What is the M3's biggest weakness?

[ersin]

Single biggest weakness: lack of oil dipstick.


Cheers.

[Porschefile]

On the street: lack of torque is really the only weakness.

On the track: undersized tires and worthless brake pads.

It rocks both worlds pretty well though.

[///Matthew]

Originally Posted by Curt2000

Still in the form of raw materials awaiting production and not sitting in my garage.

Soon! Mine was finished up about a week ago. 2 weeks until pick up...

[NAV8TT]

The damn anxiety that comes with it that anything might go wrong with the car. Where to park it, what is that new 1mm scratch, clean it once or twice a day, what is that new noise I didn't hear before, is there a new rattle, did I park far enough from the curb...etc..

[bimdo]

i love the car like it is,would just like to have some blingy blue brake calipers like on the new m's,something like the attached pic of a custom setup. i don't drive the car hard enough to fade the brakes.
this car has a great combination of luxury when you're cruising ,and high performance when you get on it.

[Goat Rodeo]

Originally Posted by Trip3's

I respectfully disagree, even if I sucked at driving manual I should be able to pull the stick into a gate (2nd) smoothly without noise or friction. BTW from my research I'm not alone in this opinion. I CAN put it into 2nd smoothly but it involves pulling from 1st to neutral and then "pushing" it into 2nd with my fingers.

Disagree. 1-2 is smooth as butter in my car but it took me a while to figure out. There is nothing wrong with adapting your technique to your car. The key with the E9X is to give it the right amount of gas simultaneously into 2nd and the shift is perfect every time.

Originally Posted by LarThaL

My vote: Undersized tires. Needs 255/295 stock IMO.

For what? I went 255/275 and I regret even that. Car delivers performance balanced toward ultimate grip at the expense of fun stock; I would actually prefer less traction. My E46 M3 is a lot more fun to toss around because of worse tires especially with all-seasons in the Mid-Atlantic winter here. I really like the direction Subaru/Toyota went with the BRZ.. a wake up call to the industry that people actually don't want heavy cars with massive tires and massive grip; with all that sticky rubber there is no way to safely have fun with the car except once a month or less on the track. Unless your car is a track toy what do you want 295 in the rear for? There is no benefit on the street except to make the car even more mundane.

[rondocap]

I think the m3 is fine as is and we are lucky to have experienced it pre turbo era.

I do wish it was a little more firm and sharp like a porsche boxster or cayman, but it's not a full on sports car so the small trade off is ok.

[BMRLVR]

Fuel tank is too small!!! I personally am ok with the fuel mileage the tank just needs to be bigger...... a range of 700-750km would be nice!

To those of you complaining about torque, I challenge you to find a car with an engine that is 4.0 litres naturally aspirated and has much more than 295 lb/ft!?

[CPB]

Originally Posted by andrew918

Torque.

Too much?

[Lunker]

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?

I personally see where the torque argument can come from. Coming from audi Rs4 it had much more low end torque at lower RPM's so from a daily driving experience when you are not slamming on the throttle your "butt dyno" gives you the "pulling" sensation that the torque at lower end of RPM for an audi is a faster car. If you drive the M3 at the higher RPM range you will definitely feel the torque/pull/ speed. If you drag raced both cars the audi would be faster off the line but eventually the m3 would pull away due to the higher end torque and gear ratio.

[LemonOne]

People keep complaining about torque because they never rev high enough.
I don't know what to tell them, this is a high revving engine sports car, put those throttle into work and you will never complain.

[ScreaM]

Originally Posted by Lemon Jelly M3

People keep complaining about torque because they never rev high enough.
I don't know what to tell them, this is a high revving engine sports car, put those throttle into work and you will never complain.

There in lies the problem..on the street its not always feasible to live in the high rev range all the time..thats where more torque would benefit street driving.

[m3anAPPLE]

Originally Posted by Thebigbus

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.

Do you miss the torque of your GTO? My friend has one same year and he is love with his car. I try to explain to him about the e9x platform but he doesn't feel me.. What made you switch?

