M3 Nurburgring Time = 7:57

[lucid]

The "image" issue is obviously a complex one as it speaks to the kind of animal we've evolved to be. One thing that is very easy sort out for me is the importance of aesthetics, which is usually associated with "image" one way or another. I certainly care a great deal about how my car looks (as well as how it performs), and that says something about the person I am. Then one can start discussing which looks are associated with what values we associate with as individuals, and that's a complicated discussion. One thing I don't really care a whole lot about is the actual "badge" on the car. But then maybe I indirectly do because up until the introduction of the E90 lineup, the BMW aesthetic was the only aesthetic I could associate with, which was a major factor in the deciding on my current ride...

[savage.ulm1]

Originally Posted by Stahlgrau

Manufacturer?

It could be but I still don't understand the true sense..

True is that there are some Ring times with a special note *
*mfr.

And if I translate it with "manufacturer" , the only sense I see is that the time was achived directly by the manufacturer..

it could be

Many thanks

[ruff]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The M3 is a great performance to dollar ratio as long as you narrow your focus slightly. It does not touch the Z06 but it will be less epxensive, either way the Z06 is really a different class of car and many can not stand the crappy interior and lower build quality (granted those are improving). Once you look at a mixture of high power, reasonably high luxury and excellent fit and finish you are down to C63 AMG, RS4, AM Vantage, M3 and IS-F (IMO). And although we don't have a price, I suspect the M3 to best all in most performance areas and most in price as well (prob. all except IS-F).

Goodness gracious look at our running performance figures thread and look at the things the M3 out runs at a FRACTION of the price!

That being said if you want to go a bit smaller and Japanse nothing does touch and Evo or WRX for bang for the buck.

Swamp,

Do you really want a sports car? The M3 is simply too heavy no matter how you cook the books. The C63 has a 6.2 liter engine, 4 doors and no carbon fiber roof but doesn't weigh much more than the M3. The RS4 has heavy all wheel drive, old chassis, 4 doors, no carbon fiber roof, and doesn't weigh much more than the M3.

Is steering feedback, feel and response important to you in a sports car? Reports are saying the steering in the 335 is better than the e92 M3. And the 335 is not even in the same league with Porsche inregards to steering response and feel. The C63 and RS4 appear, by way of early reviews, to have better brakes and steering than the M. Not of concern?

The archaic RS4 has basically matched the M3 in head to head competition. Cars in Action timed the 335 and M3 the same 13.8 1/4 mile at an elevation of 1398 meters in South Africa. The heavy all wheel drive burdened RS4 ran the same 1/4 mile at a 13.5 pace. The gas guzzling RS4 even got better mileage than the M3's 4 litre. You talk about not wanting to mod the E92 M3 but then quickly say a brake upgrade will do the trick after another review has less than stellar comments about the brakes? What steering upgrade are you going to purchase to get the car up to Porsche Audi and maybe even Mercedes levels, and at what cost? You may be able to rationalize these things but I have more trouble with it.

You are focussed on Ring times and appear to believe the fastest ring times make the best car per buck ratio, yet you brush off the Vette and GT-R for lack of marque, rear seats or useable rear seats. The seats in the E92M3 are not exactly spacious. Your focus on Ring times makes me believe you want to track the car frequently. Then you say you would rarely track it, so why the focus on Ring times? Yes, the M3 can run a great 1 time hot lap around the Ring but you fail to mention by the second lap, the M3's nemisis lilely appears - brake fade. Then who wins a 2 + lap race. Races aren't usually one lap only. Most of the other cars you have compared the M3 Ring times to can run a number of fast hot laps due to their superior multi pot brakes and with no upgrade needed. So, is the M3 the great sports car bargain you make it out to be? I guess it all depends on how you define a sports car.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ruff

Swamp,

Do you really want a sports car? The M3 is simply too heavy no matter how you cook the books. The C63 has a 6.2 liter engine, 4 doors and no carbon fiber roof but doesn't weigh much more than the M3. The RS4 has heavy all wheel drive, old chassis, 4 doors, no carbon fiber roof, and doesn't weigh much more than the M3.

Is steering feedback, feel and response important to you in a sports car? Reports are saying the steering in the 335 is better than the e92 M3. And the 335 is not even in the same league with Porsche inregards to steering response and feel. The C63 and RS4 appear, by way of early reviews, to have better brakes and steering than the M. Not of concern?

