evo: New M3 is a "disappointment"

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by Sebringjetta

PLEASE TELL ME 4.4 STROKER? PLEASE TELL ME NOT A RESULT OF YOU KNOW WHAT...

Unfortunately it was a result of the bearings (at least that's what it seems like). 60k miles on the car and had the bearings replaced the first time at 18k.

[obe100]

Originally Posted by crypticc

This?

[http://player.vimeo.com/video/113158655


Catless no less

now that's a freakin' engine…..

[izzyM2]

Raining today all day in LA and driving my E90 M3 is a blast. I don't understand where the lack of power comes from. It is a very well balance car and that with a V8 as what an M car should be. My test drives of the new M makes me conclude its an overpowered/unbalance car, I would rather go with an american muscle if I wanted that route.

[///M Power-Belgium]

In a few words and after 47 # ...
" Power is nothing without control "
Amen !

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by s85e90

Also my Evo was AWD and making big power and would also just spin all 4 tires.. For all those saying cars are getting too powerful w/ RWD they are truly not "car people" ... More power is always better.

What size tires were you running?

[SunnyD]

I wouldn't call the F8x M3/M4 a disappointment. When I test drove one, the chassis felt amazing and you could really feel the weight difference through corners between the E9x and the F8x. I also didn't mind the rush of power down low from the S55, but I get more enjoyment from a high revving motor than one with a ton of low end torque.

But then again, I also don't daily my e92, so having less torque isn't a problem for me.

[rngrjag]

I think the F8X M is a victim of cost cutting. Period. Family sedans are putting out 475 hp (Dodge SRT) or specialized models 707 hp, in the case of the Hellcat. Vehicles in the ///M3 class are outputting 450 hp and up and are also turbo-charged. I do not buy the notion that overall production of M3 M4 models would have much of an overall effect on CAFE standards. Furthermore, previous M owners paid gas-guzzler tax, and would presumably have done so for a new normally aspirated F8X M.

BMW was in a tough spot. They needed raw numbers and adding torque through snails was the easiest, most cost-effective way to do that, especially when it could use the N55 as a base from which to work from. While the GT-R is hailed as a techno-marvel, and puts down phenomenal numbers, it too has been criticized as being more of a "the computers do it for you" driving experience. It is unsurprising that the criticisms of the F8X M cars are, similarly, complaints of a synthetic driving experience.

In the enthusiast car world I don't know of too many folks who think that adding more power is a bad thing. Even Porsche is rumored to be moving to all-turbo motors for the base 911. It is a shame though. It will be interesting to see how the F8X M platform pans out long-term. I don't think folks whom are already modding it and adding more power are doing the platform justice, from a reliability stand point. It will be really interesting if reliability suffers because folks are adding DPs and turning up the boost on an unproven S55 motor. We shall see...

[Z K]

Originally Posted by s85e90

I agree with that on the street. It's much more exciting and realistic to wring out the e9x or a low powered car than trying to drive a car like a z06 that 1st, 2nd is useless and in 3rd you're going wellll into illegal speeds. The slower cars feel exciting on the DD metric.

You got it the opposite.

Big power is more fun on the street because you can blast down straights and have lots of power to merge with traffic, pass or do fun illegal things.

On a track, power is not a big deal and a more balanced car is more desirable over a high powered one. I've had a ton of fun driving a bone stock 240sx, sliding around and passing people on track. The higher power and weight of the M3 is somewhat sobering and you need to be on your toes and quick with your hands to control it at the limit. I can only imagine having even more torque in the new M3 to be a detriment to having fun unless you're an expert driver.

Power is not bad, it's adding power for the sake of power that ruins a car's balance.

[1MOREMOD]

I think the torque down low will be a challenge for newer track drivers and they will have their lunch eaten by e9x owners of equal ability.

[V8FunNaturally]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

I think the torque down low will be a challenge for newer track drivers and they will have their lunch eaten by e9x owners of equal ability.

yes and not just newer track drivers, according to a team of semi-pro's who track testest the m4 the less than predictable non linear throttle to torque relation caused by the turbo at the limit and the excessive low down torque is a nightmare on long straights at top speed which can lead to spectacular loss of control and bad crashes. The back starting to go out on the fastest stretch can put a spell on the car's reputation . Somebody got it right on this thread bmw designed a drift car not a racing car. I received that donut drifting promotional video sent by bmw in my email, where the m4 is turning around in place on a parking lot. It had the opposite effect on me than those marketers probably sought. Donuts is the perfect example of a car who shows power without any indication of how it can handle it at the limit, doing 10 mph in circles on a parking lot is nonsense. I wouldn't buy an M car to do that.

