2012 M3 Coupe & Convertible Changes + Pricing. New M3 Individual Composition Package

[STORM3]

Originally Posted by varsity

I'm not worried about fuel mileage. I'm worried about needless wastage. There's a way to get decent economy and performance, and this M3 generation doesn't strike that balance the way the E46 did. There's no need to run the faucet for the hell of it.

Whatever, a V8 performance car is never going to get good mileage or economy. I had a Mercedes E63 before the M3, so I should know.

Wait a few years and you'll have your 6 cylinder turbo...

[varsity]

Originally Posted by eisenb11

The Vette and the new Mustang have surprisingly efficient motors. Those aside, the other competitors like the C63, CTS-V also get lousy mileage.

The next M3 will likely be a lot more efficient, but it seems that we're looking at the end of the v8 and naturally aspirated motors.

You're right about CTS-V and C63. The V8 S4 was the same way; I had a B7, and its poor economy added insult to the injury of its relative slowness.

My point was that it's hard to justify buying an E92 M3 in 2012, considering that better economy and comparable performance is not only currently available in other cars, but also around the corner in the next M3 iteration. I don't buy in to the "end of naturally-aspirated M car" hype.

[Mr. ///M3 RD]

Originally Posted by varsity

I'm not worried about fuel mileage. I'm worried about needless wastage. There's a way to get decent economy and performance, and this M3 generation doesn't strike that balance the way the E46 did. There's no need to run the faucet for the hell of it.

I think the M3 (if driven right) gives pretty good milage for a sports car IMHO. For example; I've driven mine some 3,000 + KM across the country back and forth and managed to get 11L/100KM that I think is fairly impressive for a V8. My previous Z4 35i with an i6 produced similar results last year on a trip to California and back.

Mind you I was not driving like a wild man I followed the speed limit and drove + 10% above that both on US and Canadian highways. Here and then I let her rip yes like overtaking a truck ... one of the key reasons I drive an M3 is for safety (to get out off the way). My first M3 a e46 once saved my life by giving me the power when I needed it as a truck driver fell asleep and almost pushed me over the cliff ... putting the pedal to the metal saved my life and my horn properly saved the truck drivers live too (I saw as he got his rig under control as I passed him).

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

It is not about the money. He is absolutely correct. M3 mileage is horrid. For example 2011 Porsche 911 turbo S is rated 17/25...that's significant 5mpg better economy on highway...on the dedicated luxury, sports car that is twice as expensive as M3 and it has 100hp more.

E46 M3 was rated 16/24. I can understand losing city mileage due to more cylinders in the V8, but how did highway drop 4mpg on the NEWER model?

Cylinder count matters.

I would expect a six cylinder with the fuel efficiecy bonus of FI/turbo to translate into better mpg, but the 17/25 mpg in the case of the 911T S does not impress me in the least.

As to the M3 models, all else being equal, 8 cylinders will consume 1/3 more fuel than 6 cylinders which translates into the E92M3's S62 motor being a third less fuel efficient than the S54 motor. That additional fuel consumption would have left the S65 motor rated 12/16 mpg. However, efficiency was improved in the S65 vs the S54, and notwithstanding the absence of a longer/taller six gear (or 7th for the DCT equipped units), the 14/20 mpg rating is something of a surprise. Highway mpg could have been raised anywhere from 1 mpg to X mpg with a taller/longer top gear, but that's a moot point at this juncture.

[varsity]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

As to the M3 models, all else being equal, 8 cylinders will consume 1/3 more fuel than 6 cylinders which translates into the E92M3's S62 motor being a third less fuel efficient than the S54 motor. That additional fuel consumption would have left the S65 motor rated 12/16 mpg. However, efficiency was improved in the S65 vs the S54, and notwithstanding the absence of a longer/taller six gear (or 7th for the DCT equipped units), the 14/20 mpg rating is something of a surprise.

Now THAT is a creative way to look at it.

[mkoesel]

And there we have it ladies and gentlemen - the 2011.99 E90 M3.

Originally Posted by Jason

2011 E90 M3 Sedan (Beginning September)

Base price remains $55,900

Optional Equipment Changes:

BMW Assist, iPod/USB Adaptor and Smartphone Integration have been replaced by option 7H8 ($750).

New 7KB Navigation with iPod/USB, BMW Assist, and Bluetooth replaces 609 Navigation and is priced at $2,150.

Package Changes:

Convenience Package is replaced by Convenience Package 2 (ZC2) and now requires Premium Package 3 (ZP3) and both are updated with new option codes. Package prices unchanged.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

Cylinder count matters.

I would say that using displacement is probably a little more accurate than cylinder count, no? Though I understand you weren't trying to be scientific. Still, if you compared a 2L I4 to a 6.2L V8 (for example) your error margin goes through the roof.

As to the M3 models, all else being equal, 8 cylinders will consume 1/3 more fuel than 6 cylinders which translates into the E92M3's S62 motor being a third less fuel efficient than the S54 motor.

All else isn't equal since the S65 has more displacement per cylinder. in actuality, the S65 has roughly 25% more displacement than S54 (not 33%). However, it remains the case that the S65 than the S54 is more efficient on a consumption per unit of displacement basis (for whatever that's worth ).

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

And there we have it ladies and gentlemen - the 2011.99 E90 M3.

Will there be a 2011.999 E90 M3?

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I would say that using displacement is probably a little more accurate than cylinder count, no? Though I understand you weren't trying to be scientific. Still, if you compared a 2L I4 to a 6.2L V8 (for example) your error margin goes through the roof.

You are correct. And I was only attempting to be as scientific as the bemoaners of the M3's mpg are scientific in their despair.

