Originally Posted by Just_me
Have you driven one?
Compared to the C63 yes, not compared to a Ford Focus. Rs4 have had 420hp for a long time now. Bmw should have given the M3 at least 440hp, at least it would look good on paper and good for bragging rights.
The horsepower gap between M3 E46 and M5 E39 was much smaller than M3 E92 and M5 e60. Why the hell did they change that for the new M3.
I really hope the M3 engine has more power than BMW claim it does.
I think it is very doubtful the M3 motor is underrated. The twin turbo in the 335 is a different story. I beleive it IS underrated because it encroaches on M3 performance as it is. There is no reason to underrate the M3 motor, because it is supposed to be M's response to the RS4, C63, etc. To underrate it would only hurt its marketing against those cars.
Whether the HP deficit of the M outweighs (pun intended) its advantages vis a vis the competition (which I have been concerned about for quite a while, as I have said here and elsewhere) still remains to be seen.
One thing that I have been thinking about is Steved's description of the M presentation at the press event. He said it was all about efficient dynamics, IIRC. That focus may indicate BMW knows the M3 will not meet certain performance metrics of some competitors (not only HP but also straight line accelleration, possibly even handling), so they want to emphasize the other qualities of the car. But who will buy the M3 because it is more efficient than the competitors (whatever that means) if the performance of the car is lacking in comparison?
I hope my speculation is not right.