|
|
05-03-2010, 11:23 AM | #89 |
8 tracks of madness
62
Rep 2,735
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 12:51 PM | #90 | |
I like cars
329
Rep 5,052
Posts |
Quote:
I just don't get it. Half the whining posted on here is about the M3 being too heavy and that the next gen M3 is going to suck because it will have a "low revving" turbo engine. You can't have it both ways. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 01:11 PM | #93 |
Moderator
7512
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Touche. But, I think that no one would honestly be upset if the car got better mileage. People would just rather that any extra $$$ going into the development of a performance car actually go toward performance. That's how I feel anyway.
Think about it like this, if BMW handed you a check for $2000 today to cover your gas expenses, and you had to spend it on mods - would you try to improve mileage or improve performance? |
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 02:39 PM | #94 | |
Major General
285
Rep 6,007
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 03:07 PM | #95 | |
8 tracks of madness
62
Rep 2,735
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by quality_sound; 05-03-2010 at 06:18 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 03:18 PM | #96 |
Private First Class
13
Rep 116
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 03:24 PM | #97 | |
Moderator
7512
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Quote:
For my part, I'll freely admit that I don't actually need any of the performance the car offers. My bet is that this also applies to about 99% of us as well. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 03:39 PM | #98 | |
Private First Class
13
Rep 116
Posts |
Quote:
I don't need the total performance but the overall product is what pulled me into buying the car. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 04:09 PM | #99 |
Colonel
167
Rep 2,736
Posts
Drives: 2008 E92 ///M3 Alpine White
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoFla - Bonita Springs
|
So the RPM's drop to 1500 on the highway and allow carbon to build up in the engine? No thanks...
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 06:30 PM | #100 | |
8 tracks of madness
62
Rep 2,735
Posts |
Quote:
Feel and comfort and stability at high speed. My GTI, once I got done with it, was a GREAT high speed cruiser but I wanted more room since my wife's Wrangler isn't exactly conducive to family outings. I seriously considered the CC (didn't want another FWD, especially living in a snowy winter area), the S4, and the C63. The C63 is overdamped for long distance driving IMO, and it's only available in a slushbox. If the S4 was as composed as the M3 I may have gone that way as well, especially considering it almost doubles the mileage and range of the M3. But it needed a lot of suspension and tire work to match the M3 stock setup with no guarantees that anything I would ever be able to do would match the M3's ride. It was however, more expensive upfront. In all of my modding on all of my cars the ride of a sporty 3-series was my goal and it was never reached, though my Passat and GTI came close. A 335 wasn't going to happen for 3 reasons. 1) HPFP 2) Didn't feel as solid as my GTI 3) Those god-awful hood lines they added So it came back to the M3. in hindsight, the S4 might have been a better choice but if I'd gone that way I could be on Vortex right now thinking I should have gone with the M3. For now I'm happy with my choice and I love driving my M, even if it does mean stopping for fuel every 250 miles. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 06:58 PM | #101 | |
Private
6
Rep 76
Posts |
Quote:
Also, just curious but tires being equal, isn't FWD better than RWD for snow? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 08:11 PM | #102 |
8 tracks of madness
62
Rep 2,735
Posts |
The S4 is a larger car so it's a bit more family friendly and even heavier than the M3. Weight and size are almost prerequisites for 200+ KPH cruising as lighter cars tend to lift and become very unstable at those speeds. The rated 27MPG on the highway doesn't hurt either.
AWD, especially Quattro which is, IMO, the best AWD system available, with winter tires absolutely OWNS in the snow. FWD sucks balls in the snow if you have any kind of driving ability. The front wheels just have too much going on. Not to mention when you're going uphill and the weight transfers to the rear you have even less traction. Also, and this won't matter to almost anyone else, interfacing with the OEM stereo is a pain in the ass at best in the S4. Kinda silly, but that was a big deal for me. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 09:15 PM | #103 |
Private First Class
7
Rep 156
Posts |
Coming from a 335i, I was initially frustrated (for lack of a better word) with the ~90 mile reduction in range with the M3. I knew the M3 would be thirsty....I knew the range would be in the mid-200s....I knew I would have to stop more often to refuel. That did not stop me from buying the M3. Now it is just part of life. I fill up every 250-270 miles with the M3. No complaining at all....actually the opposite. It was a very wise choice and I can prove it by the smile on my face every day I get to drive it.
If I really needed a greater range or MPG, I would have kept my 335i. Fantastic car and great MPG with strong the acceleration. I highly recommend the 335i for those who need greater range. 340-400 (suburbs/interstate) miles on tank. Can't beat it considering the performance. I drive 13K miles a year. That equates to 52 fill-ups a year in the M3 and 38 fill-ups in a 335i. Now assume each fill-up takes 10 min (in reality it is probably closer to 5 min). That is 140 minutes a year longer at the pumps with the M3. I bet people spend more time either complaining about the range of the M3 or reading about someone complaining about the range of the M3. FStop7 brought up a point I was thinking as I read this thread....it is not as easy to just throw another 3-9 gallon extension on the car. Have you looked underneath your car. Where would it fit?? I prefer to have the extra trunk space than an extra 50 miles of range by taking the trunk space. Last edited by RichB; 05-03-2010 at 09:33 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-03-2010, 11:10 PM | #104 |
8 tracks of madness
62
Rep 2,735
Posts |
Rich, go out to your car and pull up the floor and look at the area where the emergency kit is. That area would EASILY hold 5 gallons and it's right above the existing tank.
Piece of cake. In the US where there are gas stations EVERYWHERE the range isn't a big deal. In Germany, where gas stations can be 60 kilometers apart and it's illegal to stop on the Autobahn you can see why the extra range would be a good thing. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-04-2010, 08:07 AM | #105 |
Moderator
7512
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Sounds like you thought it through pretty well. Every car has it's share of tradeoffs. With the M3 you definitely do compromise on fuel efficiency, but you are rewarded with one of the best overall cars on the market.
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-04-2010, 08:23 AM | #106 |
8 tracks of madness
62
Rep 2,735
Posts |
I tend to do a lot of analysis for every decision but for cars I get all kinds of stupid.
In a couple of years I might get tired of the mileage and being closer to 40 by the I may opt for something more sedate. For now, I'm loving the M3... and appreciating it all the more since I am in a rental base Impreza this week. lol |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|