F82 M4 offer enough benefit over the e92 M3 to justify jumping into it?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Killerfish2012

That's not a good thing AT ALL! As an N54 owner, I can tell you that we've seen innumerable vehicles with 750+whp daily driven without any problems, or a single thing done to the motor. The S55 just has a forged crank, and rods. That's all that separates it from the N55. There is no way you're going to push the N54/2jz numbers without extensive engine work.

That's an oversimplification, but I'm not going to argue with you. I'll let the resident gearheads over in the F8X forum do that. This will turn into one of those conversations that I've seen over the last decade+ where the enhancements of the ///M car are reduced and marginalized for/by the non-///M driving mod crowd (..and yes, I see the E92 ///M in your info under your username). If you're not a fan of the new cars, that's okay. They aren't for everybody. That's the beauty of choice.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Nautik

You are right, it makes sense to compare an FBO to an FBO. However, I've been looking at it from a cost/value perspective. I already have an e92 M3 with FBO (which is not really true, just test pipes and an evolve tune along with apex arc8s).

I'm looking at it as, I'm already getting very similar performance (delivered differently of course, the low end torque sucks I admit!). Maybe I would get 35-40k if I sold my current ride. Then I would need another 40k to buy the new M4. And what am I getting for that 40k? Not much performance improvement on paper...

Am I paying an extra 40k for a newer car with a little bit nicer interior, a few more techno gadgets, and a few less scratches?

And you know BMW will be all over your a$$ if you mess with the boost those turbos are putting out. So now if I want to see a serious performance gain in power, I'm back to voiding my warranty.

Going from the e46 to the e92 was a huge change in performance, I guess that is what I was expecting.

TBH I think I just need a bit more power for that kind of money ;p (especially to make me forget how amazing the S65 sounds)

I've driven every M3 apart from the E30. Going from an E9x to an F80/2 is easily like going from E46 to E92 and then some. It's not even the same world.

I think 0-60 times is the least useful information IMO. A little bit of wheel slip here and there, and your times are off (we are looking at tenths of a second here). From a roll, I'm telling you right now, you would get embarrassed by an F80/2. There's nothing similar about these cars.

Not to mention the brakes are a huge upgrade (stock for stock), and the F80/2 is a more rigid car, that also has welded subframe in the back. And it has a warranty.

I love my E92, but the F80/2 is a pretty big leap forward (not in terms of sound or pure steering feel, but everything else more or less).

[Killerfish2012]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Why are we comparing an F8X to a Carrera GT again?

Both had a high number of initial wrecks.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Killerfish2012

I stand by my words. The torque curve is not idea for corners. I posted the pics of the wrecked F80 M3's at road America, and there have already been quite a few wrecks on the streets in Europe. Would you like me to post those pictures? This many wrecks early in production is concerning. If you don't believe there could be a serious design flaw, then at least you would be willing to admit that the car has an extreme learning curve ala Porsche Carrera GT.

I don't see how that's relevant at all. I wouldn't be surprised if you could dig up E9x press cars being crashed too. So because a 20 year old German tries to drift and crashes the car, it's somehow a widow maker? Design flaw?

I've heard a lot of things these past couple of weeks, but this is seriously funny.

How many E92's did Usain Bolt crash?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by W///

I don't see how that's relevant at all. I wouldn't be surprised if you could dig up E9x press cars being crashed too. So because a 20 year old German tries to drift and crashes the car, it's somehow a widow maker? Design flaw?

I've heard a lot of things these past couple of weeks, but this is seriously funny.

How many E92's did Usain Bolt crash?

Thank you!


...and your Usain Bolt example was perfect.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by W///

I don't see how that's relevant at all. I wouldn't be surprised if you could dig up E9x press cars being crashed too. So because a 20 year old German tries to drift and crashes the car, it's somehow a widow maker? Design flaw?

I've heard a lot of things these past couple of weeks, but this is seriously funny.

How many E92's did Usain Bolt crash?

Yep !....BMW = Bolt Must Walk !

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Yep !....BMW = Bolt Must Walk !

LOL

[adc]

There are a lot of alarmist opinions about the new car, it seems.

At the same time, I'll point out that cars with similar weight/torque like the C7 have more rubber in the back, or better said a lot more stagger front/rear. As far as tire size, to make the weight distribution work, the 991S runs 295 in the back.

I would not be surprised if the F8x didn't massively benefit from a 295 rear tire. By all accounts, the front is working remarkably well. I can't wait to see what the track guys find about the car.

[M5Rlz]

Originally Posted by Nautik

You are right, it makes sense to compare an FBO to an FBO. However, I've been looking at it from a cost/value perspective. I already have an e92 M3 with FBO (which is not really true, just test pipes and an evolve tune along with apex arc8s).

