One of my clients just bought a E53 coupe that had a list price of 75 grand, an AMG line with 4 fake exhaust and a very quiet straight 6 that’s probably very boring to drive as the owner didn’t seem impressed. Give me an M4 CS any day
Sure the M4 CS is very expensive but most RS5’s on AT have been specced to 90ish grand, all of them have a list price close to that and the RS5 isn’t anywhere near as special or exciting. A C63S premium plus with a few options can also easily nudge 85-90k so I don’t think it’s a big deal considering you’re getting a limited edition run out special BMW with that powertrain.
I recall the E46 CSL having an eye watering price back when it was launched and it was pretty basic, it’s properly stripped out and probably not that good to live with on a daily basis unlike the current M4 that still has everything you need.
I’m sure there were people moaning about the CSL’s price at the time who now hail it as a legendary car and the greatest M car ever made, it’s just a cycle isn’t it. I haven’t driven the M4 CS but I trust the word of every journo who has driven it, they all say it’s an incredible car.
The same people moaning about the M4 CS’s price will be hailing it as the greatest M car in years to come.
One of my clients just bought a E53 coupe that had a list price of 75 grand, an AMG line with 4 fake exhaust and a very quiet straight 6 that’s probably very boring to drive as the owner didn’t seem impressed. Give me an M4 CS any day
Edited by Chestrockwell on Sunday 21st April 19:53
Alpinestars said:
PHMatt said:
I love an M3/4
From the back they look like a wide hipped, small waisted lady.
No one pays £100k for the new ones either. They're all leased for a year or 2 then given back. The 1st owner loses less than depreciation and the next person to buy it used saves the depreciation.
On paper BMW are the ones that lose out, but the top line numbers are basically made up.
That’s probably the case for most cars up to this sort of price. It’s at least a relative measure of cost, ie, even if they are leased, the costs reflect the RRP, or at least the discounted price when new. From the back they look like a wide hipped, small waisted lady.
No one pays £100k for the new ones either. They're all leased for a year or 2 then given back. The 1st owner loses less than depreciation and the next person to buy it used saves the depreciation.
On paper BMW are the ones that lose out, but the top line numbers are basically made up.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff