The best thing that ever happened to the M Division

[impulsoren]

DCT is on its first release, it is like any other thing bound to have bugs which are being worked on. do you know that the GTR is bug-free?? no!

Mitsubishi got theirs right first time out of the box here in the US......
Why couldn't BMW?

And the one problem that kept me out of an M3 right away....lack of torque. As much as you guys argue about how great the high revs are, and then argue about how good a daily driver it is, the M3 just doesn't provide the low-end a daily driver needs. And that goes along with fuel mileage. Make better low-end, you won't have to rev the crap out of it, and will get better gas mileage.

Or put turbos on it. Holding out for the ideal of "high RPM NA performance" is like when F1 banned turbos back in the 1900s when Honda kept beating everyone silly with fuel efficient turbo'd motors. A bunch of old fogeys making rules to justify their stolid position instead of going with technology.

[Advskier]

Originally Posted by impulsoren

Mitsubishi got theirs right first time out of the box here in the US......
Why couldn't BMW?

And the one problem that kept me out of an M3 right away....lack of torque. As much as you guys argue about how great the high revs are, and then argue about how good a daily driver it is, the M3 just doesn't provide the low-end a daily driver needs. And that goes along with fuel mileage. Make better low-end, you won't have to rev the crap out of it, and will get better gas mileage.

Or put turbos on it. Holding out for the ideal of "high RPM NA performance" is like when F1 banned turbos back in the 1900s when Honda kept beating everyone silly with fuel efficient turbo'd motors. A bunch of old fogeys making rules to justify their stolid position instead of going with technology.

You must be kidding. Not enough torque for daily driving needs?
The milage isn't good enough for a 416HP engine?
And the thing about turbos.... have you heard of lag? On other sections of this site you can read all about 335 owners complaints about it.

How do you drive your daily driver?
Would a few more MPG's make you happy? Or can't you afford gas for an extremely high performance car?

In sport mode my tires light up almost too easily, and I don't have to keep the engine revved up at all to blow away most cars from a stop. It pulls 0-60 in the low 4's, and with DCT it spins up in first and second that you have to practice not over revving.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by impulsoren

...And the one problem that kept me out of an M3 right away....lack of torque. As much as you guys argue about how great the high revs are, and then argue about how good a daily driver it is, the M3 just doesn't provide the low-end a daily driver needs. And that goes along with fuel mileage. Make better low-end, you won't have to rev the crap out of it, and will get better gas mileage.

Or put turbos on it. Holding out for the ideal of "high RPM NA performance" is like when F1 banned turbos back in the 1900s when Honda kept beating everyone silly with fuel efficient turbo'd motors. A bunch of old fogeys making rules to justify their stolid position instead of going with technology.

Have to disagree here. I've previously taken stupendously unpopular positions in this venue about how the M3 would be a better overall car with a Vette motor, etc., but in everyday driving, the M3 doesn't feel sluggish. Its very short gearing makes up for that relatively poor torque-to-weight ratio. I still think it would be a better car if it made more torque, but the fact is it drives really well with what it has.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Def beating a dead horse here Ruff. All of this has been discussed. I call stirring the pot. Most of us have agreed with you in the past on many of these points and agrued against other very effectively. Novelty is as important here as anywhere. The pessimism is tiring.

[kred]

Originally Posted by impulsoren

Mitsubishi got theirs right first time out of the box here in the US......
Why couldn't BMW?

And the one problem that kept me out of an M3 right away....lack of torque. As much as you guys argue about how great the high revs are, and then argue about how good a daily driver it is, the M3 just doesn't provide the low-end a daily driver needs. And that goes along with fuel mileage. Make better low-end, you won't have to rev the crap out of it, and will get better gas mileage.

