BMW M3 / M4 Reviews Compilation

[solstice]

Isn't that exactly what all M cars always been, except the M1? Pimped up versions of the AG cars? The complaint must be aimed at the engine specifically and that they don't think that the 335i engine type is fitting for an M3/M4. I can't really comment on that until I drive it.

[FogCityM3]

It seems that the new gen has lost some of the raw frenetic nature of the E9x gen, which in turn was initially criticized by some as losing some of its rawness relative to the E46. Will be interesting to see what some of the American mags say (particularly C&D) when they do more in-depth reviews and comparos.

Originally Posted by Coolhydro

Top gear say M4 is a pimped up 335i. ROFL

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=778691

[JoeFromPA]

(Warning, bit long) Just to offer a perspective:

I think there is a difference between "raw, frenetic" nature and a car that basically requires you to wring the hell out of it to get a thrill. I've driven and, I think, owned both. And I think the idea that a car that is less raw and frenetic than it's predecessor is somehow more numb - this concept is fundamentally misleading.

On the one hand, I had a k20z3 8200rpm Honda 2.0 liter with their sweet 6-speed manual. Very short gearing, 200hp/140tq - required you to wring the heck out of it and it LOVED to rev. And it raced to redline. Lots of exhaust and induction noises, very pleasing noises too for a 4-cyl. Very balanced and well done chassis for a FWD car too, loved to dive into corners and change direction. Tight, precise, and short ratio steering.

But the car would also putter around at 75mph on the highway and wasn't too twitchy. So does that make it raw and frenetic? Or just a car that really encouraged you to wring it's neck to have fun?

...

On the other side, I owned a 2008 Subaru Legacy GT (2.5 liter turbo, 5-speed manual) with koni struts, poly bushings, thick sway bars, and an aggressive alignment.

That car had become raw and frenetic. It ALWAYS wanted to change direction, it required constant attention when driving around because it was so hyperactive in the suspension/steering department. It's engine required alot of throttle input to get the turbo to spool up and deliver.

Ya know what? Shortly after I got that car into a true raw, frenetic state....I sold it. It wasn't balanced anymore.

...

Lastly, a commentary on the e90 m3 vs. e39 m5. Both v8 M-series engines, the S62 in the m5 having (thus far) the longer racing history to my knowledge. (Didn't Dinan use the S62 as their v8 of choice for ~10 years?)

There have been a wide variety of e39 m5 owners who went to an e90 m3, and vice versa. The most common feedback I ever read was that owners of both loved to rev out the s65 but loved the everyday fun of driving the s62 - i.e. the s62 delivered alot more grunt and immediate reaction when stabbing the throttle anywhere from 2000-4500 rpms.

Ultimately, I don't think the measure of these cars is about whether they are raw/frenetic. They aren't and haven't been since the e30. They are compromise and everyday cars.

The question is more about the driver (reviewer or yourself): Do you prefer a car that requires constant attention and always has an "exciting" demeanor to it (i.e. loud, raucous, twitchy - but can not be turned down) or a car that is more mild-mannered until you begin giving it some and then opens up with thrust, feel, and sound.

[ss134]

Originally Posted by Coolhydro

Top gear say M4 is a pimped up 335i. ROFL

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=778691

Not the opinion of 95% of reviews including the important ones- Members of this forum who own/have owned previous Ms who are now starting to post their opinions after taking delivery- and I haven't read anything but glowing reports so far.

More than 50% of this car is different to a regular series car- saying it's just a ' ' 'pimped 335i' is just a basic lack of knowledge on the engineering differences between a normal BMW (your 335i for example) and an M car............ROFL.

[acey81]

Originally Posted by ss134

More than 50% of this car is different to a regular series car- saying it's just a ' ' 'pimped 335i' is just a basic lack of knowledge on the engineering differences between a normal BMW (your 335i for example) and an M car............ROFL.

My dealer claimed that 80% of the parts are either modified or replaced compared to the f3x. Does anyone know if this is true?

[Mako]

Originally Posted by acey81

My dealer claimed that 80% of the parts are either modified or replaced compared to the f3x. Does anyone know if this is true?

here is truth: don't believe 80% of what your dealer says...

[Carl L]

Originally Posted by acey81

My dealer claimed that 80% of the parts are either modified or replaced compared to the f3x. Does anyone know if this is true?

It's not, but more than 50% unique is per BMW and reviewers. That still makes the car tremendous value for money.

