Chris Harris F80 M3 review testing notes

[rich8102]

If I were looking for a daily driver it wouldn't be an M car. I would get a 335/435. I want my M car to be truly special and appeal to the niche. Def not the masses. If I'm driving an M I'm really not too concerned with mpg. Give me a BEAST that is full of excitement!!! If I stop for a couple extra fill ups at the pump, it's all good. It gives me time to admire the car from the outside too.

[Audio Fan]

You have to look at the total package guys and drive it yourself. All parts can't be perfect to all people, but together they will be perfect for a vast majority.

Almost every single review is glowing. Reviewers have to pick nits, and many try to say stuff to feel important, capable, or better than the rest. The expectations for these cars is sky high, and the reviewers that mention that, all have said that it has exceeded the high expectations. That is so hard to do.

There are a great deal of reviewers talking about how well BMW did with the steering and sound, especially for a turbo. These are minor nits to some and real issues to virtually no one, expect those who can't see the big picture. If you expect each part of the whole to be perfect, you need to get in the line to meet Santa or the Easter Bunny.

BMW had to make this the best M3/4 by far for two reasons: dropping to a turbo six and changing the name to M4 for the coupe. What the reviewers have alluded to and we will see is that this will be by far the biggest evolutionary jump in performance among the M3 generations. It's going to be quick, powerful, agile, and a boat load of fun. Much more than any other. I miss the time when we just worried about colors. All of this negativity is like bringing Debbie Downer to a party that we've been waiting on for a long time.

[ns2000x]

Each time BMW launches a great car we have to hate on it and pick staunch battles over our personal choices. Some classics:

335i vs E9x M3
6MT vs M-DCT
1M vs E9x M3
M235i vs 1M

With the most recent
F8x M3/4 vs M5
F8x M3/4 vx E9x M3

Wouldn't we be better served complaining about the duds in BMW's line up in a hope to provide public perception (beyond sales numbers) back to any BMW forum lerkers.

I think the F8x was always going to be fantastic.

People will buy them in droves and the number of cars on the street quicker than mine will continue to grow. Will I not smile and give them a geeky car enthusiast thumbs up? Before then (road conditions allowing) drop a few gears and give them a 8300rpm exhaust shrill in the hope they'll stomp on it and let me watch them fly.

Cheers

James

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Blipit_

Sutcliffe is one of the more well respected in his field as is Harris.

Absolutely. I do feel like his reviews tended to be better years ago than they are now, but that could be my rose tinted glasses.

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

Meh, I think he's a putz.

To me, there are only two guys who can truly articulate the essence of what it means to drive a particular car into words. Chris Harris and Harry Catchpole. There are other guys who are close (like Jethro Bovington) and then there are most of the rest, who are either hacks, press-whores, or buffoons.

The thing that does it for me is exactly what Chris did in this article - give you perspective. Compare it to cars to give you an idea of what it's like, as well as what it's not like. Compare it to cars that you SHOULD compare it to for perspective, not ones you shouldn't compare it to because they are "market rivals". Face it, despite the E92 and the C63 AMG both being C-class sized coupes with V8's and DCT's, their mission and driving sensations couldn't be more different. One is not going to drive those two and say, "I'm buying car XX because it's executed it's mission 'better'." You buy it because those things that you value higher than others are better represented in that car you chose.

Like with a Macca 650S vs. a Speciale. You can't tell me that one of those cars is BETTER. They are DIFFERENT and what's better for you is not necessarily better for me.

Chris and Harry don't fall into that trap. Sutcliffe did.

That's interesting. You're the first person I've seen who likes Harris and Catchpole, but you're not as crazy about Suttcliffe and Bovingdon.

I think they all have distinct strengths, but the underlying trait they all share is an ability to convey a vivid picture and explain things in a relative viewpoint. They all happen to be great more than capable of taking most tested cars to their limit, and can talk fluidly while doing so. My take on the four:

Harris:
+Amazing vocabulary, really articulate.
+His ability to control oversteer is well above your typical journo.
-You can make the argument that he drifts too much, but he's honest about it and knows that it doesn't offer much value outside of popcorn entertainment.

