335i driver does test-drive with M3

[hwelvaar]

I currently drive a E92 335i (since 8 months) and I recently did a 1-hour test-drive with the E92 M3.

My opinion:
- I prefer the torque of 335i for daily driving (and my 335i is still stock) - it makes your car real fast in daily traffic
- when you're not revving, the M3 feels slow ; I was *really* disappointed. I was *hoping* that the M3 would blow me away, so I could convince my own brain to drop the extra bucks to get an M3. But it didn't. Not on normal roads.
- the sound of M3 engine is fantastic in high revs, but not noticable in low and mid RPMs
- the sound of 335i is very nice in both mid and high RPMs
- I prefer the suspension of the M3 for daily driving (with EDC in comfort) and the fact that you can switch to sport when needed;
- It felt good to drive around in a car labeled "M3"
- I prefer the looks of stock M3 over stock 335i (no-brainer)
- LSD is a must-have for occasional fun drifting !
- 1 hour-drive on normal roads, and 1/4th of the M3 fuel tank is empty -> M3 really drinks alot !
- the brakes on the M3 are definitely good (and noticably better than stock 335i)


So yes I can modify the 335i, throw in PROcede, an LSD, Bilstein suspension with electronic comfort and sport setting, some carbon for the external, and a big brake kit. I would not need to fear to pull up next to a stock M3 at the lights, and certainly not when doing rolling starts.

But I'd still not have an M3 badge. And I must admit that saying 'I drive an M3" would make me feel better than "I drive a 335i"

Also, I'm afraid to tune my 335i. Basically I never had any tuning done on any of my previous cars either.

Conclusion for me personal: Today's turbo engines is what you want if you'll be driving +95% of the time on normal roads. I want an E92, with all the tech options of the M3, but with a modded 400HP 500Nml torque 3L twin-turbo engine of the 335i.

That car would rock. Even better, if some tuner would come out with a reliable turbo-kit for the E92 M3, which would deliver low-rev torque, that would be heavon on earth for me.


Any thoughts ?

[footie]

Well put and agree with every single thing you said.

Oh by the way, you are correct that saying you drive an M3 does have a certain ring to it which I am looking forward to.

[Davo2003]

I wonder how my review would look if I drove my M3 for eight months then jumped in a 335i. My guess is the 335i would have glaring shortcomings though it is a great car. Plus I just love the flared fenders and 19's, would be nice to get a look at a 335i and M3 compared from the rear...can't beat that wide stance and quad exhaust...

[Just_me]

I've driven both 335i and M3 as well. I pick the M3, much more sporty character and reeving is also a bonus. I dont need the fastest redlight racer , I just want the more engaging ride and that is easily the M3.

M3 with DKG is perfect and we have a dream combination.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

That car would rock. Even better, if some tuner would come out with a reliable turbo-kit for the E92 M3, which would deliver low-rev torque, that would be heavon on earth for me.

Oh I'm sure this will happen eventually. But I bet it will cost you an additional USD $15k or more.

I think exhaust, intake, tune, will still get you decent gains though (+40hp).

[Keto]

I can say that after driving an E46 for 4 years now, you just need to learn to love revving the engine to really maximize your DD experience. Staying at 2000-4000 rpm just won't cut it.

[the_stranger]

nice review

[dakulov]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

I currently drive a E92 335i (since 8 months) and I recently did a 1-hour test-drive with the E92 M3.

My opinion:
- I prefer the torque of 335i for daily driving (and my 335i is still stock) - it makes your car real fast in daily traffic
- when you're not revving, the M3 feels slow ; I was *really* disappointed. I was *hoping* that the M3 would blow me away, so I could convince my own brain to drop the extra bucks to get an M3. But it didn't. Not on normal roads.
- the sound of M3 engine is fantastic in high revs, but not noticable in low and mid RPMs
- the sound of 335i is very nice in both mid and high RPMs
- I prefer the suspension of the M3 for daily driving (with EDC in comfort) and the fact that you can switch to sport when needed;
- It felt good to drive around in a car labeled "M3"
- I prefer the looks of stock M3 over stock 335i (no-brainer)
- LSD is a must-have for occasional fun drifting !
- 1 hour-drive on normal roads, and 1/4th of the M3 fuel tank is empty -> M3 really drinks alot !
- the brakes on the M3 are definitely good (and noticably better than stock 335i)


So yes I can modify the 335i, throw in PROcede, an LSD, Bilstein suspension with electronic comfort and sport setting, some carbon for the external, and a big brake kit. I would not need to fear to pull up next to a stock M3 at the lights, and certainly not when doing rolling starts.