The archaic RS4 has basically matched the M3 in head to head competition. Cars in Action timed the 335 and M3 the same 13.8 1/4 mile at an elevation of 1398 meters in South Africa. The heavy all wheel drive burdened RS4 ran the same 1/4 mile at a 13.5 pace. The gas guzzling RS4 even got better mileage than the M3's 4 litre. You talk about not wanting to mod the E92 M3 but then quickly say a brake upgrade will do the trick after another review has less than stellar comments about the brakes? What steering upgrade are you going to purchase to get the car up to Porsche Audi and maybe even Mercedes levels, and at what cost? You may be able to rationalize these things but I have more trouble with it.

You are focussed on Ring times and appear to believe the fastest ring times make the best car per buck ratio, yet you brush off the Vette and GT-R for lack of marque, rear seats or useable rear seats. The seats in the E92M3 are not exactly spacious. Your focus on Ring times makes me believe you want to track the car frequently. Then you say you would rarely track it, so why the focus on Ring times? Yes, the M3 can run a great 1 time hot lap around the Ring but you fail to mention by the second lap, the M3's nemisis lilely appears - brake fade. Then who wins a 2 + lap race. Races aren't usually one lap only. Most of the other cars you have compared the M3 Ring times to can run a number of fast hot laps due to their superior multi pot brakes and with no upgrade needed. So, is the M3 the great sports car bargain you make it out to be? I guess it all depends on how you define a sports car.

Well the cup is either 90% full or 10% empty. What I want personally should not be of great concern to you and although I don’t feel like I need to justify my desires nor criteria to you I guess I will play along…again...

What I want is a jack of all trades and I really do not think many deliver as well as the M3. I want 2 doors and 4 useable seats. I also really want a dual clutch transmission. High on my list as well is aesthetics and here again nothing on my short list competes with the new M3. Last of all I want comfort. I don't want the noise nor ride of my current modded E36 M3. Fast and great handling goes without saying. Like I said simply a jack of all trades.

Sure the new M3 could shed a few pounds and that would make it faster and probably a bit more fun, but come on how fast it fast enough? You do get to a point where it is enough and I think the new M3 will be more than fast enough for my skills and my “appetite” (probably yours and 99% of us on this forum as well). Likely the only way to do this feat would be a significant compromise on safety, comfort and reliability. I like the way the M boys call their compromises!

The RS4 does weigh significantly more than the M3, unless you call 350 lb insignificant and it does put way less power to the ground than the M3 by nature of its AWD. The RS4 has “matched” the M3 is some initial comparisons but lost just as many. Head to head raw numbers on our nice thread tracking performance figures places the M3 quite a bit ahead of the RS4 (and even the R8 is many places). You can read just as well as I can! Stop distorting the facts and taking subjective evals from some journalists as gospel. Elevation? Come on get real? Who gives a bloody hell if the 335i will out accelerate the M3 on Mt. Everest; I live at Sea Level, precisely. If a FI car suits you better in your locale go for it.

Steering is critically important to me (I do have an E36 M3 now…) and I guess in this regard I simply have a little bit of faith. Look at all the initial bashing of the E46 M3 steering – what has happened since? Basically there are two possibilities, all of the BMW M experts who can drive circles around all of us blind folded (magazine dudes included) either “screwed the pooch” or know better than we do. If I drive the car and the steering is less than excellent I would strongly consider not buying it. Remember the recent F430 Scuderia review as well as all of the conclusions about the new M3 – it is possible these days to deliver racecar performance with GT comfort and ease of use. Although the M3 sure aint no Scuderia nor F430 for that matter it does seem to have mastered this compromise. I know I am making this sound like I have driven the damn car, which I clearly have not. This is just my synthesis of all of the wealth of information available to all of us.