Catchpole:
+Great storytelling, descriptive vocab.
+His level-headed composure. He's always calm and collective to the point that you can't help but smile whenever he cracks one as they're rare to see.

Bovingdon:
+He's always enthusiastic, smiling, and just seems genuinely happy getting behind the wheel of a proper car.
+He's very critical, in a good way.

Suttcliffe:
+Also seems to be happy all the time. Always throwing out the British lingo like "bonkers" and "crackers."
+Seems to do a lot of interesting comparisons with Autocar, and his opinions are usually different than the norm.

Edit: I re-read your post and it looks like I misread your mention of Bovingdon. Carlos Lago has the potential to be a great state-side reviewer, too. He's good now, but he lacks variety with his descriptions. I can only listen to him say "this car [turns/breaks/accelerates] really, really, really [well/poorly]".

[jbrucebmw]

I'm excited to see the video. I've always felt Chris Harris reviews even going back to his Evo magazine days are some of the best, most carefully considered and aligned with real world enthusiasts.

[Law]

Originally Posted by myzmak

Not trolling, genuine questions on that last point:

- why is 'high rpm to the detriment of low rpm' better than 'consistent and solid throughout'?
- why, in general, would high rpm be a specifically desireable thing? (i mean, yes, it sounds nice and can be fun to redline a car out....but for most driving, it makes it more difficult and for anything that isnt tracking, it just means to get that power you are going to waste a bajillion extra litres of gas....)

Curious is all.

Traditionally, high-RPM is a concept derived from racing since there were often limitations on displacement and bans on forced induction applications.

High-RPM was the most efficient way of extracting the most horsepower out of an engine given a particular displacement.
High revving engines also make the most out of an aggressive gearing setup (i.e., shorter gears), immensely multiplying torque at the wheels. This is evident in previous threads that showed that the E9X M3 had more thrust & wheel torque vs. competitors that had more engine torque but less at the wheels due to gearing.
This is precisely the advantage that high-rpm engines have & while not so beneficial for MPG or low-end torque, it is still preferred in many racing applications.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by Law

Traditionally, high-RPM is a concept derived from racing since there were often limitations on displacement and bans on forced induction applications.

High-RPM was the most efficient way of extracting the most horsepower out of an engine given a particular displacement.
High revving engines also make the most out of an aggressive gearing setup (i.e., shorter gears), immensely multiplying torque at the wheels. This is evident in previous threads that showed that the E9X M3 had more thrust & wheel torque vs. competitors that had more engine torque but less at the wheels due to gearing.
This is precisely the advantage that high-rpm engines have & while not so beneficial for MPG or low-end torque, it is still preferred in many racing applications.

right, which was where I was thinking most of the 'pro-high-rpm' views come from.

Without detracting from its historical importance and the nostalgic ties to racing traditions, etc, for a car that is essentially a entry level luxury/sports car (the 3 series) that has been modded to make it a track killing beast, is the high rpm 'benefit' necessary or the way to go? Given the variable use of this car (I mean, is there anyone that only tracks their M3? And if they exist, are they more than a very small fraction of M3 owners?) isn't a shit-ton of TQ throughout the range probably better for this car (appreciating that in other applications a different power structure might be preferred)?

[Sedan_Clan]

I rate the availability of the MT over the sound that a car makes. I could really give two hoots how the car sounds.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I rate the availability of the MT over the sound that a car makes. I could really give two hoots how the car sounds.

But how would those hoots sound?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by myzmak

But how would those hoots sound?

Kinda like this....."pfft pfffft!"

[Law]

Originally Posted by myzmak

right, which was where I was thinking most of the 'pro-high-rpm' views come from.

Without detracting from its historical importance and the nostalgic ties to racing traditions, etc, for a car that is essentially a entry level luxury/sports car (the 3 series) that has been modded to make it a track killing beast, is the high rpm 'benefit' necessary or the way to go? Given the variable use of this car (I mean, is there anyone that only tracks their M3? And if they exist, are they more than a very small fraction of M3 owners?) isn't a shit-ton of TQ throughout the range probably better for this car (appreciating that in other applications a different power structure might be preferred)?

