M3 compared to the E92 M3 Coupe?

[Raek]

Originally Posted by Maxe93

There?s always one !! I?m sure you have spend hours ,days, months behind the wheel of both !!

I?d like some track numbers/times to end this once and for all . All this hate towards the convertibles ???? Btw I have both by accident . Still wouldn?t go as far as your last statement .

That "once and for all" made me think of this:

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by Z K

Yes, but the fastest and most limited production E9x series car BMW built is the M3 CRT which is a e90.

The sedan has more structural rigidity and a wider stance which makes it more suited for performance. The e92 was longer and more narrow. The e90 never came with a carbon roof, but if it did, it would be lighter.

The coupe is slightly longer, but it is both wider and shorter (height) than the sedan. It is also lighter. Wheelbase and track width are the same for all 3. The carbon fiber roof would not reduce mass as much as the addition of 2 (admittedly smaller) rear doors, latches, and electric motors for the rear windows increase it.

Manufacturer
BMW M GmbH
Production
2007 - 2013
Assembly
Regensburg, Germany
Body style
4-door (E90) sedan
2-door (E92) coupé
2-door (E93) cabriolet
Engine
4.0 L S65 V8
Wheelbase
2,761 mm (108.7 in)
Length
2011– Coupé & Cabriolet: 4,618mm (181.8 in)
2011– Sedan: 4,582 mm (180.4 in)
2008–2010 Coupé: 4,608 mm (181.4 in)
2008–2010 Cabriolet: 4,615 mm (181.7 in)
Width
2011– Coupé: 1,821 mm (71.7 in)
2011– Sedan: 1,816 mm (71.5 in)
2011– Cabriolet: 1,803 mm (71.0 in)
Height
2011– Coupé & 2008–2010 Convertible: 1,412 mm (55.6 in)
2008–2011 Sedan: 1,448 mm (57.0 in)
2011– Cabriolet: 1,392 mm (54.8 in)
2008–2010 Coupé: 1,377 mm (54.2 in)
Curb weight
Coupé: 1,680 kg (3,704 lb)
Sedan: 1,724 kg (3,800 lb)
Cabriolet: 1,880 kg (4,145 lb)

There is a reason that BMW Motorsport campaigns coupes rather than sedans in international racing.

[Helmsman]

Dsilk, detail but strange that the weight differ. According to the user manual my E90 is 1700kg incl DCT. Believe MT was some 20kg lighter i.e. 1680kg which I assume your numbers refer to.

[GeorgeA]

Originally Posted by Z K

Yes, but the fastest and most limited production E9x series car BMW built is the M3 CRT which is a e90.

The sedan has more structural rigidity and a wider stance which makes it more suited for performance. The e92 was longer and more narrow. The e90 never came with a carbon roof, but if it did, it would be lighter.

It uses the same suspension, it's not wider... Also has the same wheelbase.

Also the GTS is way quicker on any track than the CRT..

Not sure where you're getting your information from. I've driven both cars back to back, and they're practically identical. The E92 might be a little stiffer than the E90, thats about it. If you want to get into small little details, than the weight advantage of the E92 will help it be quicker theoretically.

[MachinesWithSouls]

Originally Posted by GeorgeA

It uses the same suspension, it's not wider... Also has the same wheelbase.

Also the GTS is way quicker on any track than the CRT..

Not sure where you're getting your information from. I've driven both cars back to back, and they're practically identical. The E92 might be a little stiffer than the E90, thats about it. If you want to get into small little details, than the weight advantage of the E92 will help it be quicker theoretically.

I've read so much material on the car, so please forgive me because I don't remember the source (I want to say car and driver), but I believe the sedan is actually stiffer. Again, could be wrong.

[carenthuziast]

Originally Posted by tooloud10

This was exactly my take before choosing the E93, too. The E93 trades a half-second in 0-60 and a smidge in handling for the ability to drive a car that can transform from a coupe into a convertible at the touch of a button.

If you're not going to track the car, the difference is pretty negligible. For all the negativity often displayed towards the E93, for me the advantage of the folding hardtop *easily* outweighed the difference in performance between the E92 and E93.

IOW, this question always comes down to "do you want a convertible?" If the answer is 'yes', you'll be quite happy with your E93.

And when the E93 is in "coupe mode" you can lower all 4 windows when cruising....whereas the E92, you can only lower the front 2.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-c...627_175227.jpg

http://www.velocitymotoring.com/link...Black_1070.jpg

[e93 jonesy]

Originally Posted by carenthuziast

And when the E93 is in "coupe mode" you can lower all 4 windows when cruising....whereas the E92, you can only lower the front 2.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-c...627_175227.jpg

http://www.velocitymotoring.com/link...Black_1070.jpg

That's what I like about the car. No post and all windows can go down...

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by e93 jonesy

That's what I like about the car. No post and all windows can go down...

True, but you have to understand that all of this comes at the cost of chassis rigidity. The roof and B-pillars do more than keep the weather out. They add rigidity to the chassis which is not entirely recaptured by adding structural bracing to the floorpan.

[carenthuziast]

Originally Posted by DSilk

True, but you have to understand that all of this comes at the cost of chassis rigidity. The roof and B-pillars do more than keep the weather out. They add rigidity to the chassis which is not entirely recaptured by adding structural bracing to the floorpan.

Yes. But not what most E93 owners care about.

Given that. BMW could have still designed the rear windows to lower for the e92.

[Z K]

On the sedan vs coupe argument, there are many threads about it.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=662030

The rigidity of the sedan is stiffer due to the b pillar being more central in the car. The e90 sedan is also the one that is always used for touring car racing - not the coupe.