Or put turbos on it. Holding out for the ideal of "high RPM NA performance" is like when F1 banned turbos back in the 1900s when Honda kept beating everyone silly with fuel efficient turbo'd motors. A bunch of old fogeys making rules to justify their stolid position instead of going with technology.

lack of torque....yeah 295 lb's of it just doesnt quite cut it huh...
ive never even complained with a 99 e46 328i

[BMW335icDDS]

Originally Posted by ruff

and for that matter the rest of the sports car world:

The Nissan GT-R.

Gotta love the outcry of incestuous whining among the car manufactures and their fanboys about this car.

Let me start with Porsche and their cult following. Porsche simply needs to shut up, step up to the plate and produce, especially given their highway robbery price points. Porsche can't beat Nissan right now, in fact they can't even compete, when comparing dollar to dollar. Porsche's hand has now been forced. The monopoly is over, thank you very much Nissan.

BMW doesn't produce any car, even a 100k one that can compete with the GT-R. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. BMW enthusiasts need to write a letter of thanks to Nissan for waking up the M Division, who have been asleep at the wheel for two too many German winters.

I find it fascinating when E92 M3 enthusiasts like to say the GT-R is not a direct competitor to the M3. They say this for one reason and one reason only, the M3 does not perform up to Nissan standards. So who is the M3's direct competitor, the four dour ISF, the four door C63, and the four door RS4, simply because it can beat them consistently on the track? Or how about the two door, four seat GT-R configured the same as the M3?

That leads to the argument about the M3 being the best all around daily driver. Answer is: it use to be. This M3 is no longer a great daily driver for one simple reason: It is a gas pig, especially for a lightweight low torque 4 litre V8. To put it in to perspective, the Viper's 600 hp 8.4 litre V10 with gargantuan levels of torque is able to attain a 13/22 mileage rating. Think about it.

Dct has been a disappointment. No real efficiency advantage as advertised and glitches that actually make it a liability at the track. On the other hand, The GT-R's dct transmission is an advantage at the track.

The M3 brakes are what they are, good stoppers but fade prone and not up to extended track work. How about the argument that multi piston are not an advancement over single piston? And what will we be saying when the M3 finally gets multi-piston stoppers? Who among us will still cling to the mantra that single piston is better? Love the argument that nice looking painted brakes are not desirable, yet these same people spend more than a grand to buy 19" bling wheels that slightly reduce performance over the standard 18s.

Thanks to the the the GT-R, the poor economy, high fuel prices, and even the CTS-V and R8, I believe in the near future, the M division is going to once again be at the head of it's class at building the best all around sports car for the money. You watch, world class engine and drivetrains + DFI and light weight materials = world beater at a reasonable price.

What a wonderful insightful post. I noted many of the same things before and the idiots couldn't see that I am right. They simply are blind over the M3 badge, a badge that no longer is something to be cherished.

[footie]

Originally Posted by impulsoren

Mitsubishi got theirs right first time out of the box here in the US......
Why couldn't BMW?

Watch at 2:34 to see if they have the gearbox that much better than the M-DCT.

[Singletrack]

I agree that the GT-R is going to push these auto manufacturers - that is a good thing!

The GT-R is a better performance car than the M3 - testing shows this.

I bought a 6 speed, but I'm confidant that BMW will resolve the issues with DCT. It is ABSURD that they were released with these problems.

Not all people care about gas mileage, so identifying that as the achilles hill of the "daily-driver argument" is sort-of funny. Not to mention that you CAN get good gas mileage if you drive like a vagina.

I don't consider it a direct competitor since, with the discount I get at my dealer, the difference is about 10k. But that's just me and the price is much closer in the UK/EU.

All that being said, if someone gave me the option of the GTR or M3 TODAY; I would take the M3. It's just what I'm looking for right now. But I could totally see myself in a GTR down the road too.

[Powerslide]

To the OP and others who agree the GT-R v. M is an "apples to apples" comparison...

