Will the new F30 BMW 335i be a e9x M3 killer?

[theriz]

Originally Posted by Ablahad

And I would sincerely hope that a thoroughly modified 335 would beat an M3 in a straight line. By the line of thinking that faster is better, I have a buddy with a 5.0 GT modified that will put any 335 to shame, mods or not. Ford GT wins!

i guess you never ran Warren then, huh?

[FVM3]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

I understand that the torque curve is linear also, and that power progressively comes on. Mercedes makes almost 85% of torque and HP available at around 2500.

I think what you need is 335i. Low end torque with power

[JCtx]

Originally Posted by Elie335i

here's for your education purpose

Like if anybody with a brain would buy a 335 beating an M3 like that in an unbiased race.

Having a lot of NA torque means a big a$$ engine, which kills the car's balance. There's no perfect car, but I much prefer balance over more power. And also much prefer NA linear power over higher FI power. I don't understand people that buy cars and want to change everything. They'd be MUCH better served buying the right car to begin with.

And if BMW has to make some sacrifices, most of us would have preferred the S65 with a single TB (or dual, like Ferraris), than going to the M extreme of a turbo 6, at least on its 'bread and butter' M car, which is the M3. Oh well. This will be my first and last M, but many folks will be happier with turbos so they can feed their fragile egos with more cheap power .

[Seattle S65B40]

Realistically, it could out perform E9X M3, but I like what other posters pointed out in regards to E46 M3 being better than E9X 335 - same principle here. I bought the E46 M3 over the E9X back then and I would still take E9X M3 over F3X 335.

[FVM3]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

Like if anybody with a brain would buy a 335 beating an M3 like that in an unbiased race.

Having a lot of NA torque means a big a$$ engine, which kills the car's balance. There's no perfect car, but I much prefer balance over more power. And also much prefer NA linear power over higher FI power. I don't understand people that buy cars and want to change everything. They'd be MUCH better served buying the right car to begin with.

Some are stock guys and some are mods guys. Theres no perfect car but the reason i mod because theres some room to improve the performance without hurting the balance.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by christopherchenm

I think what you need is 335i. Low end torque with power

I'm an NA guy. I just wish BMW would of done better. I'm picking up a 2012 M3.

[shockin330i]

The new mustang 5.0 is a high revving engine and puts down almost 400lbs of torque...

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by shockin330i

The new mustang 5.0 is a high revving engine and puts down almost 400lbs of torque...

The 5.0 is still a liter bigger, hence more HP and torque. Also, the 5.0's engine doesn't rev anywhere near 8500 RPM. BMW could of engineered the M3's engine a little better but you gatta give credit where credit is due. It's still a remarkable engine. The engine is in dire need of a refresh, though.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by shockin330i

The new mustang 5.0 is a high revving engine and puts down almost 400lbs of torque...

I wouldn't consider 6500 rpms high-revving.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

I wouldn't consider 6500 rpms high-revving.

This. If you had used the RS5 for example, the discussion would be a little more relevant.

[FVM3]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

The 5.0 is still a liter bigger, hence more HP and torque. Also, the 5.0's engine doesn't rev anywhere near 8500 RPM. BMW could of engineered the M3's engine a little better but you gatta give credit where credit is due. It's still a remarkable engine. The engine is in dire need of a refresh, though.

Seems thats you are not satisfied with the S65

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by christopherchenm

Seems thats you are not satisfied with the S65

I just think BMW could of done better. They half assed it just like the quality, design, and paint on the e9x series cars. While the S65 is remarkable in it's own respect, there was certainly room for improvement, and that's the problem with BMW. They won't give you their best effort. It'll cost them too much. If I had not been laid off and had the funds, I wouldn't even look at an M3. I'd be in a Cayman S.

[I M STIG]

Originally Posted by richpuer

E46 330 smokes e36 m3, e92 335 smokes e46 m3, Fxx 335 smokes e92 m3, and so on and so forth...history repeats

Take an E46 330 to a road course and see how well it stacks up against an E36 M3. I had an E46 330i ZSP, and I got smoked a handful of times by stock E36 M3s around the street... The E92 335i still isn't faster than an E46 M3 around any road course, and is a close call in a straight line. The E46 M3 was tested at 4.6-4.7 second 0-60s, while the 335i is tested between 4.7-4.9 seconds.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by AwesomeBMW2

Take an E46 330 to a road course and see how well it stacks up against an E36 M3. I had an E46 330i ZSP, and I got smoked a handful of times by stock E36 M3s around the street... The E92 335i still isn't faster than an E46 M3 around any road course, and is a close call in a straight line. The E46 M3 was tested at 4.6-4.7 second 0-60s, while the 335i is tested between 4.7-4.9 seconds.

And we know BMW is conservative with their numbers. The e92 gets 0-60 in ~4.0-4.1 seconds as tested. e36 does it in ??

[FVM3]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

I just think BMW could of done better. They half assed it just like the quality, design, and paint on the e9x series cars. While the S65 is remarkable in it's own respect, there was certainly room for improvement, and that's the problem with BMW. They won't give you there best effort. It'll cost them too much. If I had not been laid off and had the funds, I wouldn't even look at an M3. I'd be in a Cayman S.

