What is the M3's biggest weakness?

[Eau Rouge]

More seats than M3 owners have friends.

[klammer]

Originally Posted by davesaddiction

Weight.

Originally Posted by quiksi

the d-bag behind the wheel

+1000000

[Thebigbus]

Weight, ride height, and stock exhaust is too quiet for me

I don't get the torque thing. It accelerates like a maniac, and loses traction easily. I love having to rev it. Beats my old LS2 engine any ol day

[jphughan]

Originally Posted by Thebigbus

Weight, ride height, and stock exhaust is too quiet for me

I don't get the torque thing. It accelerates like a maniac, and loses traction easily. I love having to rev it. Beats my old LS2 engine any ol day

Ride height as in too low or too high? I personally find it low enough to feel great cornering while still high enough that I'm not constantly scraping.

As for exhaust, I agree you don't hear a lot of exhaust sound, but you get plenty of intake and engine sound any time you're running more than 50% throttle -- which is kind of cool, lets you have a sleeper car when driving calmly and a monster when driving harder. I haven't looked into aftermarket exhausts, but if more exhaust noise would mean hearing less of the sweet intake and engine noise, I'm not sure I'd want that tradeoff.

[blankstar43]

when i first got the car i would have said torque..but after going to the track a few times i would now say weight.

[Mahzari]

Originally Posted by jphughan

That would definitely help traction in 1st and 2nd, but fatter tires means a lot more unsprung weight, which adversely affects handling as well as acceleration in scenarios that aren't traction-limited. Given that the car is intended to be used as a track monster and not a drag racer, I think BMW was wise to restrain themselves on tires. The C7 Corvette will have smaller tires than the C6 despite having more power for precisely this reason.



Can't have an engine that delivers high torque and high redline with linear power delivery all the way to the top at the same time, at least not without going into exotic territory. Here again I think BMW made the right call given the track intent of the car. Keeping this car in the upper rev ranges (where there's plenty of torque) and listening to it scream like a banshee on the track is when you truly understand what this car is about, and is precisely why I believe M3 owners who never take their cars to the track will never truly understand what makes their car so great or why it was designed the way it was. Torque is available on the 335i and 335d. And before you jump in and point out that the next M3 will be FI, I think that's due mainly to increased regulations around fuel consumption and emissions, and the fact that too many M3 buyers DON'T track and thus just want a torque-y city cruiser. If it weren't for said regulations and the market demand from the legions of customers who never use this car for its intended purpose, I think BMW would have absolutely stuck to NA, maybe using something like the 4.4-liter V8 from the M3 GTS for the next generation.



Agree 100%.



Agree with this too, though I'm told a BBK solves brake issues -- if you're willing to spend a few grand.

Finally a response with a bit of logic and thought.

I'd go with less weight: it improves relative horsepower/torque, mpg, and cornering. There, all of your flaws are fixed by this one change.

[thegeneral101]

TORQUE

but with that said, I like the high revving aspect so less torque is fine I guess. Still a weakness in my mind, even though I will gladly put up with it.

[bsiciliano]

Weight

[Chris M4CS]

I think a car of this cost and performance, should come with multi-piston brake calipers.

[quadpipes]

Originally Posted by jphughan

Can't have an engine that delivers high torque and high redline with linear power delivery all the way to the top at the same time, at least not without going into exotic territory. Here again I think BMW made the right call given the track intent of the car. Keeping this car in the upper rev ranges (where there's plenty of torque) and listening to it scream like a banshee on the track is when you truly understand what this car is about, and is precisely why I believe M3 owners who never take their cars to the track will never truly understand what makes their car so great or why it was designed the way it was. Torque is available on the 335i and 335d. And before you jump in and point out that the next M3 will be FI, I think that's due mainly to increased regulations around fuel consumption and emissions, and the fact that too many M3 buyers DON'T track and thus just want a torque-y city cruiser. If it weren't for said regulations and the market demand from the legions of customers who never use this car for its intended purpose, I think BMW would have absolutely stuck to NA, maybe using something like the 4.4-liter V8 from the M3 GTS for the next generation.

+1. This is basically a good analysis/statement. About the only part I respectfully disagree with is where you say that ///M3 owners who never take their cars to the track will never truly understand what makes their cars so great...I do not track. But there is absolutely no doubt that I fully understand what makes my car so great. In fact, I just got back from a spirited drive - and I get it.

As for the other statements on exhaust noise, consider that the next ///M3 and M4 (F80/F82) will likely have engine/exhaust noise generated by an electronic gizmo and piped into the cabin - just like the current F10 ///M5. I'd rather hear my S65 sing naturally - albeit a bit louder - than listen to a simulated noisemaker...

Back to the original question on the current M3's biggest weakness. I guess I would have to say I haven't found one yet.

[dtmwerksm3]

Torque & Weight

If you say MPG you've obviously bought the wrong vehicle.