Unless I've completely missed the boat here, aren't the M division's cars (except the original M1) based upon existing, non-M cars, i.e., 3 series, 5 series, 6 series? I thought the whole purpose of all the M's (again, except the M1) was to make a high performance version of a pre-existing, more "run of the mill" 3, 5 or 6 series...

Aren't the GT-R's (all generations) designed from the outset to be high-performance cars? I'm not aware of the GT-R being based upon a more mundane Nissan Altima coupe (or is it...) Is a 2+2 really the same as a four-seater, and if so, why the separate classifications? Why not do away with the separate category of "2+2" and just call the GT-R and 911 "four seaters...?"

I think you see my point here - just because two cars may in fact be competing for some of the same buyers, that does not automatically make them competitors "in the same class." Yes, I drive an M, yes I'm biased, yes I agree the GT-R clearly outperforms the M's... but to come out and say the GT-R spanks the M3... gee.. no kidding?!?!?!? If the economy was on the up-and-up, I would have been willing to bet BMW would have made a the rumored, dedicated M sports car (perhaps mid-engined) that wouldn't have been based upon a pre-existing passenger car platform to compete on an "apples to apples" basis with the R8 and GT-R....

What's truly nice is having a car and absolutely loving it for what it is... I know my E93 can get "spanked" by the E90 or E92 (and many other high-performance cars) on the track or in the quarter mile, but it's still fun as hell to drive, my wife and kids absolutely love it, and I'm still better than the overwhelming majority of the other cars out on the road (including many 2 seaters, 2+2's and cars that don't have the extra weight and decreased rigidity of a convertible...

And the "low torque" point - sure it's lower than many other cars, but again, so what? Look at the massive disparity in torque between the M3 and the C63, and yet both cars have virtually identical times in 0-60 and quarter mile. This just goes to show that looking torque at the crankshaft and disregarding torque multiplication through the gears is like failing to see the forest through the trees.

In conclusion - I agree with the OP and others that competition from the likes of Nissan and others is good for everyone, and I agree that M's would not be nearly as good (particularly future versions) but for the fantastic competition that is out there... But the suggestion that an M is not a tremenously rewarding and fun car to drive just because it's not the fastest car out there is simply untrue...

[jaiman]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

To the OP and others who agree the GT-R v. M is an "apples to apples" comparison...

Unless I've completely missed the boat here, aren't the M division's cars (except the original M1) based upon existing, non-M cars, i.e., 3 series, 5 series, 6 series? I thought the whole purpose of all the M's (again, except the M1) was to make a high performance version of a pre-existing, more "run of the mill" 3, 5 or 6 series...

Aren't the GT-R's (all generations) designed from the outset to be high-performance cars? I'm not aware of the GT-R being based upon a more mundane Nissan Altima coupe (or is it...) Is a 2+2 really the same as a four-seater, and if so, why the separate classifications? Why not do away with the separate category of "2+2" and just call the GT-R and 911 "four seaters...?"

Obviously you don't know much of the GT-R's history. Past GT-Rs were based off of a lower Nissan model, the Skyline. That's why up until the R-35 the GT-R was called a Skyline GT-R. This version is the first to be a ground up design.

2+2 generally means 2 adults plus 2 kids. A four seater means adults fit in the back.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by jaiman

Obviously you don't know much of the GT-R's history. Past GT-Rs were based off of a lower Nissan model, the Skyline. That's why up until the R-35 the GT-R was called a Skyline GT-R. This version is the first to be a ground up design.

Actually, speaking the most strict sense, the GT-R still is based on the Skyline. The GT-R is built on the PM (Prime Midship) platform which, according to Nissan, is evolved from the FM (Front Midship) platform used in the Skyline (which is sold on our shores as the G37).

So, in some sense GTR : G37 :: M3 : 335i. Though, in reality the analogy is probably not great because I don't think there are really any parts shared between the Nissans, while the M3 and 335i share about 20% of their parts (including the body shell itself).