Why dont you get a used Cayman?

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by christopherchenm

Why dont you get a used Cayman?

Maintenance will be very costly. I like the M3 and the overall package that it offers. It just could of been a better overall package.Looking forward to September.

[shockin330i]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

I wouldn't consider 6500 rpms high-revving.

The boss 302 revs up to 7500 rpm

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by shockin330i

The boss 302 revs up to 7500 rpm

Still not "high revving". While it's 'higher', it's not "High Revving". The new M5 revs that high. Whoop-de-doo.

[I M STIG]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

And we know BMW is conservative with their numbers. The e92 gets 0-60 in ~4.0-4.1 seconds as tested. e36 does it in ??

Some of the fastest I ever saw were times of about 5.2-5.4 seconds to 60 for the E36 M3s. An E46 330i would couldn't do better than 5.8 seconds to 60, and that's for the ZHP model. A standard sport package sedan could get to 60 in about 6-seconds flat, while the coupe, being heavier, would take about 6.2 seconds. So yeah, even if the E36 M3 missed 2nd gear, it would still keep up.

[taylorcoleman]

Had a ~550hp c63 with gobs of tq. It was fun.

Had a ~700hp 997 tt with gobs of tq. It was fun.

Had a ....... (and I could go on)

Now have a 2011 E90 M3 with 1/2 the tq and guess what?

[Seattle S65B40]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

I just think BMW could of done better. They half assed it just like the quality, design, and paint on the e9x series cars. While the S65 is remarkable in it's own respect, there was certainly room for improvement, and that's the problem with BMW. They won't give you there best effort. It'll cost them too much. If I had not been laid off and had the funds, I wouldn't even look at an M3. I'd be in a Cayman S.

Agreed. The GTS engine as standard equipment would have been nice and not that hard for them to do.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

I just think BMW could of done better. They half assed it just like the quality, design, and paint on the e9x series cars. While the S65 is remarkable in it's own respect, there was certainly room for improvement, and that's the problem with BMW. They won't give you their best effort. It'll cost them too much. If I had not been laid off and had the funds, I wouldn't even look at an M3. I'd be in a Cayman S.

Could BMW have done better? Yes. Do most cars have room for improvement? Absolutely. Otherwise, they would cost $1M.

Was the current "effort" enough? Well, considering that several years after its release it is still considered the benchmark in the segment, has won engine of the year and has won almost all notable comparison tests (yes, even against so called torque monsters) I think BMW did alright. I would also have to disagree on the "half assed" quality, design and paint. Have you seen Ferrari paint recently? Most, if not all, cars these days have orange peel. Anyway, some of this is subjective but if you are comparing the M3 to cars in its class, it is hard to say BMW half assed the design and quality. Compared to more expensive cars, sure, there are shortcuts but that is simply a class/price issue. You aren't going to get GT3 design in $70k package.

Sure it could have been engineered for more torque. Sure it could have been given more power. BMW could have built a car to challenge the GT3 RS too. EVERY car will have compromises somewhere. If budget and selling price was irrelevant, then of course they could build a near perfect car. But the reality is they built what has arguably been considered one of the best overall cars available. Several magazines have made this very comment that there isn't a better car available when you look at performance, DD practicality and fun. What that also means is there are compromises somewhere. The M3 is a better car than a Cayman S if DD requirements matter. It is also as good as a Cayman S on the track (at least on certain tracks). Build quality is very good. Reliability is very good. I would bet few people would see the S65 as being the weak part of the M3 (as a matter of fact, most reviews would likely say it is the best part of the M3 and what makes the car a class leader). If torque is someone's ultimate objective, then I guess that would be one of the only compromises of the engine but even that is somewhat rectified by gearing.

Also, I can never understand how people think the M3 doesn't have enough torque for DD duties. At the track where rev range is important, it has lots of torque that is very linear to use. On the street, the gearing provides a lot of torque and if you are in the right gear, more than a 335i to the wheels (as proven here many, many times). I have owned and driven cars with lots of torque and the M3 has less but still TONS for just beating around town.

It's too bad that you seem disappointed with the M3 you have coming. It seems to me that there would be less expensive cars that might have made you happier?

P.S. I'm not saying the M3 is perfect or even close... I'm just saying that all car's are a compromise in some way, especially cars that are expected to be very capable and practical DDs and also perform at a high level at the track or spirited back road driving. If BMW thought they could sell the M3 as a $125,000 car, they would have built the car to that level with less compromise but would then have priced it out of its market. C63... has compromises (more than the M3 IMO), RS5... has compromises (again, more than the M3 IMO), Cayman S... has compromises, I could go on...

Anyway, I don't want to come across as a fanboy as I very much understand that there are lots of cars that are better in one area or another or, in some cases, all areas. But, in its class, you seem to be expecting more than the car can be expected to deliver. Although I don't think the 911S is a comparable car (in a higher class), the M3 is a step down from a 911S on a pure performance basis. Compared to a 911S on a DD/practicality AND performance basis, pretty close IMO. Compared to cars in its class (C63 and RS5 for example), it is a class leader. Based on that, I don't think BMW half assed the M3 at all...