[jphughan]

Originally Posted by quadpipes

+1. This is basically a good analysis/statement. About the only part I respectfully disagree with is where you say that ///M3 owners who never take their cars to the track will never truly understand what makes their cars so great...I do not track. But there is absolutely no doubt that I fully understand what makes my car so great. In fact, I just got back from a spirited drive - and I get it.

The M3 is a total blast on spirited drives, and it's definitely easy to see how great it is in that setting compared to say a 335i -- no question about it. But as big a difference as there is between a 335i and an M3, there's AT LEAST that large a difference between an M3 experienced on back roads and an M3 experienced on the track. I live in Austin where there are ENDLESS back country roads that are absolutely amazing for spirited drives and absolutely traffic-free. It's fabulous -- but it's also absolutely nothing like driving this car on a track. The fact that you take your car on spirited drives on back roads definitely means you understand more of what your car is about than the tragically high percentage of owners who doom their M3s to being driven exclusively on city streets and freeways, but you're still only seeing less than half of the total picture.

You can respectfully disagree, but I respectfully point out that if you've never taken your car to the track, you don't have the necessary data to support your position. I challenge you to find anyone who HAS tracked their car who shares your belief -- though you should have no problem at all finding people who thought as you do UNTIL they tracked their car. If you're concerned about tracking your own car for whatever reason, I'd suggest going to a track event as a spectator; it typically only costs maybe $25-50 and often allows you to catch rides with instructors and advanced students. Ride along with someone in an M3 and then try to come back here saying the M3 can fully be appreciated on spirited drives on public roads. And then imagine how much more fun and appreciation for the M3 you'd have gotten out of that track experience if you'd been the one behind the wheel. There's always M School if you want to avoid using your own car -- and if you read M School reviews on this forum, you'll find that lots of other people who thought they already knew what their M cars were about had their eyes opened by that experience. And it only gets even more fun and eye-opening the better you get as a driver.

[Sapper_M3]

Originally Posted by davesaddiction

Weight.

In my opinion, if the E9X M3 were 500 lbs lighter, it would be twice as amazing a vehicle.

As a side note, I don't even consider torque to be a weakness on the M3.

Some points often overlooked on this torque issue:
1) Peak torque is far more significant as a marketing tool than a performance metric (M could have engineered an engine for a peak torque of 350 lb-ft to make armchair racers happy....and still make it slower in acceleration than the current engine at 295 lb-ft peak torque); to understand engine torque, you NEED to see the torque curve.
2) Gearing makes engine torque largely irrelevant. The M3 is geared short for this very reason.
3) The M3 is able to leverage near peak torque over a wide band of engine speed.

I can't help but think that the majority of people screaming "I NEED MORE TORQUE" are comparing vehicle spec sheets, and they find themselves disappointed with the number 295 lb-ft, without actually concerning themselves with performance figures (which are, really, the ONLY figures that matter).

Some food for thought: The 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 (ignore the fact that, in both luxury and refinement, these vehicles are light years apart) is almost exactly the same weight as the M3 (lighter, depending on the figures you use), has nearly the exact same rated horsepower at the crank, and has nearly 100 lb-ft MORE peak engine torque than the E92 M3. The Mustang, however, is NO faster 0-60 mph (worth noting because people still care about 0-60, despite it being more of a traction test than anything at these power levels) and is no faster in the 1/4 mile. Do we want "MORE TORQUE!" to make our cars faster, or to be able to brag about "400 lb-ft of TORQUE!" to our friends?

[aussiem3]

Originally Posted by Sapper_M3

In my opinion, if the E9X M3 were 500 lbs lighter, it would be twice as amazing a vehicle.

As a side note, I don't even consider torque to be a weakness on the M3.

Some points often overlooked on this torque issue:
1) Peak torque is far more significant as a marketing tool than a performance metric (M could have engineered an engine for a peak torque of 350 lb-ft to make armchair racers happy....and still make it slower in acceleration than the current engine at 295 lb-ft peak torque); to understand engine torque, you NEED to see the torque curve.
2) Gearing makes engine torque largely irrelevant. The M3 is geared short for this very reason.
3) The M3 is able to leverage near peak torque over a wide band of engine speed.

I can't help but think that the majority of people screaming "I NEED MORE TORQUE" are comparing vehicle spec sheets, and they find themselves disappointed with the number 295 lb-ft, without actually concerning themselves with performance figures (which are, really, the ONLY figures that matter).

Some food for thought: The 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 (ignore the fact that, in both luxury and refinement, these vehicles are light years apart) is almost exactly the same weight as the M3 (lighter, depending on the figures you use), has nearly the exact same rated horsepower at the crank, and has nearly 100 lb-ft MORE peak engine torque than the E92 M3. The Mustang, however, is NO faster 0-60 mph (worth noting because people still care about 0-60, despite it being more of a traction test than anything at these power levels) and is no faster in the 1/4 mile. Do we want "MORE TORQUE!" to make our cars faster, or to be able to brag about "400 lb-ft of TORQUE!" to our friends?