[ss134]

Originally Posted by Carl L

It's not, but more than 50% unique is per BMW and reviewers. That still makes the car tremendous value for money.

And let's not forget that all of the switches, indicators, buttons etc could towards this percentage. Almost every part that relates directly to performance in any way is new or modified.

[solstice]

I definately think there's room today for BMW to take the M cars a lot further in terms of being "hard core" and I wish they did. I understand people who want the car to be very fast while being driveable and comfortable but today the top end of the AG cars are just that whether it's a 550i, 650i, 335i or X5/X6 5.0. Very fast, very comfortable cars. With the right tune they become monsters. With M-Sport and after market exhausts they even look and sound like M cars. Sure the Ms take everything up a notch, especially handling but at some point it becomes a bit silly to retain the AG cars virtues to the expense of Motorsport and it would IMO be a more complete lineup if the M cars were more like Porsches GT cars. In the days of the E30, E36 and E46 the AG cars weren't really that powerful and it made more sense with the M concept of a very good DD first and race character 2nd.

The AG and M cars are now a lot closer in terms of performance that you practically use on the street than yesteryears. It's not mainly because the M cars are softer or relatively slower but because the AG cars are relatively much faster. The S65 was a clear differentiator in the E9X which was a good move taken the abilities of the 335i.

[Law]

50% is a good guess. According to BMW themselves, it is typical of their M-cars to have around 50% modified/unique components vs. the series models.
Not sure about the F8x, but the E9x M3 had "more than 80%" specific components, per BMW. No doubt the S65 engine had a lot to do with it.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by tdizzle

but all I've ever heard from the journalists is that it pulls hard to redline. That is in line with what BMW stated and what dynos have shown.

Categorically false. Well maybe not, I guess because maybe it is all YOU'VE personally ever heard. You clearly haven't read all of the reviews...

From the Evo review (and this certainly is not the only one noting some "softness up top"):

The M4’s engine is curious. The torque and mid-range punch are not in doubt. However, BMW’s claims that it still revs like a naturally aspirated engine are open to a bit more debate. If you accelerate hard down a long straight from the mid-range and hold on until the floating rev counter in the head-up display is glowing yellow and red before flicking the right-hand paddle, then acceleration seems unabated and the noise improves. However, there is certainly no final rush to the red line and the actual substance behind the last 1500rpm feels a bit thin. Instinctively you feel like you want to change up before you even start tickling the top end, and coming out of a corner you know that you want to be in the meat of the torque rather than at the peak of the power.

It’s certainly a very different experience to the E92, where the best drives I had were when the needle seemed to be living permanently above about 6000rpm.

And this is entirely consistent with the completely dissimilar S65 and S55 power curves. The S65 is like a perfectly flat hill all the way to redline (OK, OK, maybe just the tiniest dip from 8300-8400...) whereas the S55 is like a big wide plateau for over 2000 rpm of the top end.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Categorically false. From the Evo review (and not the only one noting some "softness up top"

And there's an equal amount that say the opposite.

I know you keep jumping to that one Evo review to prove your point swamp.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Jockey

And there's an equal amount that say the opposite.

I know you keep jumping to that one Evo review to prove your point swamp.

Others that say the opposite or just don't note the same fairly strong criticism? To me the opposite would be something like the S65, crazier, faster and frenetic all the way to redline. Can you post such a review?

Either way I firmly stand behind my reply as 100% appropriate to the one I replied to. One should seek correlation of the measurements and observations. The measurements directly from BMW for the engine are entirely consistent with the observations from Evo.

[FogCityM3]

I appreciate your perspective. I think I may have a different definition of frenetic. The S65 is basically a classic N/A race engine and totally acts like one. From the deep rumbling cold start, the engine's revs bob up and down on idle. Sometimes when you get going cold, the engine stutters a bit and you have to tap the throttle just to keep it from sputtering out. Then you disengage the clutch at the first stop sign (at least with the MT), tons of clacking as the clutch is depressed. You get on your way again, takes ~10 minutes for the oil to warm up to operating temperature as you slowly wait for the "all clear" on red limiter for the full 8600 rpm. Then you take the car in the twistys, hitting 6k-8.6k RPM, WOT, you brake into the turn and the engine and driveline help slow and "coil" the car up like a spring compressing, you throttle blip, downshift, then hit the throttle, instant response, the car springs out of its coil in a frenetic endless rush to redline. The howling intake noise dominating all sound gobbling up air rushing through the airbox and engine. Then you ease off the throttle and get back on, the car lurches in a hypersensitive fashion, trying to decide if you want to gun it again or pull back. You decide to pull back and you can hear the distinctive "whirring" of the valves working, the sound bouncing off the wall you're driving by with the windows rolled down.