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by jaiman

Obviously you don't know much of the GT-R's history. Past GT-Rs were based off of a lower Nissan model, the Skyline. That's why up until the R-35 the GT-R was called a Skyline GT-R. This version is the first to be a ground up design.

2+2 generally means 2 adults plus 2 kids. A four seater means adults fit in the back.

You're right - I did not know that about prior generations of the GT-R - nevertheless, this confirms that the current generation of GT-R is still a ground-up design and doesn't need the extra mass of a larger back seat. I have no doubt that if BMW wanted to build a car that was in the same category as the GT-R, they certainly would have the engineering expertise to do so (but apparently no economic sense to do so now). Up to the present at least, M Division has made a conscious decision to build cars off of existing passenger car platforms that are naturally aspirated and rear wheel drive.

I still don't understand how anyone can consider an M3 vs. GTR an apples to apples comparison - they are so different in so many categories, unlike an M3 vs. RS4 vs. IS-F v. C63 comparison, which I would consider a relevant comparison for cars of similar type or category. If one is going to compare the GTR to anything, it should be the 911, Corvette, or some other car that is more purely a sports car, and not something that is based upon a 3 series. For the vast majority of M3 buyers like myself, we are: 1) aware that there are other cars out there than can outperform the M3; and 2) we obviously don't care that our car is not the best in every conceivable category. Instead of all the "doom and gloom" people on this site whining about how the M3 isn't in first place in every category of performance known to mankind, why not be elated over the fact that you have a car that is essentially based on a 3 series and still approaches, and in some cases exceeds cars that are "ground-up" performance cars?? And I'm supposed to sit here and be all bummed out that I can't beat a GT-R, a GT2/GT3, Z51 corvette... I don't think so... I knew that long before I put my deposit down on the car last year.

Again, just so I'm clear - I'm not taking anything away from the GT-R, as it is obviously a fantastically engineered car.

[ersin]

Both M3 and GTR are spectacular cars. But this is not an apples to apples comparison. The only thing that might be comparable is price. But this is just list price. The M3 gets free maintenance for 4 yrs/50K miles. The GTR does not, plus it looks like maintenance will be a very expensive proposition. We'll have to wait and see how GTR owners fare.

The GTR is a very high performance car and it's fun to drive. The M3 is a high performance car that is also fun to drive. It does not perform as well as the GTR but it is still pretty darn fast. The fun factor may be higher with the M3 though that may be arguable. Plus, the M3 is more practical, luxurious, and comfortable. These aspects are there not by accident but because that's what BMW wanted. In comparison, the GTR is not as practical, luxurious or comfortable. But that is not its failing because I'm sure Nissan did not put the same importance on those aspects as BMW did. It is still comfortable enough for a car of that performance. These cars were designed for two different buyers in mind. So, this is not really an apples to apples comparison.

If you want all out performance get the GTR. Or maybe even better, get something cheaper and mod it. If you want something more all-around then you might consider something else, like the M3. You won't be losing much in performance (though I'm sure many of you will argue about "much") and will get other things in return.

I could go on comparing and contrasting the two, but the point is that the GTR and M3 really do not compete. Maybe the GTR will put a little pressure on BMW M to increase performance, but I doubt it. I think rather the pressure is on Porsche.

[ericld]

I prefer the M3 because they didn't stop at the motor, they actually put an interior in the car that doesn't look like spray painted silver plastic pieces in a 1998 KIA with a steering wheel from a Pontiac Grand Am.

You can't polish a turd.

[mkoesel]

The M3 and GT-R are no less competitors than the M3 and 911 are. There are many factors that set the two apart, just like there are vs. the Porsche. But they are both high performance 4 seat coupes that appeal to enthusiasts. The GT-R makes concessions in some areas, while the M3 does in other areas. For some people, this makes the BMW the better car while for others the GT-R is better. If, suppose, we were to redesign the cars such that the BMW conceded in the areas of the GT-R while the GT-R conceded in the areas of the M3, I doubt many people would suddenly switch camps. That is to say that, I'll bet for most people, the connection to their car is more emotional than logical, and they choose the car based on how they feel, and then make it fit with their lifestyle, rather than the other way around.

