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

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by MrPrena

My preference

E9x M3 > F8x M3/4
E60 M5 > F10 M5

I haven't drove F8x M3 nor F10 M5, but I prefer NA

This is how I know I will never like the m4. Because I never came around to the m5 engine . It was missing emotion after the v10. So I agree.

[Nautik]

Apparently one of our forum friends "uae247" over on the f80 forum must have some serious connections because he somehow finagled the delivery of his F80 M3 today. I must say it certainly is a beautiful car and he definitely has good taste. He also has several other M cars including an e90 M3 (maybe that helped get him dibs!) and is certainly in a position to compare the new M3 to the outgoing M3. So far he seems to have a good opinion of the new setup which is of course good news.

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=976284

He also indicates the exhaust as delivered sounds pretty good so maybe BMW M did make some magic happen over the last several months?

Anyway he took some great pictures and has some video to go with so definitely check it out if you haven't seen it already.

Car and Driver needs to fly a test driver out there tomorrow and promise the owner whatever he wants in order to test this car out. Granted someone needs to drive the car all night to finish that break-in.

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=976284

[jqsmooth]

Lately, I've been pondering the same question. Sigh... IF I ever trade in my M3 for the M4, I'm gonna wait til 2016.

[Ezio]

heres a production M3. rice rocket IMO.

well i guess this is where my BMW journey ends.

[JRV]

Originally Posted by Ezio

heres a production M3. rice rocket IMO.

well i guess this is where my BMW journey ends.

Eww

[deletedelete]

Originally Posted by JRV

Eww

Agreed. It looks and sounds awful.

[Ashley Schaeffer BMW]

LMAO the production model farts just as loud as the "test models".

Fanboys cant spin it anymore. This ///M is a fail.

[MrPrena]

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

Well, look at the bright side. F80/2 has a good gas mileage.

[lsmkr01]

Originally Posted by MrPrena

Well, look at the bright side. F80/2 has a good gas mileage.

[Nautik]

I will most likely wait for Mercedes to release their new C63 AMG before making any decisions. From my understanding it will be powered by a 4.0 liter v8 twin turbo.

If I have to go the turbo route, Mercedes certainly is one of the best in the world at turbos in terms of knowledge and at least I can keep a v8. It still probably won't sound as good as the v8 in the e92 M3 but it will certainly offer quite a bit more desirable sound to work with.

My only issue with Mercedes is that their cars are just too blingy for me. BMW and Audi are about the right speed for me in curb appeal. Maybe I can just replace all the chrome with some good matte colors to dial it down.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by Nautik

I will most likely wait for Mercedes to release their new C63 AMG before making any decisions. From my understanding it will be powered by a 4.0 liter v8 twin turbo.

If I have to go the turbo route, Mercedes certainly is one of the best in the world at turbos in terms of knowledge and at least I can keep a v8. It still probably won't sound as good as the v8 in the e92 M3 but it will certainly offer quite a bit more desirable sound to work with.

My only issue with Mercedes is that their cars are just too blingy for me. BMW and Audi are about the right speed for me in curb appeal. Maybe I can just replace all the chrome with some good matte colors to dial it down.

I'm probably going to wait til then as well, although I'm 99% sure I'm getting the M. No desire to own the Mercedes for the reasons you cited - don't care for the styling, the brand, etc. However, I'm confident the C63 will be a great car in its own right, which will hopefully help the pricing on the M's and perhaps even accelerate the availability of the ZCP, which will likely have a power bump requisite to beat the Merc at the track (don't think it will be able to compete in a straight line, stock for stock).

[Nautik]

Now that some of the initial car magazine reviews are out as well as initial performance data it appears that many of the prevailing theories here are seeming to be mostly accurate.

• It weighs less which is great, but not by a drastic amount as some predicted
• The steering is not quite as good as the E92 M3, but it is still good
• It does not blow the doors of the e92 M3, it is slightly faster in a straight line
• So far it does not look like it is much faster around a track
• An e92 M3 with bolt-ons may actually be faster /gasp
• The sound is kind of boring and does not amaze anyone, certainly nothing like the e92

I'm going to go with this is a great alternative to the e92 M3 and it is certainly is a more efficient car while retaining and improving on some performance characteristics. However, it is no successor to the e92. It is a different car.

Unfortunately I do not see enough benefit here to sell my e92 M3 and drop the extra cash to get into the M3/M4. The M3/M4 is going to have heavy competition this time around.

For me personally, I'll reserve final judgement until I drive it of course

[Nautik]

Well, just got the August 2014 Car and Driver magazine and on the front page we have the camparison for the M4 vs the 911 Carrera (not S).

Long story short, M4 takes first mainly due to cost difference. 911 handled noticeably better (not a surprise there).