Originally Posted by mkoesel

All else isn't equal since the S65 has more displacement per cylinder. in actuality, the S65 has roughly 25% more displacement than S54 (not 33%). However, it remains the case that the S65 than the S54 is more efficient on a consumption per unit of displacement basis (for whatever that's worth ).

Indeed.


Back on topic: What is the status of Extended Leather for the MY 2012 coupe & vert M3?

[eisenb11]

Originally Posted by varsity

You're right about CTS-V and C63. The V8 S4 was the same way; I had a B7, and its poor economy added insult to the injury of its relative slowness.

My point was that it's hard to justify buying an E92 M3 in 2012, considering that better economy and comparable performance is not only currently available in other cars, but also around the corner in the next M3 iteration. I don't buy in to the "end of naturally-aspirated M car" hype.

True, but there's always something "better" around the corner. Realistically, we're looking at 2 years until the next M3 comes out. 3 years if you don't believe in buying the first model year. That's a long time for anyone considering buying a M3 now.

If you're a 4 year car driver and buy now, you're good to go for the new M3 as it begins its third model year.

Also, I average 14 mpg in my 328i. Dropping to 12 wouldn't be a huge difference!

[lou500]

I was planning on waiting for the 2012 E92 to lease, but my dealer told me that leases will go up since it's a new model year and residuals are reduced at a slightly more accelerated rate. In other words, I would be better off doing the deal now on a 2011. Does this make sense to anyone else or is this just dealer chatter?

Other than that, cant wait to order (would be my first M car coming from a '06 E90) and not looking forward to that two month wait...

[Technic]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

Back on topic: What is the status of Extended Leather for the MY 2012 coupe & vert M3?

I don't understand your question... Extended Leather is still an option (requires iDrive) in the MY2012 M3.

The Individual Composition (E93) includes Extended Leather as well.

[eisenb11]

Originally Posted by lou500

I was planning on waiting for the 2012 E92 to lease, but my dealer told me that leases will go up since it's a new model year and residuals are reduced at a slightly more accelerated rate. In other words, I would be better off doing the deal now on a 2011. Does this make sense to anyone else or is this just dealer chatter?

Hard to say for sure, I can't really comment on the accelerated stuff they were talking about... but they may be trying to get rid of their remaining 2011 inventory. Residuals on a new 2011 should be a lot lower because, despite being new, it's about to "age" one year within the next month taking a depreciation hit when that happens. 3 years from now, it'll essentially be a 4 year old car on the books.

[Barnsleyshaun]

Originally Posted by Mako

Wow $59,900 base price now, whats the next gen going to be? $65K? $80K fully loaded, what a M5 was 5-6 years ago...

So Glad I bought my C63 in 2009 for $54K brand new (fully loaded, $67K sticker) Mercedes was giving insane rebates because of the economy (only reason I picked it over the M3). I can't imagine paying $70K for my car or an M3 right now. They are nice (dad has an M3 Coupe) but not worth $70K, maybe its time to go to the M2

more like:

Wow $59,900 equals £36,666
base price over here for an M3 is £54,690 which equates to $89343

My 320D Coupe over here cost the same as you can get an M3 for!!!! we get so shafted in the UK

[lou500]

Originally Posted by eisenb11

Hard to say for sure, I can't really comment on the accelerated stuff they were talking about... but they may be trying to get rid of their remaining 2011 inventory. Residuals on a new 2011 should be a lot lower because, despite being new, it's about to "age" one year within the next month taking a depreciation hit when that happens. 3 years from now, it'll essentially be a 4 year old car on the books.

Good point.

I think I'm going to just get an '11. Three main reasons: 1. No mechanical or aesthetic differences between both models 2. I live in the Northeast and would prefer to take delivery in October with better weather than November and 3) No one is going to care, its still a "new M3".

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by Technic

I don't understand your question... Extended Leather is still an option (requires iDrive) in the MY2012 M3.

The Individual Composition (E93) includes Extended Leather as well.

My question stems from the absence of any mention of extended leather in the OP. Was that merely an oversight? IDK.

Of course, my question would never have been posted had the individual option been extended to the coupe. Oxybraun

[kitw]

Originally Posted by Technic

I don't understand your question... Extended Leather is still an option (requires iDrive) in the MY2012 M3.

The Individual Composition (E93) includes Extended Leather as well.

Between Metallic Paint + extended leather, the individual option sounds expensive but it is really not that bad...

[varsity]

Originally Posted by lou500

I think I'm going to just get an '11.

I think what eisenb11 was saying is that the August 2011 MY2012 residuals will be higher than the July 2011 MY2011 residuals. The MF may also be higher. A higher residual value can offset a higher MF.

Accordingly it may be cheaper for you to lease a MY2012 car under August's figures as opposed to a MY2011 car under July's figures. Nobody can tell you for sure right now since - as far as I know - BMWFS hasn't released the August 2011 residuals and MFs.

[Muffnbluff]

Son of a bitch, I really wanted comfort access as a stand alone option. Oh well, I'll live with having to dig my key fob out of my pocket.

[Jch99]

Why are POWER SEATS not standard.........dumb

[Mr. ///M3 RD]

Originally Posted by Jchan99

Why are POWER SEATS not standard.........dumb

Why would one even need it? .... I adjust it once and it's a done deal ... I don't let anyone drive my car.

[Technic]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

My question stems from the absence of any mention of extended leather in the OP. Was that merely an oversight? IDK.

Of course, my question would never have been posted had the individual option been extended to the coupe. Oxybraun

The document in the first page seems to be a truncated version of the actual Ordering Guide. The Extended Leather option for MY2012 is still available at the same exact price and conditions.

[eisenb11]

Originally Posted by Muffnbluff

Son of a bitch, I really wanted comfort access as a stand alone option. Oh well, I'll live with having to dig my key fob out of my pocket.

It is for $500 or you can get it included with ZPP.