That is the sound and feel of a race car, and that's what I call frenetic and fantastic!

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

(Warning, bit long) Just to offer a perspective:

I think there is a difference between "raw, frenetic" nature and a car that basically requires you to wring the hell out of it to get a thrill. I've driven and, I think, owned both. And I think the idea that a car that is less raw and frenetic than it's predecessor is somehow more numb - this concept is fundamentally misleading.

On the one hand, I had a k20z3 8200rpm Honda 2.0 liter with their sweet 6-speed manual. Very short gearing, 200hp/140tq - required you to wring the heck out of it and it LOVED to rev. And it raced to redline. Lots of exhaust and induction noises, very pleasing noises too for a 4-cyl. Very balanced and well done chassis for a FWD car too, loved to dive into corners and change direction. Tight, precise, and short ratio steering.

But the car would also putter around at 75mph on the highway and wasn't too twitchy. So does that make it raw and frenetic? Or just a car that really encouraged you to wring it's neck to have fun?

...

On the other side, I owned a 2008 Subaru Legacy GT (2.5 liter turbo, 5-speed manual) with koni struts, poly bushings, thick sway bars, and an aggressive alignment.

That car had become raw and frenetic. It ALWAYS wanted to change direction, it required constant attention when driving around because it was so hyperactive in the suspension/steering department. It's engine required alot of throttle input to get the turbo to spool up and deliver.

Ya know what? Shortly after I got that car into a true raw, frenetic state....I sold it. It wasn't balanced anymore.

...

Lastly, a commentary on the e90 m3 vs. e39 m5. Both v8 M-series engines, the S62 in the m5 having (thus far) the longer racing history to my knowledge. (Didn't Dinan use the S62 as their v8 of choice for ~10 years?)

There have been a wide variety of e39 m5 owners who went to an e90 m3, and vice versa. The most common feedback I ever read was that owners of both loved to rev out the s65 but loved the everyday fun of driving the s62 - i.e. the s62 delivered alot more grunt and immediate reaction when stabbing the throttle anywhere from 2000-4500 rpms.

Ultimately, I don't think the measure of these cars is about whether they are raw/frenetic. They aren't and haven't been since the e30. They are compromise and everyday cars.

The question is more about the driver (reviewer or yourself): Do you prefer a car that requires constant attention and always has an "exciting" demeanor to it (i.e. loud, raucous, twitchy - but can not be turned down) or a car that is more mild-mannered until you begin giving it some and then opens up with thrust, feel, and sound.

[Law]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

I appreciate your perspective. I think I may have a different definition of frenetic. The S65 is basically a classic N/A race engine and totally acts like one. From the deep rumbling cold start, the engine's revs bob up and down on idle. Sometimes when you get going cold, the engine stutters a bit and you have to tap the throttle just to keep it from sputtering out. Then you disengage the clutch at the first stop sign (at least with the MT), tons of clacking as the clutch is depressed. You get on your way again, takes ~10 minutes for the oil to warm up to operating temperature as you slowly wait for the "all clear" on red limiter for the full 8600 rpm. Then you take the car in the twistys, hitting 6k-8.6k RPM, WOT, you brake into the turn and the engine and driveline help slow and "coil" the car up like a spring compressing, you throttle blip, downshift, then hit the throttle, instant response, the car springs out of its coil in a frenetic endless rush to redline. The howling intake noise dominating all sound gobbling up air rushing through the airbox and engine. Then you ease off the throttle and get back on, the car lurches in a hypersensitive fashion, trying to decide if you want to gun it again or pull back. You decide to pull back and you can hear the distinctive "whirring" of the valves working, the sound bouncing off the wall you're driving by with the windows rolled down.

That is the sound and feel of a race car, and that's what I call frenetic and fantastic!