As far as acceleration, the M4 is about as fast as a modded e92 M3. I know several guys were hoping the M4 was going to smash the e92 M3 with some colorful language (even claims it would smash an e92 with basic bolt ons), but that does not appear to be the case.

C&D has the M4 at:
0-60 - 3.9 sec (DCT)
1/4 mile - 12.1 @ 119

I'm running test pipes, apex wheels with 285s, and an Evolve tune and I'd bet my e92 is every bit as fast as those numbers. I know some of the guys with bolt-ons on this forum have probably done even better.

All that said, I personally think the M4 would be quite a bit faster with more traction. As I said it from the start, unless they put on some more rubber I just couldn't see much improvement in 0-60. We all know the e92 M3 can already struggle to put its power down. Even C&D noted that first gear on the M4 feels like the clutch never fully engages, that the car doesn't seem to know what to do with that much torque in first gear.

Not sure why BMW doesn't run a wider tire from the factory. Even the 911 they compared it to runs a 285... and it has much less power and torque.

[Nautik]

Oh, by the way, C&D put the weight of the M4 (DCT and Carbon brakes) at 3581 which they claim is 30 pounds lighter than the last E92 M3 coupe they tested. So I would have to say the skeptics may have been right...

C&D observed fuel economy was 22mpg for a 550 mile round trip.

[BOOstJunkee]

Originally Posted by Nautik

Well, just got the August 2014 Car and Driver magazine and on the front page we have the camparison for the M4 vs the 911 Carrera (not S).

Long story short, M4 takes first mainly due to cost difference. 911 handled noticeably better (not a surprise there).

As far as acceleration, the M4 is about as fast as a modded e92 M3. I know several guys were hoping the M4 was going to smash the e92 M3 with some colorful language (even claims it would smash an e92 with basic bolt ons), but that does not appear to be the case.

C&D has the M4 at:
0-60 - 3.9 sec (DCT)
1/4 mile - 12.1 @ 119

I'm running test pipes, apex wheels with 285s, and an Evolve tune and I'd bet my e92 is every bit as fast as those numbers. I know some of the guys with bolt-ons on this forum have probably done even better.

All that said, I personally think the M4 would be quite a bit faster with more traction. As I said it from the start, unless they put on some more rubber I just couldn't see much improvement in 0-60. We all know the e92 M3 can already struggle to put its power down. Even C&D noted that first gear on the M4 feels like the clutch never fully engages, that the car doesn't seem to know what to do with that much torque in first gear.

Not sure why BMW doesn't run a wider tire from the factory. Even the 911 they compared it to runs a 285... and it has much less power and torque.

Maybe you should take the M3/M4 for a spin yourself. I've had my first hand experiences with them and they will definitely smash an e9x m3. Paper stats are nice but not everyone duplicates them.

[adc]

Originally Posted by BOOstJunkee

Maybe you should take the M3/M4 for a spin yourself. I've had my first hand experiences with them and they will definitely smash an e9x m3. Paper stats are nice but not everyone duplicates them.

+1.

I would love to see an E92 with test pipes and evolve tune running 119 mph in the quarter mile. 119 is a stout number...

And 0-60, who cares? It's one of the most destructive things you can do to your car, trying to be competitive in the 0-60 range.

The M3 was simply never equipped from the factory for maximum grip, it was equipped to entertain, to move around, to showcase the excellent balance. When I take mine to the track where I want grip, I just put the 285's on and it's perfect.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Nautik

Well, just got the August 2014 Car and Driver magazine and on the front page we have the camparison for the M4 vs the 911 Carrera (not S).

Long story short, M4 takes first mainly due to cost difference. 911 handled noticeably better (not a surprise there).

As far as acceleration, the M4 is about as fast as a modded e92 M3. I know several guys were hoping the M4 was going to smash the e92 M3 with some colorful language (even claims it would smash an e92 with basic bolt ons), but that does not appear to be the case.

C&D has the M4 at:
0-60 - 3.9 sec (DCT)
1/4 mile - 12.1 @ 119

I'm running test pipes, apex wheels with 285s, and an Evolve tune and I'd bet my e92 is every bit as fast as those numbers. I know some of the guys with bolt-ons on this forum have probably done even better.

All that said, I personally think the M4 would be quite a bit faster with more traction. As I said it from the start, unless they put on some more rubber I just couldn't see much improvement in 0-60. We all know the e92 M3 can already struggle to put its power down. Even C&D noted that first gear on the M4 feels like the clutch never fully engages, that the car doesn't seem to know what to do with that much torque in first gear.

Not sure why BMW doesn't run a wider tire from the factory. Even the 911 they compared it to runs a 285... and it has much less power and torque.

Before I say anything, I will go ahead and mention that I love my V8. I really do.

