Autocar Test for those outside of UK - better!

[moss]

For those who do not get Autocar - last weeks Mag - this week they test it again th RS4 - so hopefully it will silence the Autoexpress test!

[aussiem3]

Thanks Moss. I was going to wait for my copy of the AutoCar but the temptation got the better of me. I knew Sutters will not write an M3 off just like that. His web-based review was a teaser, and followed it with a true experience with the car.

As you get old and still want an M3 to drive, and not quite afford a cruiser like the M5, I think this car delivers in spade fulls. I am going to just love this car not matter what everyone say.

It will be civlised all the time and be a real Ibiza beach party when you want it to be. That's my car.

[moss]

Please do buy the magazine if you are able - it's full of excellent stuff. This was just meant for those who could not get a copy. Thanks

[moss]

I respect alot the autocar verdicts - be interesting to see how they rate it along the RS4 - obviously from what we have read, without getting stupid both cars are pretty much neck and neck

[RussianM3_dude]

Ok so 1% of the time it's sheer brilliance.... But I want a car that is sharp in everyday driving, not some mythical Nurburgring. I think the problem lies in the over reliance on the 'Ring testing. Fairly high speed corners and very bumpy, hence the ride of the M3 is softened to soak up the bumps and the steering is slower since almost none of the 'Ring corners are very sharp.
But few of us will ever go to the Ring. Here in Switzerland the roads are very smooth, so the car might feel a tad too GT.

[Epacy]

Yes, will be real interested in the head-to-heads. Too many less than glowing reviews. The rev range bit is a good reminder, will be tough to redline it on a regular basis to get the real power since it isn't down low.
Other reviews comment on how easy it is to slide the tail out and this one says it isn't.

[moss]

I think the autor of this test really knows his cars - i would take value of his comments. My real concern also is how the engine only seems great after 6000 rpm - in the UK it's very hard to acheive this without getting banned or receiving alot of unwanted attention. I think they would have been better chucking a turbo on it and having so real low down torque.

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Yes, will be real interested in the head-to-heads. Too many less than glowing reviews. The rev range bit is a good reminder, will be tough to redline it on a regular basis to get the real power since it isn't down low.

A lot of the reviews have been making this comment about low-end torque.

I'm not clear why this should be since the other comment being made is that 85% of peak torque can be delivered across the entire (effective) rev range i.e. almost 340 Nm at 2000rpm.

Since we can't check this for ourselves just now, can anyone shed any light on this?

[mofomat]

Originally Posted by moss

I think they would have been better chucking a turbo on it and having so real low down torque.

To make this comment you must have a complete lack of knowledge of the 'M' ethos.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by moss

I think the autor of this test really knows his cars - i would take value of his comments. My real concern also is how the engine only seems great after 6000 rpm - in the UK it's very hard to acheive this without getting banned or receiving alot of unwanted attention. I think they would have been better chucking a turbo on it and having so real low down torque.

It looks like BMW got exactly the torque curve they wanted out of this one. Torque at the crank should not be confused with torque at the wheels. But I guess this reviewer is not happy with the torque at the wheels for some reason. If the car indeed suffers from low-end torque, how did C&D got 4.4s from "standstill" to 60 out of it and said it will even do better? So, I don't know about the torque comment. We need to see some detailed acceleration data on it to see if they are valid.

[moss]

Not at all - until the 335i BMW (save for diesels) haven't made turbo engines for a long time - so i guess you could say....

To make this comment you must have a complete lack of knowledge of the 'BMW' ethos.

The M3 series is the sporting peak of the BMW range - that's not to say that they can never change - you think in 50 years time the M series will still be running big V'8 petrols - no me neither!

[Jason-NY]

Another article that ends talking about the CSL

[FifthStreetz]

Thanks for the scan Moss, the review did make it seem like the car is boring under 6K RPMs.

[mofomat]

Originally Posted by moss

The M3 series is the sporting peak of the BMW range - that's not to say that they can never change - you think in 50 years time the M series will still be running big V'8 petrols - no me neither!