But I'd still not have an M3 badge. And I must admit that saying 'I drive an M3" would make me feel better than "I drive a 335i"

Also, I'm afraid to tune my 335i. Basically I never had any tuning done on any of my previous cars either.

Conclusion for me personal: Today's turbo engines is what you want if you'll be driving +95% of the time on normal roads. I want an E92, with all the tech options of the M3, but with a modded 400HP 500Nml torque 3L twin-turbo engine of the 335i.

That car would rock. Even better, if some tuner would come out with a reliable turbo-kit for the E92 M3, which would deliver low-rev torque, that would be heavon on earth for me.


Any thoughts ?

Your car is Alpina B3.
360hp
500nm
4.8 0-100
All the cons of a stock production car (garantee, service) plus exclusivity of Alpina.
http://www.alpina-automobiles.com/cm...php?sprache=2#

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

I currently drive a E92 335i (since 8 months) and I recently did a 1-hour test-drive with the E92 M3.

My opinion:
- I prefer the torque of 335i for daily driving (and my 335i is still stock) - it makes your car real fast in daily traffic
- when you're not revving, the M3 feels slow ; I was *really* disappointed. I was *hoping* that the M3 would blow me away, so I could convince my own brain to drop the extra bucks to get an M3. But it didn't. Not on normal roads.
- the sound of M3 engine is fantastic in high revs, but not noticable in low and mid RPMs
- the sound of 335i is very nice in both mid and high RPMs
- I prefer the suspension of the M3 for daily driving (with EDC in comfort) and the fact that you can switch to sport when needed;
- It felt good to drive around in a car labeled "M3"
- I prefer the looks of stock M3 over stock 335i (no-brainer)
- LSD is a must-have for occasional fun drifting !
- 1 hour-drive on normal roads, and 1/4th of the M3 fuel tank is empty -> M3 really drinks alot !
- the brakes on the M3 are definitely good (and noticably better than stock 335i)


So yes I can modify the 335i, throw in PROcede, an LSD, Bilstein suspension with electronic comfort and sport setting, some carbon for the external, and a big brake kit. I would not need to fear to pull up next to a stock M3 at the lights, and certainly not when doing rolling starts.

But I'd still not have an M3 badge. And I must admit that saying 'I drive an M3" would make me feel better than "I drive a 335i"

Also, I'm afraid to tune my 335i. Basically I never had any tuning done on any of my previous cars either.

Conclusion for me personal: Today's turbo engines is what you want if you'll be driving +95% of the time on normal roads. I want an E92, with all the tech options of the M3, but with a modded 400HP 500Nml torque 3L twin-turbo engine of the 335i.

That car would rock. Even better, if some tuner would come out with a reliable turbo-kit for the E92 M3, which would deliver low-rev torque, that would be heavon on earth for me.


Any thoughts ?

I have a few questions with this review:

1) If the engine was not any faster on normal roads, how could you tell the brakes are much better? The 335i has bigger brakes than the e46 M3, certainly more than sufficient for normal roads.

2) You don't feel comfortable putting even a mild +50HP, +60TQ chip into your 335i, such as an SSTT, but "heaven on earth" for you would be an entire aftermarket turbo system on the M3?

[hwelvaar]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

I have a few questions with this review:

1) If the engine was not any faster on normal roads, how could you tell the brakes are much better? The 335i has bigger brakes than the e46 M3, certainly more than sufficient for normal roads.

2) You don't feel comfortable putting even a mild +50HP, +60TQ chip into your 335i, such as an SSTT, but "heaven on earth" for you would be an entire aftermarket turbo system on the M3?

1] Just ran the M3 to 200 Kph (like 125 Mph) on a deserted road and then pushed the brake hard to full stop a few times. It stops hard. Much harder than my 335i.

2] You're right, sounds strange. But in my head, that would be the only mod I'd need on the new M3. (instead of engine mod plus also aftermarket brakes, LSD, suspension, exhaust and carbon/plastic optics on the 335i)
And the lack of low rev torque power (well, 'low' is relative but remember I'm comparing to my twin-turbo 335i) is for me the deciding factor that makes me hesitate to buy the new M3.


Maybe I just need to 'learn' to drive around in medium and high revs, but that would really kill the mpg.