As much as I do believe that Ring times are very demonstrative of the ultimate high speed track performance of a car it is clearly not the only contest that makes a car. When did I say that? Just because I like to talk about the Ring a lot surely does not mean I am blind to other criteria. What is great about the Ring is not its perfection but precisely the opposite, it's imperfections and diversity; bumps, roughness, blind spots, off cambers, variable radius corners, etc. Brakes: Do you really think that the Ring (20.6km) is short enough that it barely gets the brakes warmed up and then the whole world comes crashing down on lap 2? Again, “wake up” is my only reply. The brakes are far into high operating temperatures and probably very close to peak operating temperature in a single lap. I’m sure (despite your comments above) you know that number of brake pistons does not make a great brake. Cooling is a huge factor and I suspect BMW did “OK” on brake cooling, especially given the huge intake ducts in the front fascia. My reading of the information thus far is that the brakes may be the weakest link in the car, not the steering. If this is so, it is really not a big deal. With a nice BBK you get fade free performance, technology, long life and great looks (and your precious piston count as well). Heck even the factory option track pads are likely all you’ll need for severe track duty.

Like I have said before we don’t have pricing nor a head to head against the C63 AMG yet but I think it is likely that the M3 will outperform most of the following cars in most situations and best all of them in price except maybe the IS-F; RS4, R8, C63 AMG, AM Vantage, Cayman S, 911, 911S, IS-F, CTS-V. This is why the car is at the top of my current “short list”. My "M3 glass" is simply 90% full (no not fanboy full as in 99%, 100% or even 110%). I have been able to help you see yours as at least 70% or so full in the past, hopefully the thoughts above will help you refill your glass. Either way whatever I say is not likely to strongly influence your final decision. Choose the car that speaks to your needs, your criteria, your environment, your intellect and your heart. Cheers.

[savage.ulm1]

Originally Posted by ruff

Swamp,

Do you really want a sports car? The M3 is simply too heavy no matter how you cook the books. The C63 has a 6.2 liter engine, 4 doors and no carbon fiber roof but doesn't weigh much more than the M3.

In UK EVO they speak about 1.730 kg (fro the MB) and still we don't know if this weight was taken like for the M3 (with fuel and pilot -1.655kg) or not. If the system to weight the MB is identical to that used for the M3,the MB is about 75kg heavier. And I remember that many times the new M3 was named a "pig". So what will be the name for the new MB?

[endy]

6 MINUTES

[savage.ulm1]

Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes

uh...75kg heavier with 6.2 liter engine
you are emphasizing on weight?

I "wish" for MB's fans, that the new C63 will be only 75 kg heavier (still with an engine that is less heavy than the BMW V8).
If they will not be so lucky..."100 kg" more will not be enought....
See the weight of the all carbon fiber tuned Clk Black Series...

bye

[savage.ulm1]

Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes

still emphasizing on weight huh ....


And where is the problem?huh....

[ruff]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Well the cup is either 90% full or 10% empty. What I want personally should not be of great concern to you and although I don’t feel like I need to justify my desires nor criteria to you I guess I will play along…again...

What I want is a jack of all trades and I really do not think many deliver as well as the M3. I want 2 doors and 4 useable seats. I also really want a dual clutch transmission. High on my list as well is aesthetics and here again nothing on my short list competes with the new M3. Last of all I want comfort. I don't want the noise nor ride of my current modded E36 M3. Fast and great handling goes without saying. Like I said simply a jack of all trades.

Sure the new M3 could shed a few pounds and that would make it faster and probably a bit more fun, but come on how fast it fast enough? You do get to a point where it is enough and I think the new M3 will be more than fast enough for my skills and my “appetite” (probably yours and 99% of us on this forum as well). Likely the only way to do this feat would be a significant compromise on safety, comfort and reliability. I like the way the M boys call their compromises!

The RS4 does weigh significantly more than the M3, unless you call 350 lb insignificant and it does put way less power to the ground than the M3 by nature of its AWD. The RS4 has “matched” the M3 is some initial comparisons but lost just as many. Head to head raw numbers on our nice thread tracking performance figures places the M3 quite a bit ahead of the RS4 (and even the R8 is many places). You can read just as well as I can! Stop distorting the facts and taking subjective evals from some journalists as gospel. Elevation? Come on get real? Who gives a bloody hell if the 335i will out accelerate the M3 on Mt. Everest; I live at Sea Level, precisely. If a FI car suits you better in your locale go for it.

Steering is critically important to me (I do have an E36 M3 now…) and I guess in this regard I simply have a little bit of faith. Look at all the initial bashing of the E46 M3 steering – what has happened since? Basically there are two possibilities, all of the BMW M experts who can drive circles around all of us blind folded (magazine dudes included) either “screwed the pooch” or know better than we do. If I drive the car and the steering is less than excellent I would strongly consider not buying it. Remember the recent F430 Scuderia review as well as all of the conclusions about the new M3 – it is possible these days to deliver racecar performance with GT comfort and ease of use. Although the M3 sure aint no Scuderia nor F430 for that matter it does seem to have mastered this compromise. I know I am making this sound like I have driven the damn car, which I clearly have not. This is just my synthesis of all of the wealth of information available to all of us.

