EVO - Greatest ever ///M-Car

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by Steved

1st place was given to the E30 M3 EVO, 2nd to the M3 CSL and 3rd to the E39 M5. The M1 made the final 4 (out of 13) ahead of all the modern M-cars.

Its hard to argue with the E30 in first place. The car was a true homologation special. No M car since the E30 has been developed specifically for competition purposes. Not even the CSL can claim this distinction.

I cannot understand the M5 being included in the top 3 over the E92. By what criteria is the M5 better? (Perhaps an Evo editor owns an E39?)

[nusevad]

damn thats sick to see the busted out the M1.

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by Steved

I would agree with that. Some people have driven the new M3 and were dissapointed to find it was not a monster, whilst others have driven it and said it was 'everything' they always wanted in an M-car. I think its a better all round M-car than the E46 M3, and would certainly have chosen the E92 M3 rather than the E46 M3 CS that we also drove in comparison.

Thanks, as ever, for the objective opinions, Steve.

It is becoming more and more clear to me that the E92 M3 is perhaps the true successor to the old 6-series.

It seems to have much more of an all round GT character (refinement, power, size, versatility) than its ancestors, but objectively still offers fantastic performance

Since this is going to be my main car (i.e. +2hrs/day av. speed 15 mph) I'm really not too unhappy about this either...

[nechronics]

mmhmm, it doesn't really bug me since I will have to live with this car day in and day out. I like being able to bust a move when the opportunity arrives but still feel comfortable spending all the rest of my time in it.

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by 13eastie

... my main car (i.e. +2hrs/day av. speed 15 mph)

What the hell is that all about?? Horrible times and speed avg.

You don't need an M3 for that type of business. You could speed things up with a tricycle.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Epacy

What the hell is that all about?? Horrible times and speed avg.

You don't need an M3 for that type of business. You could speed things up with a tricycle.

I was just wondering the same thing.

Maybe he drives really fast 4 an hour, then lets it go at idle in 1st up his very, very long driveway.

[savage.ulm1]

Originally Posted by ILC32

Its hard to argue with the E30 in first place. The car was a true homologation special. No M car since the E30 has been developed specifically for competition purposes. Not even the CSL can claim this distinction.

I cannot understand the M5 being included in the top 3 over the E92. By what criteria is the M5 better? (Perhaps an Evo editor owns an E39?)

Exactly...for me it is hard to understand the criteria at the moment.I want to wait to read the article before to have my personal opinion...but it sounds to me "very" strange that a car (M5 e39) that runned the Nordschleife in 8,28 (my Audi avant s4,not the rs4 runs in 8,29!!!) is considered better than the new M3 that probably will run in around the same time of a Porsche 997s (near the 8,05)((??))
To explain this final decision taken by EVO,it will be necessary all the ability of a journalist, much more than the ability of a real pilot. I would be really curious to know the true opinion of the BMW's test drivers (that are pilots for profession...) that developed the new M and the old M5 on the Ring. I am sure that they would smile just a little reading this final position and decision taken by EVO...don't you think?
One question...would you prefer and would you personally consider better a car that is 22-23 sec slower (M5 E39)than another that for whatever reason is faster for more than 20 seconds(new M3)??I never eard anthing similar before. What I mean is that which criteria are important for EVO?for example the CSL without the special tires that used,would run at the Ring in which time? probably 8 minutes and not 7,50. So how the new M3 that is so close to this time (we are still waiting for the official time) can be considered so negative? which cars are driving the journalists of EVO? how this could influence the final choise?Is it possible that one day, in another test, (next year??) and with a journalist that will own the new M3, something different will be told to us? I know these are provocations. And this is why we spend our time into a Forum.

[MI6]

Originally Posted by savage.ulm1

Exactly...for me it is hard to understand the criteria at the moment.I want to wait to read the article before to have my personal opinion...but it sounds to me "very" strange that a car (M5 e39) that runned the Nordschleife in 8,28 (my Audi avant s4,not the rs4 runs in 8,29!!!) is considered better than the new M3 that probably will run in around the same time of a Porsche 997s (near the 8,05)??
To explain this final decision taken by EVO,it will be necessary all the ability of a journalist, much more that the ability of a real pilot. I would be really curious to know the true opinion of the BMW's test drivers (that are pilots for profession...) on the Ring that developed the new M and the old M5 . I am sure that they would smile just a little reading this article...don't you think?