I'm looking at it as, I'm already getting very similar performance (delivered differently of course, the low end torque sucks I admit!). Maybe I would get 35-40k if I sold my current ride. Then I would need another 40k to buy the new M4. And what am I getting for that 40k? Not much performance improvement on paper...

Am I paying an extra 40k for a newer car with a little bit nicer interior, a few more techno gadgets, and a few less scratches?

And you know BMW will be all over your a$$ if you mess with the boost those turbos are putting out. So now if I want to see a serious performance gain in power, I'm back to voiding my warranty.

Going from the e46 to the e92 was a huge change in performance, I guess that is what I was expecting.

TBH I think I just need a bit more power for that kind of money ;p (especially to make me forget how amazing the S65 sounds)

DCT is improved leaps and bounds [I owned an e92 2010 m3], tuning potential is improved, creature comforts are better [again what you don't have can't hurt you like hud, brembos, new nav, driver assistance stuff is great etc.], ideally you'd think its safer.

[m3ray]

Originally Posted by adc

There are a lot of alarmist opinions about the new car, it seems.

Classic new generation phobia. This scenario plays itself out with each subsequent platform that is released. Some will take the provincial road, unwilling to cede that the new model may have better things to offer, some will embrace the new model and its changes.

To those holding on for dear life, I would say : “It’s called the future, welcome to it”

[W///]

Originally Posted by adc

There are a lot of alarmist opinions about the new car, it seems.

At the same time, I'll point out that cars with similar weight/torque like the C7 have more rubber in the back, or better said a lot more stagger front/rear. As far as tire size, to make the weight distribution work, the 991S runs 295 in the back.

I would not be surprised if the F8x didn't massively benefit from a 295 rear tire. By all accounts, the front is working remarkably well. I can't wait to see what the track guys find about the car.

It's absolutely begging for bigger tires, just like how E9x guys went 255/275 on stock tires. I still don't quite understand why BMW doesn't fit the biggest tires possible? Is it for cost? Tramlining (is that even apparent with bigger tires?)? Honest question.

From personal experience, I upgraded to 11" wheels with 295 rear tires on my E92 and the amount of grip is absolutely fantastic, I absolutely love it.

[m3ray]

Originally Posted by W///

It's absolutely begging for bigger tires, just like how E9x guys went 255/275 on stock tires. I still don't quite understand why BMW doesn't fit the biggest tires possible? Is it for cost? Tramlining (is that even apparent with bigger tires?)? Honest question.

From personal experience, I upgraded to 11" wheels with 295 rear tires on my E92 and the amount of grip is absolutely fantastic, I absolutely love it.

Cost is most likely the biggest consideration, going plus size tires, times many thousands of cars produced equates to big cost.

But then there are also the engineers who have designed the brakes, suspension etc, to work with "optimal" sized tires. Whatever that means...It also wouldn't be good if dealerships were flooded with warranty repairs for shreded fender liners

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by W///

It's absolutely begging for bigger tires, just like how E9x guys went 255/275 on stock tires. I still don't quite understand why BMW doesn't fit the biggest tires possible? Is it for cost? Tramlining (is that even apparent with bigger tires?)? Honest question.

From personal experience, I upgraded to 11" wheels with 295 rear tires on my E92 and the amount of grip is absolutely fantastic, I absolutely love it.

I think it's all an exercise in compromise. BMW has to stay in the middle. You, me and probably many others would gladly welcome wider wheels/tires, but the average buyer would probably complain about tramlining (....using your example above). They'd complain about road noise and/or tire expense. BMW has to try and circumvent as much of that as possible. It's bad enough that all of the complaints from the average buyer(s) about chassis stiffness, etc. have led to softer BMW's over the years. We enthusiasts are a small percentage of BMW's profit pie.

[BOOstJunkee]

This "torque coming out of the corners" concern is only a factor for those who never experienced torque to begin with. People are talking like everyone owns a car that lacks torque like the e9x m3. Not a big deal to many others.

[M3/4 life]

Motor Trend's dyno test of the new M:

With official ratings of 425 horsepower and 406 pound-feet of torque, you’d expect an at-the-wheels rating of somewhere around 360 horsepower and 345 pound-feet with typical driveline losses.

The figures from Motor Trend’s test of the 2015 BMW M3 on K&N Engineering’s dyno put BMW and the new M3 firmly in the underrated camp (or the highly efficient power-transfer camp): the dyno results showed 379 horsepower and 378 pound-feet of torque. Hit the link to see the dyno graphs and other details.