No, I don't think they will be running big V8 petrols in 50 years time either, and of course a lot can change in 50 years, but we're not talking about the cars of the future. The car in question is the E92 M3, and at this moment in time there is no need to go any other route as by all accounts the S65 engine is a real corker.

So why would they put a turbo on the engine?

The answer is they wouldn't, because it goes against what the M ethos is, and that's deriving power from high revs as opposed to forced induction.

Which is exactly the point I was making. So why don't you reel your neck in and stop showing yourself up.

[moss]

Sorry I beg to differ on this... I think the true M ethos is about lightweight, usable, roadcars which make them 'the ultimate driving machine'. I don't necessarily think that they are all about electric seats, sat nav and all other such weight adding features. No i think the M ethos is more distant than ever in this incarnation of the M3 (or at least the intial reviews seem to suggest this). I hope i'm proven wrong ( i have a deposit down to). Hopefully the DCT will solve the poor gear shift action and also 'make the car more lively at lower revs.

[The CSL]

Originally Posted by mofomat

To make this comment you must have a complete lack of knowledge of the 'M' ethos.

Actually, M wanted the E30 to be a turbo, but it didn't fit any racing regs at the time, so they went with NA.

[aerisolphaln]

Yes, another review saying *a great, fast car that isn't the best BMW could have done* and *it should reallly be great when the CSL comes out, because this isn't that great* and alluding to *just wait and see how this thing doesn't compare to the RS4.*

To me it looks like BMW may be resting on their laurels with previous accomplishments.

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

Yes, another review saying *a great, fast car that isn't the best BMW could have done* and *it should reallly be great when the CSL comes out, because this isn't that great* and alluding to *just wait and see how this thing doesn't compare to the RS4.*

To me it looks like BMW may be resting on their laurels with previous accomplishments.

You again? I thought you left after your previous tirade.
You are correct. The RS4 is the better car. Debate over, all you trolls can bail now.

[devo]

Originally Posted by lucid

It looks like BMW got exactly the torque curve they wanted out of this one. Torque at the crank should not be confused with torque at the wheels. But I guess this reviewer is not happy with the torque at the wheels for some reason. If the car indeed suffers from low-end torque, how did C&D got 4.4s from "standstill" to 60 out of it and said it will even do better? So, I don't know about the torque comment. We need to see some detailed acceleration data on it to see if they are valid.

The car suffers from the LACK of low end torque; which I assume is what you meant.

However, you don't need an abundance of torque to achieve a good sprint time, whether it's 0-60, 0-100 or the 1/4 mile.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by devo

The car suffers from the LACK of low end torque; which I assume is what you meant.

However, you don't need an abundance of torque to achieve a good sprint time, whether it's 0-60, 0-100 or the 1/4 mile.

Yes, I meant lack of torque.

And, yes my thinking exactly. If the car has the power (ability to do work per unit time) which the M3 clearly has (mainly due to its 8400 max rpm), and is geared right, acceleration should not be a problem. That's why I am skeptical of the review and would like to see specific acceleration data. Then we can debate if it's geared right and so on, but I doubt there would be a problem there. Regardless, raw torque (moment applied at the wheels) helps the acceleration, and makes the car less sensative to gearing issues, etc.

[aerisolphaln]

Originally Posted by Epacy

You again? I thought you left after your previous tirade.
You are correct. The RS4 is the better car. Debate over, all you trolls can bail now.

You are actually one of the reasons I can't wait to leave this board. However, I still want as much M information as possible so I keep coming back. Until my M3 rests in my garage, you can keep winning the internet war against me. Way to win at all things internet.

[M3onTwomps]

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

You are actually one of the reasons I can't wait to leave this board. However, I still want as much M information as possible so I keep coming back. Until my M3 rests in my garage, you can keep winning the internet war against me. Way to win at all things internet.

Not sure what kind of sense this makes. You do nothing but rag on the M3, yet you're still going to get one?