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by sunsweet

yes and not just newer track drivers, according to a team of semi-pro's who track testest the m4 the less than predictable non linear throttle to torque relation caused by the turbo at the limit and the excessive low down torque is a nightmare on long straights at top speed which can lead to spectacular loss of control and crashes. The back starting to go out at your fastest speed on a track can put a bad spell on the car among enthusiasts . Somebody got it right on this thread bmw unknowingly designed a drift car not a racing car. I received that donut drifting promotional video sent by bmw in my email, where the m4 is turning around in place on a parking lot. It had the opposite effect on me than those marketers probably sought. Donuts is the perfect example of a car who shows power without caring how it can handle that power at the speed limit., not doing 10 mph in circles on a parking lot.

I guess I meant not advanced drivers. I'm a high intermediate with a pretty full build e46 track car. I think part of the reason I enjoy it so much is its linear and so predictable. If I had 200lbft more torque at corner exit I would likely be slower. Sideways everywhere would get old trying to reign it in. I did however enjoy built z06 so who knows.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by thekurgan

Too much power/torque down low perhaps. I've been trying to find the evo review of the E9x series ... searching anything on youtube always brings one to some grotesque medical procedure, so I gave up for now.

Not youtube, but here's the ECOTY article featuring the E92 from '07 or '08.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98380

Rough quality Driver's Republic review with M3 vs ISF vs C63. These are Evo guys (not Harris anymore). Soaking wet in this vid too.

[Harpua]

The most worrisome aspect of the Evo review is that ALL of the reviewers ranked the M3 last or second-to-last.
Accounting for personal preferences and test time/day conditions, that's pretty remarkable. It also demonstrates how supreme the Ferrari is...
The Jag was anywhere from 2nd to 7th, the McLaren 5th to 8th, the Aston 4th to 8th, but the Audi & M3 were solidly in the basement across the board.

I'm sure it's still a superb car (I haven't had to chance to drive one yet), but my view on the Motorsport division of BMW was that it always punched above it's weight. We used to call M5s "Ferrari killers" and the previous generation M3s would go toe-to-toe with 911s at 2/3rds the price tag. I just loved them (and still adore my M3) and they always felt a bit special to drive.

There seems to be an undercurrent something missing from the new generation M3/4, but nobody can seem to pin-point it exactly. I'd guess it's that we've always expected a bit more; that extra bit of "this is a special car"-ness.

I'll reserve personal judgment until I get my hands on one...

[Sinful]

Originally Posted by Harpua

The most worrisome aspect of the Evo review is that ALL of the reviewers ranked the M3 last or second-to-last.
Accounting for personal preferences and test time/day conditions, that's pretty remarkable. It also demonstrates how supreme the Ferrari is...
The Jag was anywhere from 2nd to 7th, the McLaren 5th to 8th, the Aston 4th to 8th, but the Audi & M3 were solidly in the basement across the board.

I'm sure it's still a superb car (I haven't had to chance to drive one yet), but my view on the Motorsport division of BMW was that it always punched above it's weight. We used to call M5s "Ferrari killers" and the previous generation M3s would go toe-to-toe with 911s at 2/3rds the price tag. I just loved them (and still adore my M3) and they always felt a bit special to drive.

There seems to be an undercurrent something missing from the new generation M3/4, but nobody can seem to pin-point it exactly. I'd guess it's that we've always expected a bit more; that extra bit of "this is a special car"-ness.

I'll reserve personal judgment until I get my hands on one...

Its actually silly the review, we are talking about some actual supercars against the M3....relative to them the M3 was bound to be considered less.
However, put it up against cars that are more its competition and it will be a different story.

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by SinfulM3

Its actually silly the review, we are talking about some actual supercars against the M3....relative to them the M3 was bound to be considered less.
However, put it up against cars that are more its competition and it will be a different story.

We will see all those comparos soon enough.

[YolkyPalky]

Originally Posted by Harpua

The most worrisome aspect of the Evo review is that ALL of the reviewers ranked the M3 last or second-to-last.
Accounting for personal preferences and test time/day conditions, that's pretty remarkable. It also demonstrates how supreme the Ferrari is...
The Jag was anywhere from 2nd to 7th, the McLaren 5th to 8th, the Aston 4th to 8th, but the Audi & M3 were solidly in the basement across the board.