As much as I do believe that Ring times are very demonstrative of the ultimate high speed track performance of a car it is clearly not the only contest that makes a car. When did I say that? Just because I like to talk about the Ring a lot surely does not mean I am blind to other criteria. What is great about the Ring is not its perfection but precisely the opposite, it's imperfections and diversity; bumps, roughness, blind spots, off cambers, variable radius corners, etc. Brakes: Do you really think that the Ring (20.6km) is short enough that it barely gets the brakes warmed up and then the whole world comes crashing down on lap 2? Again, “wake up” is my only reply. The brakes are far into high operating temperatures and probably very close to peak operating temperature in a single lap. I’m sure (despite your comments above) you know that number of brake pistons does not make a great brake. Cooling is a huge factor and I suspect BMW did “OK” on brake cooling, especially given the huge intake ducts in the front fascia. My reading of the information thus far is that the brakes may be the weakest link in the car, not the steering. If this is so, it is really not a big deal. With a nice BBK you get fade free performance, technology, long life and great looks (and your precious piston count as well). Heck even the factory option track pads are likely all you’ll need for severe track duty.

Like I have said before we don’t have pricing nor a head to head against the C63 AMG yet but I think it is likely that the M3 will outperform most of the following cars in most situations and best all of them in price except maybe the IS-F; RS4, R8, C63 AMG, AM Vantage, Cayman S, 911, 911S, IS-F, CTS-V. This is why the car is at the top of my current “short list”. My "M3 glass" is simply 90% full (no not fanboy full as in 99%, 100% or even 110%). I have been able to help you see yours as at least 70% or so full in the past, hopefully the thoughts above will help you refill your glass. Either way whatever I say is not likely to strongly influence your final decision. Choose the car that speaks to your needs, your criteria, your environment, your intellect and your heart. Cheers.

Nice retort Swamp. Not trying to change anyones mind here, just trying to have a good honest debate with you.

You are right, the M3 is a jack of all trades but as the rest of saying goes, it may also be the the master of none. Compromise, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Based on all the subjective reviews, if you really like 90% of the way the M3 performs, I don't know how steering response could be much of a factor for you in determining what make a great sports car. How could it be? Nor are fade free brakes for that matter. You hit it right on, I am at about 70% right now with the M3. If you would just take an hour sometime and actually test drive a Cayman, you would actually understand what great steering and handling prowess is. Just ask other BMW fanatics who have drove it. They will tell you the same thing. Ever heard a BMW enthusiast who has drove the Cayman saying anthing less than praise for the Cayman's handling dynamics? Now that should really tell you something shouldn't it? Not saying the M3 doesn't handle well, I am sure it handles great compared to most cars. However, compared to a light, well balanced, mid engine sports car, physics simply are not on it's side. I am not recommending you buy the Cayman, just drive it so you have a benchmark to judge other cars handling with. Can the Cayman haul four passengers?. Does it have a screaming 8400 red line? Does it come standard with Bi-Xenon. The answers are no, no, and no.

Your are correct in saying I took a "subjective evals from some journalists as gospel" to make my point. I am glad to see you are the better man than me and every magazine number or comment you have presented and argued points over are based on objective fact. So, if a magazine favors the M3 it remarkably goes from subjective to Automotive scientific journal. Ok, I get it. Besides, why would a South African mag know anything. Notice I pointed out elevation in my quarter mile times. Didn't try to hoodwink anyone with it. I just found it iteresting that the 335 sedan can run the same quarter mile time at I believe 4586 feet (which is quite a bit lower than where I live) with a carbon fiber roof, aluminum hood and aluminum suspended M3 coupe. You know as well as I, that manufactures and mags are throwing around different weight numbers based on different factors for all these cars. All I know is that the RS4 is running similar quarter mile time as the M3, with as you say, 350 more pounds and power train loss due to all wheel drive. To me, the proof of weight/horsepower/grip ratio is in the pudding, ie the numbers, not each criteria in and of it's self. I do recognize that AWD is an advantage for short sprints. Based on this little piece of information, don't you at least find find the quarter mile number favoring the normally aspirated RS4 over the M3 in this test or any test for that matter a bit intriguing or is it just subjective ballyhoo? No I don't live on Everest but my lungs feel like punctured balloons when I hammer my road bike anywhere north of 6000 feet.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ruff

Nice retort Swamp. Not trying to change anyones mind here, just trying to have a good honest debate with you.