They might have ranked the M5 based on it being the best 4dr "M" in their opinion- just my 2 cents.........

If the E90 M3 was out already it probably would have taken the E39's place-
right Steved?

[savage.ulm1]

Originally Posted by MI6

They might have ranked the M5 based on it being the best 4dr "M" in their opinion- just my 2 cents.........

If the E90 M3 was out already it probably would have taken the E39's place-
right Steved?

and the new position
would be accepted from all of us, don't you think??

[Smoltz]

Given that the CSL came in so far ahead of the E46 M3 CS, I can't help but think that an E92 with some mods is going to be a killer car.

-Adam

[southlight]

Originally Posted by MI6

They might have ranked the M5 based on it being the best 4dr "M" in their opinion- just my 2 cents.........

If the E90 M3 was out already it probably would have taken the E39's place-
right Steved?

Good point, my thought was that the best M5 has to be among the last 4...

Best regards, south

[lucid]

I think the main criteria, as mentioned by Steve on another post, was BMW's "Motorsports" principles, so I can't imagine the 4-door thing playing role.

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by southlight

Good point, my thought was that the best M5 has to be among the last 4...

Best regards, south

But then why would the E39 be the "best" M5? The E39 is slower overall than the E60 M5, so overall performance cannot be the standard. If "purity" is the standard, then the first M5 (don't recall the E code) should be the "best" M5. It is the lightest, and it has a more highly strung, competition-derived motor.

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by lucid

I think the main criteria, as mentioned by Steve on another post, was BMW's "Motorsports" principles, so I can't imagine the 4-door thing playing role.

Agreed. If Motorsports-derived purity or intent is the criterion, then no M5 belongs in the top 4.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by ILC32

But then why would the E39 be the "best" M5? The E39 is slower overall than the E60 M5, so overall performance cannot be the standard. If "purity" is the standard, then the first M5 (don't recall the E code) should be the "best" M5. It is the lightest, and it has a more highly strung, competition-derived motor.

Maybe EVO thinks that the E39 is the car which made the biggest leap compared to the predecessor!?
E39 may also be the M5 with the best compromise between purity and power...

Best regards, south

[phoenixbmwlife]

The E30 M3 deserves 1st place. There will never be another like it.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by lucid

I think the main criteria, as mentioned by Steve on another post, was BMW's "Motorsports" principles, so I can't imagine the 4-door thing playing role.

Can you imagine the E39 to incorporate more "Motorsport principles" than M Z4 or E46 CS? Doubt it...

Best regards, south

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by southlight

Maybe EVO thinks that the E39 is the car which made the biggest leap compared to the predecessor!?
E39 may also be the M5 with the best compromise between purity and power...

Best regards, south

It will be interesting to see how this is explained/justified in the article. We all have our biases, so as I said I would not be surprised if one of the authors or contributors owns an M5 (maybe even the very car used for the article).

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by Epacy

What the hell is that all about?? Horrible times and speed avg.

You don't need an M3 for that type of business. You could speed things up with a tricycle.

Welcome to London...

[phoenixbmwlife]

Originally Posted by 13eastie

Welcome to London...

What do you do when it rains?

[The CSL]

Originally Posted by JerezBlue!

IMO, I think there will be a whole bunch of buyers who will move to the E92 M3 for the very reason that it will be a great GT. No bad thing!

Then I think 'Motorsport' is absolutely the wrong moniker for this car and 340i would have been far more appropriate. When a 20-year-old car is considerably better than the current iteration, then progress is zero.

As for the CSL's time, weren't those tyres the ones fitted as standard, the Cup tyres?

[lucid]

Originally Posted by southlight

Can you imagine the E39 to incorporate more "Motorsport principles" than M Z4 or E46 CS? Doubt it...

Best regards, south

No, I don't. But Steve did mention that "M" was going to be the main factor for comparison. I don't know if that changed though during or after the review.