M3 declared R&T's "Sultans of Slide" drift king

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

450 lbs extra lard to tow too....

Then he should get an S4, which has been discovered to be under rated.


http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/28/r...is-underrated/

[mrkbbd]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

Then he should get an S4, which has been discovered to be under rated.


http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/28/r...is-underrated/

I find that hard to believe; I wouldn't be surprised if the manufacturers "cheated" a little with press demonstrators, bumping up the psi a little bit before handing them over

[albertoxx]

A friend of ///Mine...
In Turin (Italy)

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Heck, even a $220+ K F430 puts out a measly 195 ft-lbs of wheel torque at 4500 rpm.

OMG - Piece of crap!

hahahahahaha.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

"And besides, any engine shortcomings were made up by the car’s chassis."

Messenger? You are nothing more than a well-written troll.

I could find at least 20 positive comments for every negative comment written about the M3 engine. Actually, this is the first article where I've heard anyone say anything even remotely negative about the engine at all. Most test drivers RAVE about the engine and how much fun it is to drive - even when it is not the fastest around the track.

Do you really have an M3? What is it like focusing on how much you hate the engine every day? Must be misery. Maybe you can go on the Hyundai boards and you can all cry together.

[330CIZHP]

You stole the words out of my mouth. I had been thinking he is a troll for the longest time. I mean, most of the European motorsports-derived engines (exotics or non-exotics) are top-rpm heavy high-revving engines and everyone loves for their racy engine sounds, rush one gets seeing the tach swing past 8000 rpm and ultra-sensitive throttle response simply unmatched by a low-revving engine. Like I said, these are top heavy engines with little regards to how much torque it should make below 2000 rpm. I mean, even an F430 4.3 Liter V8 makes only 195 ft-lbs wheel torque @ 4500 rpm.

Jimmy boy is a troll without an M3. Guaranteed!

Originally Posted by Singletrack

Messenger? You are nothing more than a well-written troll.

I could find at least 20 positive comments for every negative comment written about the M3 engine. Actually, this is the first article where I've heard anyone say anything even remotely negative about the engine at all. Most test drivers RAVE about the engine and how much fun it is to drive - even when it is not the fastest around the track.

Do you really have an M3? What is it like focusing on how much you hate the engine every day? Must be misery. Maybe you can go on the Hyundai boards and you can all cry together.

[SoCali E36]

Originally Posted by Thinker23

I apologize if this is a repost but oncars had the same conclusion:

http://www.oncars.com/video/395/BMW-M3-Video-Review

lol AMG Whatever

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Jimmy boy is a troll without an M3. Guaranteed!

There are a ton of GTA posters here, so it won't be long until I run into one and you're proven wrong. What you're really wrong about is that I love the car. We just have a difference of opinion over the engine.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

There are a ton of GTA posters here, so it won't be long until I run into one and you're proven wrong. What you're really wrong about is that I love the car. We just have a difference of opinion over the engine.

Wow! I was thinking, hmmm, this guy is very civil and has some opinions-fine. Cleary is in the wrong car, but ok, I see his perspective about the car.

But then this! This us beyond belief--the characteristics of the engine are a huge part of MAKING THE CAR what it is! There's no way to separate things that way! Love the car but hate the engine? Uh, no, can't do that. Please.

Like what "I love the Ferraris but hate flat plane crank engines". Geez!

I think the folks above may have pegged things correctly. I hate to agree but this kind of statement really cements things.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

Wow! I was thinking, hmmm, this guy is very civil and has some opinions-fine. Cleary is in the wrong car, but ok, I see his perspective about the car.

But then this! This us beyond belief--the characteristics of the engine are a huge part of MAKING THE CAR what it is! There's no way to separate things that way! Love the car but hate the engine? Uh, no, can't do that. Please.

Like what "I love the Ferraris but hate flat plane crank engines". Geez!

I think the folks above may have pegged things correctly. I hate to agree but this kind of statement really cements things.

LOL. Yah it is the most arbitrary argument ever.

He and Footie are full of it - just look at the other thread (low end torque) if there is any question in your mind. They just want to get a rise out of people and argue. Which is how I define a troll. Look at the way they post and phrase things - their intent is obvious.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

Love the car but hate the engine?

I don't think I said that I hated the engine. Actually, I love the way it hooks up when I'm in the mood on the right road. It just doesn't shine compared to a tuned N54 on my long and often congested commute. But I knew that when I bought the car, and I won't be commuting next year.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

I don't think I said that I hated the engine. Actually, I love the way it hooks up when I'm in the mood on the right road. It just doesn't shine compared to a tuned N54 on my long and often congested commute. But I knew that when I bought the car, and I won't be commuting next year.

True, you did not say you hate the engine. It was unfair for me to mis-state things that way. However, based on reading numerous posts I have taken away the distinct impression that the motor is very lacking from your perspective.

Listen, if I've still got it wrong, I apologize. The motor is a large part of what makes the E9x M3 an M3...so I still contend that if the motor is somewhat lacking it's pretty hard to "love the car". If I'm wrong about that, why? Finally, to clear things up how would you characterize the S65 motor?

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

Finally, to clear things up how would you characterize the S65 motor?

So far, I find it a lot like the S54, only more powerful and smoother. The whole car - especially with the DCT - feels much more like a GT and less like a sports car than my E46 did to me.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

So far, I find it a lot like the S54, only more powerful and smoother. The whole car - especially with the DCT - feels much more like a GT and less like a sports car than my E46 did to me.

I'd generally agree with these statements. Thanks for clearing things up.

The E9x is bigger and fatter. I think that moves it into GT and away from true sports car territory. IMO one qualification for "sports" is a curb weight of around 3,100 pounds (give or take a couple hundred). Hopefully the next gen will go down significantly in weight (I'm not holding my breath though, but I do hope that's the case).

Oh, and I think we've really threadjacked things here too. Sorry folks! Anyone care to bring us back on topic?

[1N54E92]

Originally Posted by sizquik

i never heard of an M3 being able to drift.. ever.

start watching at 5:10

[samuraisaiyo]

cool

[Alpine white]

top gear should be the only ones allowed to test cars

[stylinexpat]

I'm missing my new M3 looking at all these videos..

[vladberca]

m3 it s almost a perfect balanced car, very practical and very good on the track too... just waiting the vids with the new m3 gts