You are right, the M3 is a jack of all trades but as the rest of saying goes, it may also be the the master of none. Compromise, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Based on all the subjective reviews, if you really like 90% of the way the M3 performs, I don't know how steering response could be much of a factor for you in determining what make a great sports car. How could it be? Nor are fade free brakes for that matter. You hit it right on, I am at about 70% right now with the M3. If you would just take an hour sometime and actually test drive a Cayman, you would actually understand what great steering and handling prowess is. Just ask other BMW fanatics who have drove it. They will tell you the same thing. Ever heard a BMW enthusiast who has drove the Cayman saying anthing less than praise for the Cayman's handling dynamics? Now that should really tell you something shouldn't it? Not saying the M3 doesn't handle well, I am sure it handles great compared to most cars. However, compared to a light, well balanced, mid engine sports car, physics simply are not on it's side. I am not recommending you buy the Cayman, just drive it so you have a benchmark to judge other cars handling with. Can the Cayman haul four passengers?. Does it have a screaming 8400 red line? Does it come standard with Bi-Xenon. The answers are no, no, and no.

Your are correct in saying I took a "subjective evals from some journalists as gospel" to make my point. I am glad to see you are the better man than me and every magazine number or comment you have presented and argued points over are based on objective fact. So, if a magazine favors the M3 it remarkably goes from subjective to Automotive scientific journal. Ok, I get it. Besides, why would a South African mag know anything. Notice I pointed out elevation in my quarter mile times. Didn't try to hoodwink anyone with it. I just found it iteresting that the 335 sedan can run the same quarter mile time at I believe 4586 feet (which is quite a bit lower than where I live) with a carbon fiber roof, aluminum hood and aluminum suspended M3 coupe. You know as well as I, that manufactures and mags are throwing around different weight numbers based on different factors for all these cars. All I know is that the RS4 is running similar quarter mile time as the M3, with as you say, 350 more pounds and power train loss due to all wheel drive. To me, the proof of weight/horsepower/grip ratio is in the pudding, ie the numbers, not each criteria in and of it's self. I do recognize that AWD is an advantage for short sprints. Based on this little piece of information, don't you at least find find the quarter mile number favoring the normally aspirated RS4 over the M3 in this test or any test for that matter a bit intriguing or is it just subjective ballyhoo? No I don't live on Everest but my lungs feel like punctured balloons when I hammer my road bike anywhere north of 6000 feet.

Good, I like a good debate as much as anyone!

I have told you before that I would love to drive a Cayman S. But it would purely be for that particular experience because I do not like the cars looks, it's size, it's femininity (just MHO) nor price and therefore would never buy one. I have never doubted the performance nor fun to drive factor for this car.

The SA numbers are interesting - sure enough if all you do is go around racing the 1/4 mile the 335i may be more bang for the buck. But once you hit the twisties, what effect do all think all of the goodies particular to the M3 that you listed will have?

On the RS4 - it is a fantastic car. The AWD is cool and helps out in some performance metrics but in any speed contests that eliminate the AWD advantage right at launch I suspect the M3 will substantially best the RS4. Precisely based on the physics; more power to the ground AND less weight - simple. I am anxiously awaiting the M5 board M3 vs. RS4 vids! I thought I remembered seeing a bunch of times for in gear accelerations comparing the RS4 vs. M3 but can not find those at the moment (can someone post them, or the link?). The AWD is not my cup of tea personally, nor are the four doors, other than that the car is more revolutionary than the new M3. Lastly, I have also stated my clear preference for a DCT, which removes Audi from my list, in the near term at least.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by ruff