Couldn't agree more. 100%. It's all about bragging rights rather than useability and that too on a daily basis. A fair amount of unhappy ///3 owners. Wonder why they bought an ///3 in the first place.

[llis]

Originally Posted by jphughan

...I believe M3 owners who never take their cars to the track will never truly understand what makes their car so great or why it was designed the way it was....

I 1000% agree. If you haven't tracked, you haven't really tested the limits, even if you do "spirited" street driving, even if you drive like an asshat.

[e92livin]

Torque, it should have atleast 350-390tq

[weaksauce]

Cup holders do not hold 64 oz drinks. Stupid German cars.

[Thebigbus]

Originally Posted by jphughan

Ride height as in too low or too high? I personally find it low enough to feel great cornering while still high enough that I'm not constantly scraping.

As for exhaust, I agree you don't hear a lot of exhaust sound, but you get plenty of intake and engine sound any time you're running more than 50% throttle -- which is kind of cool, lets you have a sleeper car when driving calmly and a monster when driving harder. I haven't looked into aftermarket exhausts, but if more exhaust noise would mean hearing less of the sweet intake and engine noise, I'm not sure I'd want that tradeoff.

Just a SMIDGE too high. I'd say a good 1/4" to 3/8" drop all around would be perfect. But all in all, it's not terrible.

I agree with you on the intake sound. It's magical. I'm not a big "loud exhaust guy". I'm quite conservative, FWIW. I just want a BIT more of a mix between induction sound and exhaust, and in my E90, the exhaust is pretty mute, even with the windows down, for some reason.

On my last car -- a 2006 GTO -- I went with headers and a catless setup, but kept the OEM stock mufflers, as it was the perfect balance to me.

I think for our cars, from what I've heard, I may either go catless in the future with stock catback, or go with the Megan Racing exhaust for "bang for buck". We'll see.

all in all, it's still a MARVELOUS car, IMO. If it weighed around 3300 lbs, would be darn near perfect for me.

[Ezio]

The reason it lacks Torque is because how engine is designed. Its small, light, high revving etc. Look at formula one engines, small light weight, high revving etc

Both lack low end power, but rev very fast and high. Not many engines are like this, be happy trust me.

people who say it lacks Torque, do not understand its a 4L v8 that revs to 8000RPM + its not making any Torque lol and BMW made a very impressive engine

[Thebigbus]

Originally Posted by Sapper_M3

In my opinion, if the E9X M3 were 500 lbs lighter, it would be twice as amazing a vehicle.

As a side note, I don't even consider torque to be a weakness on the M3.

Some points often overlooked on this torque issue:
1) Peak torque is far more significant as a marketing tool than a performance metric (M could have engineered an engine for a peak torque of 350 lb-ft to make armchair racers happy....and still make it slower in acceleration than the current engine at 295 lb-ft peak torque); to understand engine torque, you NEED to see the torque curve.
2) Gearing makes engine torque largely irrelevant. The M3 is geared short for this very reason.
3) The M3 is able to leverage near peak torque over a wide band of engine speed.

I can't help but think that the majority of people screaming "I NEED MORE TORQUE" are comparing vehicle spec sheets, and they find themselves disappointed with the number 295 lb-ft, without actually concerning themselves with performance figures (which are, really, the ONLY figures that matter).

Some food for thought: The 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 (ignore the fact that, in both luxury and refinement, these vehicles are light years apart) is almost exactly the same weight as the M3 (lighter, depending on the figures you use), has nearly the exact same rated horsepower at the crank, and has nearly 100 lb-ft MORE peak engine torque than the E92 M3. The Mustang, however, is NO faster 0-60 mph (worth noting because people still care about 0-60, despite it being more of a traction test than anything at these power levels) and is no faster in the 1/4 mile. Do we want "MORE TORQUE!" to make our cars faster, or to be able to brag about "400 lb-ft of TORQUE!" to our friends?

(Double Werd)

[Carl L]

I do not think the car is undertired and like the balance and grip provided by the 245/265s which, with a softer track compound, are plenty even for the track. The next model will come with 255/275, adding weight to my view that wishes for 295s do not take into account the negatives, one of which is weight, of wider tires.

I also do not think the car is lacking for torque. The torque curve of this engine is very useable.

Only weak points, in my opinion, are 1) fuel economy where perhaps a lower ratio 7th gear would have helped here as 7th is never needed as a performance gear save for top speed runs where the limiter cuts in early in rev range of 6th anyway. And 2) weight, where 300 lbs less would've made this car even more special.

[Transfer]

The M3 torque is fine. Silly bunch of whiners, just drive it like it was meant to be driven. This isn't American muscle. I'd rather have that extra 2k RPMs than 100 ftlbs.

I would say the cold engine/transmission jerkiness is my biggest complaint. MPG isn't good but I knew what I was getting into.
Everything else is near perfect for me.