But I don't see it keeping up with an F80/2. No damn way. FYI, I have TP, tune, 295 rear, HRE wheels which are lighter than stock even though they are wider.

Let's assume weight is somehow same F80 vs E9x. You'd be lucky to dyno 400 WHP, while the F80/2 will do that all day, and let's not even mention the torque.

I still think this is all irrelevant though. I completely agree with adc and his post above. Who here actually cares about 0-60 times? I think in 2 years, I've launched my car maybe once. I usually take off normally, then get on it after shifting into 2nd gear.

In everyday situation, I don't see how an FBO E9x will keep up with a stock F80/2. The M4 I drove was FAST.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Nautik

I will most likely wait for Mercedes to release their new C63 AMG before making any decisions. From my understanding it will be powered by a 4.0 liter v8 twin turbo.

If I have to go the turbo route, Mercedes certainly is one of the best in the world at turbos in terms of knowledge and at least I can keep a v8. It still probably won't sound as good as the v8 in the e92 M3 but it will certainly offer quite a bit more desirable sound to work with.

My only issue with Mercedes is that their cars are just too blingy for me. BMW and Audi are about the right speed for me in curb appeal. Maybe I can just replace all the chrome with some good matte colors to dial it down.

Btw, the only issue with MB is that there won't be MT available (please correct me if I'm wrong). That would be a deal breaker for me.

[Nautik]

Originally Posted by adc

+1.

I would love to see an E92 with test pipes and evolve tune running 119 mph in the quarter mile. 119 is a stout number...

And 0-60, who cares? It's one of the most destructive things you can do to your car, trying to be competitive in the 0-60 range.

The M3 was simply never equipped from the factory for maximum grip, it was equipped to entertain, to move around, to showcase the excellent balance. When I take mine to the track where I want grip, I just put the 285's on and it's perfect.

Granted, not exactly test pipes and evolve tune but the power Drew was running on this pass was still quite a bit less than what a bunch of the bolt-on guys have been posting. Note he also removed the backseats for this run and was running more tire in the rear.

Anyway, it has him at 11.885 @ 118.78

http://www.dragtimes.com/BMW-M3-Timeslip-20023.html

I agree with you on 0-60, I just mentioned it since some of the guys were expecting quite a bit faster.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by Nautik

Granted, not exactly test pipes and evolve tune but the power Drew was running on this pass was still quite a bit less than what a bunch of the bolt-on guys have been posting. Note he also removed the backseats for this run and was running more tire in the rear.

Anyway, it has him at 11.885 @ 118.78

http://www.dragtimes.com/BMW-M3-Timeslip-20023.html

I agree with you on 0-60, I just mentioned it since some of the guys were expecting quite a bit faster.

we all love the V8 M3's around here, but you're deluding yourself if you think they will keep up with the F80's with bolt ons (even though that's an inherently unfair comparison).

regarding the question of just how much faster they are, the preliminary results would show that the difference is substantial. how substantial? rather than argue semantics, just wait until you run against one personally.

[BOOstJunkee]

Originally Posted by Brosef

we all love the V8 M3's around here, but you're deluding yourself if you think they will keep up with the F80's with bolt ons (even though that's an inherently unfair comparison).

regarding the question of just how much faster they are, the preliminary results would show that the difference is substantial. how substantial? rather than argue semantics, just wait until you run against one personally.

+ Agreed
This is just something every doubter has to experience for themselves. The M4 pulls quite nicely. The torque feels really really good. Equal driver in an e9x m3 and M4, there is no doubt there will be a noticeable difference.

[Nautik]

Originally Posted by Brosef

we all love the V8 M3's around here, but you're deluding yourself if you think they will keep up with the F80's with bolt ons (even though that's an inherently unfair comparison).

regarding the question of just how much faster they are, the preliminary results would show that the difference is substantial. how substantial? rather than argue semantics, just wait until you run against one personally.

Of course I plan to test drive one (can't find one to test yet).

Yes I know the comparison is not really fair. Sure you can modify the M4 as well. At more cost... which is the whole point of what I am trying to get at.

Simply put, I have an e92 M3 with bolt ons as many others do on this forum. The whole point of the thread was to discuss if there was enough benefit to the M4 over what I have now to justify spending another 40,000+ assuming I sold my current vehicle. Driver experience and performance are both very important to me and probably most of the people here.

I just am not seeing 40,000+ additional dollars of value over what I have now on paper. Maybe that will change with some seat time?

So far it just looks like I am trading one of the best sounding engines out there that requires working the power band for an engine with interesting? sound but immediate torque and a flat power delivery. The newer option is maybe a little bit faster but certainly will feel faster and the power is much more accessible.

I dunno, it just isn't as compelling of an argument as going from the e46 to the e92...

Still plan to drive it of course and unfortunately its not like they are making an upgraded e92 so I don't have another option from BMW.