You are right, the M3 is a jack of all trades but as the rest of saying goes, it may also be the the master of none. Compromise, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Based on all the subjective reviews, if you really like 90% of the way the M3 performs, I don't know how steering response could be much of a factor for you in determining what make a great sports car. How could it be? Nor are fade free brakes for that matter. You hit it right on, I am at about 70% right now with the M3. If you would just take an hour sometime and actually test drive a Cayman, you would actually understand what great steering and handling prowess is. Just ask other BMW fanatics who have drove it. They will tell you the same thing. Ever heard a BMW enthusiast who has drove the Cayman saying anthing less than praise for the Cayman's handling dynamics? Now that should really tell you something shouldn't it? Not saying the M3 doesn't handle well, I am sure it handles great compared to most cars. However, compared to a light, well balanced, mid engine sports car, physics simply are not on it's side. I am not recommending you buy the Cayman, just drive it so you have a benchmark to judge other cars handling with. Can the Cayman haul four passengers?. Does it have a screaming 8400 red line? Does it come standard with Bi-Xenon. The answers are no, no, and no.

Out of curiousity, what high performance driving experience do you have?

I have nothing agains the Cayman but lets get real. Its not in the same class as the M3. The M3 is a 4 seat car, not a 2 seat car. If you think the Cayman is the end all and be all, then you need to go drive an Elise, or an Ariel Atom.

Quite frankly I already have a lightweight sports car. Thats not what the M3 is or is trying to be. If it were it would have 2 fewer seats in it. I am buying an M3 because I want a comfortable and reliable car to compliemnt my sports car. The M3 is a sporty luxory car. It strikes that ballance better than the other cars out there. It may not be the fastest, its not going to dust a Z06 or 911. But you get 90% of that performance with far more versatility and utility.

You talk a good game, but you stike me as someone new to high performance cars that has learned all he knows from magazines. Spend some time on the track, learn what it really takes to go fast. Learn how to setup a car to go fast. Then perhaps you will realize just how hard it is to stike the ballance that BMW M does.

[savage.ulm1]

Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes

I trim my point down to one sentence and you still can't figure it out....

Sorry..
sure it is due to my poor English and I misunderstood. As you can see I am not American and I do my best with your language.
I am sure that you don't want to try to speak in Italian, German,French or Czech language with me..True?you would feel the same shame like I feel when I don't understand a sentence not in my original language..Debi...

Bye bye now

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes

This is funny ...Is still emphasizing on weight huh...a complex sentence?

It does not actually appear to be a sentence at all!

[ruff]

Originally Posted by enigma

Out of curiousity, what high performance driving experience do you have?

I have nothing agains the Cayman but lets get real. Its not in the same class as the M3. The M3 is a 4 seat car, not a 2 seat car. If you think the Cayman is the end all and be all, then you need to go drive an Elise, or an Ariel Atom.

Quite frankly I already have a lightweight sports car. Thats not what the M3 is or is trying to be. If it were it would have 2 fewer seats in it. I am buying an M3 because I want a comfortable and reliable car to compliemnt my sports car. The M3 is a sporty luxory car. It strikes that ballance better than the other cars out there. It may not be the fastest, its not going to dust a Z06 or 911. But you get 90% of that performance with far more versatility and utility.

You talk a good game, but you stike me as someone new to high performance cars that has learned all he knows from magazines. Spend some time on the track, learn what it really takes to go fast. Learn how to setup a car to go fast. Then perhaps you will realize just how hard it is to stike the ballance that BMW M does.

I talk only an average game, but you, now you talk a great game. I didn't know you were Don Salama's back driver up who piloted the # 97 H&R Springs Stoptech Brakes M3 at Miller at Motor Sports Park during the Koni Challenge in September. You were awesome. Passing GT3's through the attitudes and holding your own through wind up and release. What puzzles me though is great instuctors and great drivers usually don't need to brag about themselves because they just don't. Where and when and on what piece of asphalt did you pass me on that led you to so accurately believe that I am a fair "magazine" racer? Please tell me. Also, Please teach me your enigmatic driving techniques and set ups. One can never learn enough, now can they?

To answer you question about high performance cars. You may not believe this but I have 91 Honda Accord dx with a 5 speed that I pilot on a daily basis. Rice burner extraordinare. Now top that Mr Lotus. I gotta give you kudos though. You are the first enthusiast who has driven a Cayman extensively and hasn't praised it. And your probable extensive experience behind the wheel of a F430 is also nothing short of praise worthy. You are right, the Elise may handle better than a Cayman. I just use the Cayman as a benchmark because it is also a decent daily driver, as you vast Porsche knowledge and experience will tell you. How old are you by the way? Just curious. You also seem to have so much more knowledge about the M division, M cars, and BMW in general than than I do. That must be why I don't sing their high praises from the mountain tops like you do. If you could keep assisting me with that knowledge then I would better understand how BMW is the one and only car company that stikes that perfect balance....amazing, those BMWs.