[E394KEN]

Yeah, agreed please dont bash someone because they drive a sepecific brand, dont throw stones. GTR thread old news, new one please. Interesting note on the Rennteam forum they discuss Nissan driving a dirty car for their record breaking Nurburgring Laps times. Interesting. Ive seen a few threads already with trannies dying and no replacements in sight. This is more than likely from abuse on the owners part.

But in the end so-what, no one is really bitchin about the car, and no one is not acknowledging it is a fast car.

[J08M3]

Fastest = Best only in a race. So yea, the GTR may be faster. But that doesn't necessarily make it the best car. If I thought the GTR was the best car then I would've bought one of them instead, as I'm sure many others in this forum would've also.

[Herms]

M3 is a better daily driver than all the cars you mention, even considering gas. the flaws you mentioned are track related; nothing to do with dd's.

also, while I actually really like the nissan and have been considering one, the more I read, the happier I am with the M3. The Nissan, for starters, isn't a great daily driver based on ride quality, but it apparently has a lot of issues with the transmission and Nissan has been denying warranty coverage (posts here about this, but if you even take VDC off or use the LC feature the car comes with, the warranty is questionable).

[ersin]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

The M3 and GT-R are no less competitors than the M3 and 911 are. There are many factors that set the two apart, just like there are vs. the Porsche. But they are both high performance 4 seat coupes that appeal to enthusiasts. The GT-R makes concessions in some areas, while the M3 does in other areas. For some people, this makes the BMW the better car while for others the GT-R is better. If, suppose, we were to redesign the cars such that the BMW conceded in the areas of the GT-R while the GT-R conceded in the areas of the M3, I doubt many people would suddenly switch camps. That is to say that, I'll bet for most people, the connection to their car is more emotional than logical, and they choose the car based on how they feel, and then make it fit with their lifestyle, rather than the other way around.

^^^ What he said. ^^^ Especially the last sentence.

P.S. Do you need to grow a third leg to use the dual clutch pedals? Or is this set up only for male drivers?

[arr0gant]

Originally Posted by impulsoren

And the one problem that kept me out of an M3 right away....lack of torque. As much as you guys argue about how great the high revs are, and then argue about how good a daily driver it is, the M3 just doesn't provide the low-end a daily driver needs. .

You have obviously never driven a new M3. You get just as much low-end torque as you do high up in the rev-range. It's an almost completely flat torque-band. So, most cars that have 400 lB-ft don't hit that 400 till up high and have 300 down low, JUST like the M3.

If anything you have TONS and TONS of torque down low and not enough up around 7k. So, you know NOTHING about this car!

People arent saying how great and revvy the engine is because of the torque. It's simply an amazing engine when revved and the RPM's climb. It has NOTHIGN to do with the torque and EVERYTHING to do with the HP (when revved high) that climbs up to peak out at 415 at 8400RPM.

Don't forget, the 911 GT3RS has 415BHP and 300 LB-FT!!

[ersin]

Originally Posted by arr0gant

You have obviously never driven a new M3.

I think people see the peak torque numbers of this car and just assume that the M3 doesn't have enough torque. What they miss is that gearing makes up for any engine torque and that it is the torque at the wheels that's important. Once you've driven one you will know that it has plenty of torque.

[Bimmer Nerd]

Originally Posted by ihyln

I find it amusing an accord driver has to come tell us this fascinating news.

i don't think he even has driven an a BMW, 91 accord guy telling people who have driven bmw's all there lifes that some cars are better than BMW ?? duh, they are better but most people here enjoy it for its sheer purpose to have fun and not to compete, yes competing sometimes can be fun but to what length ?? 100K is not competing no more (most of the time) its already wining.