[rick berry]

weight. Lose 500 pds and you would have a real 911 or r8 challenger.

[ruff1017]

I personally think that e9x M3 has no weakness. It is developed for the real world driving and track day fun in perfect harmony.
For me I just love to drift it when ever I get a chance.

[Da M3nace]

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?

Good points regarding Torque

[Porschefile]

I don't wring out my car on the street. That is reckless. Torque makes a car feel fast even when going slow-ish. Go drive a tuned (or even stock!) 135i or 335i, it will "feel" faster than a M3 around town. Not saying it is a fatal flaw, just pointing out that torque is relevant for street driving.

[Da M3nace]

Originally Posted by ersin

Single biggest weakness: lack of oil dipstick.


Cheers.

Fuccccc$ yeah!

[Thebigbus]

Originally Posted by m3anAPPLE

Do you miss the torque of your GTO? My friend has one same year and he is love with his car. I try to explain to him about the e9x platform but he doesn't feel me.. What made you switch?

Multiple things. Don't get me wrong, the GTO was a bargain performance car, and could be modded relatively cheaply to make crazy power.

#1) I got tired of the "Lazy" high torque. Yeah, it pulled hard at low RPM's, but that wasn't exciting for me, to be honest. I LOVE the feeling of wringing out the S65. And for just "cruising" speeds, I find it PLENTY fast. Not sure how fast people are wanting to go "around town" and inbetween traffic in slow MPH zones..?? Maybe it's the "butt" dyno "feel" they're missing due to the linearity of the M3...I love that, though. It's deceptively fast....quicker than my GTO, which was no slouch.

The engine note was nice, though, in the GTO But not as nice as the S65's induction/exhaust sounds.

#2) I got tired of two doors. Hence the E90. What better 4 door sedan, I mean c'mon!

#3) Wanted better build quality, inside and out. I literally had to GENTLY shut the doors on the GTO for thinking they were going to break the windows out. Just a "tinny" feeling to them, and now I LOVE the solid feel I get when shutting my M3's doors The plastics inside the GTO were cheap. Not as cheap as American musclecars (it was a Holden, after all), but still cheap. The seats were amazing, though. Probably one of the best aspects of the car!

#4) I wanted to feel better connected to the road, and the M3 definitely delivers. The chassis on the GTO is VERY old (Old Cadillac Catera chassis, if I recall correctly), and you could tell. The M3 is so dang solid, but not harsh. I have better steering feedback with the M3, which makes sense.

Overall, I loved my Goat. Owned it for 6 years. Had some great times. It sat low, sounded great, cornered decent with the upgraded suspension. But now looking back, it just can't compare to the M3. The performance is substantially better; the build quality is SO much better; and the refinement is LIGHT years ahead.

Here is a pic of the old gal:

[sensi09]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

To those of you complaining about torque, I challenge you to find a car with an engine that is 4.0 litres naturally aspirated and has much more than 295 lb/ft!?

A 2000 LS400 has a 4.0L V8 with 300ft-lb of torque lol.

If you're talking about 4.0 and smaller, there's plenty of Porsche engines that come to mind with an equal amount of torque or more.

I'm sure there are plenty of truck engines that fit this bill as well.

The question that should be asked is, why not use a bigger V8

[Longboarder]

I think the car is perfect for its intended purpose (mostly street driving with some occasional track use). But once that intended purpose changes (most track driving, accleration events, etc) then those areas can be addressed with things such as power adders, better brakes, coils/camber plates, tires. All of this is easily accessable with this car as it has a terrific aftermarket presence.

[sensi09]

Not sure why people get all uptight when people rather have more torque. The car is what it is, but to say it wouldn't better with more power and torque is silly.

More torque on the street is obvious, but even on the track it can play dividends. Someone was comparing the Mustang GT and in the motortrend video where they compare a mustang with a M3 on the track, the driver (Randy Pobst), mentions the torque of the mustang and the lack of it in the M3 over and over.

And I believe in many forms of racing, the older S62 was chosen over the S65 with the greater torque in the old engine being a factor.