The nearly symmetrical result is about 5 percent above what might be expected, so it’s not a tremendous underrating, and given the vagaries of results from one dynamometer to the next, it could simply be a spot-on result, matching rated horsepower at the flywheel identically.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by M3/4 life

Motor Trend's dyno test of the new M:

With official ratings of 425 horsepower and 406 pound-feet of torque, you’d expect an at-the-wheels rating of somewhere around 360 horsepower and 345 pound-feet with typical driveline losses.

The figures from Motor Trend’s test of the 2015 BMW M3 on K&N Engineering’s dyno put BMW and the new M3 firmly in the underrated camp (or the highly efficient power-transfer camp): the dyno results showed 379 horsepower and 378 pound-feet of torque. Hit the link to see the dyno graphs and other details.

The nearly symmetrical result is about 5 percent above what might be expected, so it’s not a tremendous underrating, and given the vagaries of results from one dynamometer to the next, it could simply be a spot-on result, matching rated horsepower at the flywheel identically.

K&N's dyno reads low, even for the E9X they tested. Even still, it was a whopping difference between the two cars on the same day/same dyno.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

K&N's dyno reads low, even for the E9X they tested. Even still, it was a whopping difference between the two cars on the same day/same dyno.

its pretty clear the E9x is a 400 hp car and the f80 is not a 420 HP car, more like 450+

[Killerfish2012]

Originally Posted by W///

I don't see how that's relevant at all. I wouldn't be surprised if you could dig up E9x press cars being crashed too. So because a 20 year old German tries to drift and crashes the car, it's somehow a widow maker? Design flaw?

I've heard a lot of things these past couple of weeks, but this is seriously funny.

How many E92's did Usain Bolt crash?

Ok, lets break this thing down. You take a whole bunch of brand new M3/4s to one of the most established tracks in the country. You divide people into three run groups. Novice, intermediate, and advanced. You provide all Novices with passengers, who are instructors from the BMW club. Heck one of the instructors brings along his race spec E92 M3 along, and gives rides to further illustrate his instructions to the Novice group. Two different drivers from the intermediat/Advanced group, on two separate occasions , crash their brand new M3, at the same point on the track. You want to dismiss that as a coincidence, and just blame that on driver skill?

As for the Usain Bolt example, if you can't see why that's totally irrelevant, then I don't know what to say. We're taking about early production crash rates, not near end of model year crash rates. The difference is that in the former, defects/bad design could be to blame.

[Killerfish2012]

Originally Posted by Ezio

its pretty clear the E9x is a 400 hp car and the f80 is not a 420 HP car, more like 450+

Based on acceleration tests by car and driver. 12.1 @ 119? Do you want me to list their BMW stock acceleration times here? When you go on the forums, No car is even close to those stock times.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Killerfish2012

Ok, lets break this thing down. You take a whole bunch of brand new M3/4s to one of the most established tracks in the country. You divide people into three run groups. Novice, intermediate, and advanced. You provide all Novices with passengers, who are instructors from the BMW club. Heck one of the instructors brings along his race spec E92 M3 along, and gives rides to further illustrate his instructions to the Novice group. Two different drivers from the intermediat/Advanced group, on two separate occasions , crash their brand new M3, at the same point on the track. You want to dismiss that as a coincidence, and just blame that on driver skill?

As for the Usain Bolt example, if you can't see why that's totally irrelevant, then I don't know what to say. We're taking about early production crash rates, not near end of model year crash rates. The difference is that in the former, defects/bad design could be to blame.

Still ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as you comparing an M3/4 to a CGT. If you want to bring up that subject, the CGT was shown to have no defect (people tried to blame the car at first). But it was shown that the tires were over very old, and the guy was speeding. 99% of the time, it's the idiot behind the wheel, and not the car itself (unless your company is called GM).

Was this at Road America btw? I saw that in Motortrend's video, the track was soaking wet. Could easily play a factor. I just find it so hilarious that with supposedly 4 crashes at the track (I only saw 1 pic of that white F80), and some punk kid in Munich, you have enough information to conclude that the car is fatally flawed, like it was some 70's 911.

So if that's the case, pretty much all RWD AMG products should be outlawed.

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by Brosef

you do realize that Autocar just tested it, and it trapped 120.9mph. as I recall, I believe you said repeatedly that it would never trap close to the 991S.

admit that you were wrong.

BTW, I dont believe for a second its a 121 mph trap car...thats by most accounts faster than an m5/m6 which are both 120 mph trap speed cars.

I would be more interested in real times from the strip where I dont think trap speeds will be anywhere near that or even 120/119 for a stock car.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

BTW, I dont believe for a second its a 121 mph trap car...thats by most accounts faster than an m5/m6 which are both 120 mph trap speed cars.

I would be more interested in real times from the strip where I dont think trap speeds will be anywhere near that or even 120/119 for a stock car.

believe what you want, just don't cry about it. what's to say it's not a 120+ mph car if the result has been achieved?

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1009851