That was quite lyrical.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

I appreciate your perspective. I think I may have a different definition of frenetic. The S65 is basically a classic N/A race engine and totally acts like one. From the deep rumbling cold start, the engine's revs bob up and down on idle. Sometimes when you get going cold, the engine stutters a bit and you have to tap the throttle just to keep it from sputtering out. Then you disengage the clutch at the first stop sign (at least with the MT), tons of clacking as the clutch is depressed. You get on your way again, takes ~10 minutes for the oil to warm up to operating temperature as you slowly wait for the "all clear" on red limiter for the full 8600 rpm. Then you take the car in the twistys, hitting 6k-8.6k RPM, WOT, you brake into the turn and the engine and driveline help slow and "coil" the car up like a spring compressing, you throttle blip, downshift, then hit the throttle, instant response, the car springs out of its coil in a frenetic endless rush to redline. The howling intake noise dominating all sound gobbling up air rushing through the airbox and engine. Then you ease off the throttle and get back on, the car lurches in a hypersensitive fashion, trying to decide if you want to gun it again or pull back. You decide to pull back and you can hear the distinctive "whirring" of the valves working, the sound bouncing off the wall you're driving by with the windows rolled down.

That is the sound and feel of a race car, and that's what I call frenetic and fantastic!

I can agree with this romanticized, yet accurate description/depiction of the motor's characteristics (...and I missed that knocking of the clutch when disengaged, and how the motor was almost temperamental). The S54 was like this too. Both cars almost sound like something is mechanically wrong with them at start up. I loved it! The I6T motors are almost clinically sterile, but the S55 has a character of its own.

[Law]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I can agree with this romanticized, yet accurate description/depiction of the motor's characteristics (...and I missed that knocking of the clutch when disengaged, and how the motor was almost temperamental). The S54 was like this too. Both cars almost sound like something is mechanically wrong with them at start up. I loved it! The I6T motors are almost clinically sterile, but the S55 has a character of its own.

Well said as well. I particularly concur about the S54. You can really tell the S65 and S54 were developed by the same people with the same mindset just by driving both, such amazing emotional experiences from both. Driving both back to back, my friend once said "the S65 is like an S54 on steroids". After owning both, i'd certainly agree.
The S55 dawns a new era for the M3, it'll be interesting how this unfolds.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Others that say the opposite or just don't note the same fairly strong criticism? To me the opposite would be something like the S65, crazier, faster and frenetic all the way to redline. Can you post such a review?

If by opposite I mean "pulls to redline". There are quite a few reviews that say either that or something close to that. Now, you can keep moving the goalposts if you want (crazier, faster) or get into a semantical disagreement, that's up to you.

There's plenty of those reviews in the compilation thread. I know you know how to use the search function, knock yourself out.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Jockey

If by opposite I mean "pulls to redline". There are quite a few reviews that say either that or something close to that. Now, you can keep moving the goalposts if you want (crazier, faster) or get into a semantical disagreement, that's up to you.

There's plenty of those reviews in the compilation thread. I know you know how to use the search function, knock yourself out.

OK simple enough. We have in your opinion radically different reviews from journalists and then we have the facts. The facts are the power and torque curves from the manufacturer (which of course are not entirely true either as their shapes are almost for sure very accurate, but the peak values are clearly not). So some reviews agree with these facts and some directly contradict it. You can believe which ever of the two contradictory opinions you like.

That being said, I believe I have read very nearly all of the initial reviews and not one said that it has a similar engine character to the S65, which surely any rational person will agree is linear power and totally frenetic in the upper rpms all the way to redline. If the S55 "pulls hard to redline" then in comparison the S65 must have a built in nitrous like effect in the upper rpms...

[Jockey]

Well considering based off the power graphs and gearing, the optimum shift point is 7300 RPM (which is 300 RPM short of redline, I'll give you that), keeps in the max power band, that doesn't really sound like it "falls flat" above 5500.

Of course, you've taken part in those threads where that 7300 number was calculated, so there's no point in rehasing that, is there?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Jockey

Well considering based off the power graphs and gearing, the optimum shift point is 7300 RPM (which is 300 RPM short of redline, I'll give you that), keeps in the max power band, that doesn't really sound like it "falls flat" above 5500.

Of course, you've taken part in those threads where that 7300 number was calculated, so there's no point in rehasing that, is there?

This isn't true at all, actual driving and simulation both indicate short shifting is required in many different gears and in higher gears generally the ideal rpm drops. Traction can confound ideal shift points in low gears. How many testers and videos note consistent short shifting. Frenetic, pulling to redline, sorry, just not accurate.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by swamp2

This isn't true at all, actual driving and simulation both indicate short shifting is required in many different gears and in higher gears generally the ideal rpm drops. Traction can confound ideal shift points in low gears. How many testers and videos note consistent short shifting. Frenetic, pulling to redline, sorry, just not accurate.

Those calculations showed 7300 RPM swamp. You took part in those threads.

Just because you want to discount other reviews that disagree with your opinion, that's up to you.