[mesier1111]

Originally Posted by Phoenix 21st

that is so amazing. At last pay off. Look at the list of cars that are slower!

Yeah, but for 5k more that GT-R is rummored to do it 15 or more seconds faster.........

[enigma]

Originally Posted by ruff

How old are you by the way? Just curious. You also seem to have so much more knowledge about the M division, M cars, and BMW in general than than I do. That must be why I don't sing their high praises from the mountain tops like you do. If you could keep assisting me with that knowledge then I would better understand how BMW is the one and only car company that stikes that perfect balance....amazing, those BMWs.

30s

There are two reasons an M3 will never handle like a Cayman.

#1: The engine is in the wrong place. However, this is not the fault of BMW. They put two additional seats where the engine would have had to go. Their target market is not the sports car market.

#2: Because its larger, its much heavier

BTW: The reason the steering is much better on the Lotus vs Porsche is simple. The Lotus doesn't have power steering, something thats only possible because the car is so light.

Now I do wish BMW would stop using McPhersion (McMuffin to some) struts in their cars. They are far from perfect, but when I go to buy a car I don't see anyone else putting together a better overall package.

I came close to ordering an Aston Martin Vantage but I really wanted the practicality of the M3 (back seat, trunk *******.

What you get with the M division are comfortable, luxury cars that just happen to keep up with most dedicated sports cars when the driver decides its time to play.

[absoluteis350]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The RS4 does weigh significantly more than the M3, unless you call 350 lb insignificant and it does put way less power to the ground than the M3 by nature of its AWD. The RS4 has “matched” the M3 is some initial comparisons but lost just as many. Head to head raw numbers on our nice thread tracking performance figures places the M3 quite a bit ahead of the RS4 (and even the R8 is many places). You can read just as well as I can!

Sorry Swamp, but you are getting a bit wild..

The 'performance figures' thread you refer to shows the RS4 to have a faster 0-60, 1/4mi times..

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...t=70737&page=9

"Our nice thread tracking performance figures places the M3 quite a bit ahead of the RS4" just sounds a tad fanboy-ish since its not correct at all.. And putting "quite a bit" in there just puts the cherry on the heap

Sorry.. just had to point that out.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by absoluteis350

The 'performance figures' thread you refer to shows the RS4 to have a faster 0-60, 1/4mi times..

Unless drag racing is your thing, those don't mean much. An AWD car should always get off the line better, thats expected. In most motorsports a drag style start is rare and where it happens only a small part of the event.

[absoluteis350]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I thought I remembered seeing a bunch of times for in gear accelerations comparing the RS4 vs. M3 but can not find those at the moment (can someone post them, or the link?).

Don't forget that the RS4 makes more torque...but yes, it does weigh more.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...&highlight=rs4

There is one link that shows the opposite.. The RS4 is faster in-gear (4th gear overtaking runs)

4th gear
80-120kph RS4 5.3s M3 6.1s
120-160kph RS4 5.8s M3 6.1s

Again, settle down The M3 is a great car ! It doesn't have to destroy everything to get that claim. The RS4 is an amazing car too (and if you live somewhere it snows, phenomenal)..

[absoluteis350]

Originally Posted by enigma

Unless drag racing is your thing, those don't mean much. An AWD car should always get off the line better, thats expected. In most motorsports a drag style start is rare and where it happens only a small part of the event.

Just to clarify, please read my post. I don't care if its significant or not, I just care that swamp is going nuts making false statements.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by absoluteis350

There is one link that shows the opposite.. The RS4 is faster in-gear (4th gear overtaking runs)

4th gear
80-120kph RS4 5.3s M3 6.1s
120-160kph RS4 5.8s M3 6.1s

Umm, how are "in the wrong gear" acceleration numbers usefull? If you are starting at 49mph, put the car in 2nd, not 4th.

Torque is the single most overrated car stat, ever.

[absoluteis350]

Originally Posted by enigma

Umm, how are "in the wrong gear" acceleration numbers usefull? If you are starting at 49mph, put the car in 2nd, not 4th.

Great..I agree.. your point?