Both Top Gear and Best Motoring set faster lap times in the sedan vs the coupe as well. Could it just be chance?

[3Pedals_6Speeds]

Originally Posted by tooloud10

This was exactly my take before choosing the E93, too. The E93 trades a half-second in 0-60 and a smidge in handling for the ability to drive a car that can transform from a coupe into a convertible at the touch of a button.

If you're not going to track the car, the difference is pretty negligible. For all the negativity often displayed towards the E93, for me the advantage of the folding hardtop *easily* outweighed the difference in performance between the E92 and E93.

IOW, this question always comes down to "do you want a convertible?" If the answer is 'yes', you'll be quite happy with your E93.

I wish I could have said this as eloquently. Add to this that when polls are put on this site re: DD or tracking, the majority of us use our car as a daily only. I may be wrong here, but it seems anyone daily/tracking the car isn't exactly gonna go 10/10 in their DD/track car anyway (if so, why are you risking tracking your DD at that level, and if you are that good, why not buy a track car), so it seems its a moot point. At least in my case if I'm gonna track something, it's gonna be rented from a provider, or cheap enough that if I roll it into a ball and walk away, I'm not crying about the expense caused by my lack of skill.

[tooloud10]

Originally Posted by carenthuziast

And when the E93 is in "coupe mode" you can lower all 4 windows when cruising....whereas the E92, you can only lower the front 2.

It's the only way to go on mild weather days cruising around town!

Originally Posted by DSilk

True, but you have to understand that all of this comes at the cost of chassis rigidity. The roof and B-pillars do more than keep the weather out. They add rigidity to the chassis which is not entirely recaptured by adding structural bracing to the floorpan.

Yeah, my wife and I are constantly discussing chassis rigidity while cruising home from dinner with the top down on warm summer nights.

I cannot stress enough that I view all E9x M3s as GT cars, not sports/track cars. There are much better options for tracking than *any* E9x M3. Structural rigidity just doesn't come into play for me with this car--I bought it because I wanted a V8 convertible that can accommodate four actual people. For that purpose, my E93 is absolutely perfect.

Originally Posted by 3Pedals_6Speeds

I wish I could have said this as eloquently. Add to this that when polls are put on this site re: DD or tracking, the majority of us use our car as a daily only. I may be wrong here, but it seems anyone daily/tracking the car isn't exactly gonna go 10/10 in their DD/track car anyway (if so, why are you risking tracking your DD at that level, and if you are that good, why not buy a track car), so it seems its a moot point. At least in my case if I'm gonna track something, it's gonna be rented from a provider, or cheap enough that if I roll it into a ball and walk away, I'm not crying about the expense caused by my lack of skill.

Totally agreed. The E9x M3 is perfect for those that want a DD with a real 'edge', but on a track I'd rather use my Miata or a $15k Porsche 996 C2 that starts out weighing significantly less than you could ever get an E9x down to.

IOW, the whole point of the M3 for me is that it perfectly straddles the line that I want it to. It's not a comfy Lexus and it's not a 911 GT3, and that's what makes it perfect for me.

[McSwine]

I love ragtops. I've had several. And I would love to hear what a M3 sounds like with the top down...it has to be awesome.

Drive both and get what blows your skirt up.

[BOOF-M3]

Owning both I'll add my .02, the E90 and E92 look better visually especially when parked next to the E93 with the top up. For the 95 % of M3 drivers that do not track their cars there is nothing you can do on the street with an E90 X E92 that you can't do with an E93. But you can put all four windows down as carenthziast said and with the top down the car sounds way better than any E9X car with the top up. But the fact remains that the designers made a perfect looking car in regard to the E90 and E92, E93 with top up, eh not so perfect looking to me. I have said it before, I find it amazing that every decade you can look at all the great cars and if you compare coupes, sedans and verts, the vert will always bring in more money and get the same respect from car enthusiasts.

[3Pedals_6Speeds]

Originally Posted by BOOF-M3

But the fact remains that the designers made a perfect looking car in regard to the E90 and E92, E93 with top up, eh not so perfect looking to me. I have said it before, I find it amazing that every decade you can look at all the great cars and if you compare coupes, sedans and verts, the vert will always bring in more money and get the same respect from car enthusiasts.

Agreed, the E92 looks better than the E93 with the top up.

[carenthuziast]

Originally Posted by BOOF-M3

Owning both I'll add my .02, the E90 and E92 look better visually especially when parked next to the E93 with the top up. For the 95 % of M3 drivers that do not track their cars there is nothing you can do on the street with an E90 X E92 that you can't do with an E93. But you can put all four windows down as tooloud said and with the top down the car sounds way better than any E9X car with the top up.

Who said this? I said this.

Originally Posted by BOOF-M3

But the fact remains that the designers made a perfect looking car in regard to the E90 and E92, E93 with top up, eh not so perfect looking to me. I have said it before, I find it amazing that every decade you can look at all the great cars and if you compare coupes, sedans and verts, the vert will always bring in more money and get the same respect from car enthusiasts.

http://www.automobilesreview.com/gal...3-style-04.jpg


I'm sure everyone can agree that verts in general look better with their top down than with their top up. And when the E93 has its top down, it looks very good.


http://cdn.bmwblog.com/wp-content/up...otoshoot-5.jpg

http://www.megamo.hk/assets/images/img_6667.jpg

https://icdn-6.motor1.com/images/mgl...7-11-20101.jpg