[consolidated]

335i is a perfectly fine street car, but the M3 shines at the track or above 8/10th I'd bet. if one's just looking to race the next dude to the onramp then there's no sense in not getting a 335i, unless you want the M badge, that's what BMW's counting on.

[Rimola]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

if some tuner would come out with a reliable turbo-kit for the E92 M3, which would deliver low-rev torque, that would be heavon on earth for me.


Any thoughts ?

someone explain to me how installing a turbo would deilver LOW end torque your turbo won't be kicking till maybee 3K, thats not exactly low

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

1] Just ran the M3 to 200 Kph (like 125 Mph) on a deserted road and then pushed the brake hard to full stop a few times. It stops hard. Much harder than my 335i.

2] You're right, sounds strange. But in my head, that would be the only mod I'd need on the new M3. (instead of engine mod plus also aftermarket brakes, LSD, suspension, exhaust and carbon/plastic optics on the 335i)
And the lack of low rev torque power (well, 'low' is relative but remember I'm comparing to my twin-turbo 335i) is for me the deciding factor that makes me hesitate to buy the new M3.

Maybe I just need to 'learn' to drive around in medium and high revs, but that would really kill the mpg.

Thanks for the clarification!

[JEllis]

interesting review... the amount of available torque in the low revs of the 335i is awesome!

Jason

[Rimola]

yeah i guess the TT does work

[swamp2]

@hwelvaar: You can no longer "drop in" a LSD to the 335i initially this was a bolt in enhancement. BMW now welds the existing diff into the 335i. I'd say this is pure greed on their behalf.

@Keto: +1 about how you have to drive an M3 (E30, E36, E46, E92 - they are all a bit the same here). The revs are for appreciation and if you short shift the car constantly it will be less enjoyable. Simple.

[lucid]

What nonsense about the claimed higher low-end torque of the 335 being more suitable for daily driving! Stop staring at dyno charts and reaching such conclusions. Think about the final drive ratio and the individual gear ratios if you are indeed focused on feeling the instantaneous acceleration wheel torque results in.

Tq@Wheels = Tq@WheelDyno x Total Reduction

I made some quick spreadsheet calculations and plots based on dyno data for both cars. Below is the proof that the M3 has more torque at the wheels once you are over 1500 rpms in 1st gear. Who drives a sports car below that, even on public roads?

Dyno data source: http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=768

[termigni]

^ you ever driven an M3? that spreadsheet you made is totally useless as it proves nothing.

Unless you are willing to call the man a liar, please stop with magazines and the spreadsheets on your screen and go test drive one when it comes out.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by termigni

^ you ever driven an M3? that spreadsheet you made is totally useless as it proves nothing.

Unless you are willing to call the man a liar, please stop with magazines and the spreadsheets on your screen and go test drive one when it comes out.

You are disputing F = m x a?

What magazines are you referring to? I didn't refer to any myself.

I'll drive the M3 as soon as I can get my hands on one, but that's not necessary to understand what causes instantaneous acceleration. Instantaneous acceleration is what the body "feels". And it is caused by the torque applied at the wheels. Period.

Explain to us what causes instantaneous acceleration if that is false and publish that one. You might be famous.

[Sick Speed]

Originally Posted by Keto

I can say that after driving an E46 for 4 years now, you just need to learn to love revving the engine to really maximize your DD experience. Staying at 2000-4000 rpm just won't cut it.

Keto - Dead on my friend. There is nothing so sweet sounding to the human ear than those long revs through 4th - 5th into 6th.

SS

[lucid]

Originally Posted by consolidated

if one's just looking to race the next dude to the onramp then there's no sense in not getting a 335i, unless you want the M badge, that's what BMW's counting on.

Not true. The M3 will be faster than the 335i in an onramp race.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by termigni

^ you ever driven an M3? that spreadsheet you made is totally useless as it proves nothing.

Unless you are willing to call the man a liar, please stop with magazines and the spreadsheets on your screen and go test drive one when it comes out.

Get real. Physics, engineering, simulation sofware and even spreadsheets are what design the cars we drive; they describe the real world. This has nothing to do with who has driven what. I tire so easily from this absurd argument that seat time is "the only thing that matters" or that it is "the only real way to judge a car". This is dark ages thinking quite frankly. Lucids arguments are sound as is his conclusion. You can put an accelerometer in the two cars and verify it. You could also compare some rolling start performance differences.