I'm sure it's still a superb car (I haven't had to chance to drive one yet), but my view on the Motorsport division of BMW was that it always punched above it's weight. We used to call M5s "Ferrari killers" and the previous generation M3s would go toe-to-toe with 911s at 2/3rds the price tag. I just loved them (and still adore my M3) and they always felt a bit special to drive.

There seems to be an undercurrent something missing from the new generation M3/4, but nobody can seem to pin-point it exactly. I'd guess it's that we've always expected a bit more; that extra bit of "this is a special car"-ness.

I'll reserve personal judgment until I get my hands on one...

Originally Posted by SinfulM3

Its actually silly the review, we are talking about some actual supercars against the M3....relative to them the M3 was bound to be considered less.
However, put it up against cars that are more its competition and it will be a different story.

+1, like I said earlier, put the M3 up against $300,000 cars like the Ferrari and of course it won't fare as well, it actually is silly to be ranking the M3 against some of these mid six-figure supercars.

[V8FunNaturally]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

I think part of the reason I enjoy it so much is its linear and so predictable. If I had 200lbft more torque at corner exit I would likely be slower. Sideways everywhere would get old trying to reign it in. .

As we know, drifting is not the fastest way around a track. but short of having the lightness, massive tires and the down force of a formula car back wing , brief and predictable oversteering can get the car positionned to optimize turns trajectory. A turbo car will always be more tricky in that aspect than a NA. Even the GT-R is using a good dose of computer overriding to get it right and that's with 4 wheel drive not 2. The z06 has lower Center of gravity than the m4 and weighs only 3,100 lbs. Also SC tends to me more predictable than TC.

I think NA cars make for better, safer and more rounded track driver than forced induction. And are more fun for learning too.

[s85e90]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

Unfortunately it was a result of the bearings (at least that's what it seems like). 60k miles on the car and had the bearings replaced the first time at 18k.

Wait so is this the first case we have here of replacement bearings that failed? And at only 40K miles? Ouch!@

[Harpua]

Originally Posted by SinfulM3

Its actually silly the review, we are talking about some actual supercars against the M3....relative to them the M3 was bound to be considered less.
However, put it up against cars that are more its competition and it will be a different story.

I really don't think the review is as silly/irrelevant as many posters are stating.
These cars are all about the visceral enjoyment of driving. The review line-up seems to be a decent representation of drivers' cars released this year. Like many have said before me, if it was all about pure stats, we'd all be in GTRs. It's why so many loved the little Golf, or why people still fawn over S2000s, air-cooled 911s, or even the BRZs: They surprise, delight, punch above their weight and are special cars.

I'm still waiting to read/hear a review of the new M3/4 use such superlatives.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by SinfulM3

Its actually silly the review, we are talking about some actual supercars against the M3....relative to them the M3 was bound to be considered less.
However, put it up against cars that are more its competition and it will be a different story.

Originally Posted by YolkyPalky

+1, like I said earlier, put the M3 up against $300,000 cars like the Ferrari and of course it won't fare as well, it actually is silly to be ranking the M3 against some of these mid six-figure supercars.

To each their own, but I've been reading this article annually for about a decade, and it's been consistently well done. Not very silly at all imo.

They do a good job of disassociating the price from the driving experience. And so in the results you'll regularly see cars like the Golf R and Megane ahead of the 650s and Vanquish as is the case this year. Yes, they often find some of the highest priced cars ecoty -- Scud, RS 4.0, and Speciale for example, but not always. In '12 the Huayra tied with the Exige S. The Evora won in '09, the GT-R in '08 ahead of the LP560. In '08 the E92 finished ahead of the Superleggera and DBS. You get the point... Really it comes down to the fact that they just don't much like the new M3 as a driver's car.

[modkrazy]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

Unfortunately it was a result of the bearings (at least that's what it seems like). 60k miles on the car and had the bearings replaced the first time at 18k.

Were the bearings the treated ones or OEM set? Were they replaced for S/C?

[FogCityM3]

Reality is that there are a few reviews from several publications globally that also bring up similar issues. A lot of people are judging the M4 relative to other turbos, but Ford and GM today (and BMW M a few years ago), as well as most race drivers, prefer the characteristics of N/A engines and are keeping them alive as long as they can.

Also, for all the talk of wow, the trap of the M4 hits 121 trap, 3.9 secs to 60 is amazing, so much less weight etc etc… I've had the chance to go head to head on tracks with the new M3s/4s in intermediate run groups, and it's not like these cars are blowing past everything else. Prior gens M3s (E90 and E46) in most amateur hands are just as fast and it really takes very advanced/club race level to fully exploit the full potential of the car without getting yourself into trouble.