Good questions. Nowadays, it may be less relevant.
The generations of before relied on this because forced induction was not advanced enough to be a good substitute. Whether or not it is a viable alternative now is still a matter of debate but it seems that BMW M has determined that the current technologies are enough to suffice.

I see arguments for both.
High revving natural aspiration has long been a hallmark of M-cars due to the reasons we mentioned above (i.e., motorsports) and BMW M continuing to position itself as a brand born from racing naturally carried this concept through its bloodline. It was appropriate at the time & i think most of us will agree this formula worked extremely well.

Your points on the variable use of these cars could very well be one of the reasons why this concept was abandoned & reapplied differently.
That combined with increased competition in the segment & the stricter emissions regulations make the current FI era a no-brainer from a business perspective.

[ska///235i]

Originally Posted by M4 JTD

Chris's notes ahead of the video release:

Engine
Weird noise to begin with. No word of a lie, I laughed out loud when trying to define it - all I could think was 'mapped 335d'. It's less musical, lower frequency and less clearly straight-six than the M235i I'm currently driving. At first I didn't like it much, then it became a non-issue and after thrashing around a circuit for a while I almost liked it. But it's a million miles from the E46 and E92. Would I buy an everyday car on the basis of noise? Probably not. Radio 4 and ZZ Top will always overcome.

Performance
Scorching. The manual will hit 100mph in nine seconds dead, the DCT in 8.7 seconds. It hardly feels turbocharged and the torque is all-consuming. Real-world, this car is miles quicker than the old E92, and the torque means the rear axle loads up much earlier in a given turn, meaning you have the sensation of controlling the car's attitude with your right foot far more than you did before.

Throttle response.
I didn't have any problem with the throttle response. In comfort the throttle is long and a little lazy - normally I like that, but the shorter sport and sport-plus settings worked better in this car for me. In the latter the speakers mess around with the intake noise some more. Compared to, say, an E46 you lose a tiny amount of instant zap, but considering it has two turbochargers, you can take several stabs mid-corner to trim your line and the response is always there. It's worth revving out to 7,500rpm too.

More engine..
Proper M engine, turbos and all? Yup Fuel economy at a cruise is miles better than before - a genuine 30mpg - whereas I used to see 19mpg in my E92. The M3 badly needed some range, it now has it. This is perhaps the most important improvement over the outgoing V8.

Is the motor special enough? For a quick track blast and a few hours on the road, to impress a few hacks? Probably not, especially in light of the deranged V8 model's zap and DTM blare beyond 7,500rpm. But for everyday use, the torque, the sheer speed and the range make the new gizzards - for me - far more appealing.

Colleagues have given it real flak, with the insinuation that it isn't special (dry sump, forged crank anyone?) but I'd buy this car because of the motor, not in spite of it.

Chassis
Flipping good.

Steering
Leave it in comfort. The other two settings simply add weight, and I disliked them both. The 3 Series electric steering rack has been comprehensively re-engineered for this car, at vast expense. Does it feel like a conventional hydraulic rack? Nope. Is it exceedingly accurate? Yes. And the world really does have a short memory if it cites the last two M3s as being steering paragons. The E46 was light but accurate, the E92 lacked initial response off-centre. Neither were great.

This is not steering to savour, but it gives the driver instant confidence, and that is a brilliant trick when allied to all that front axle grip. For a big car, you can place the M3 with uncanny accuracy.

Gearbox
I only drove a DCT, and the manual would need to be somewhere near a late NSX in shift quality to persuade me to not have the two-pedal car. The dual-clutch is fast, smooth in town, gives extra fuel economy and it just suits the power and torque delivery of the motor. Fast shifts give a decent exhaust crack too.

Brakes
We had the optional carbon ceramics, which will make prospective owners look away because they're too expensive. Well, BMW is talking about €7,000 for them, and they're plain superb. If I was going to use this car as intended, I'd have them, and normally I always advise the cheaper steel option. I'm saying that partly because with the standard Super Sport rubber and those ceramic stoppers, you have something instantly track-able.

Cabin
Single piece front seats are spot-on. Steering wheel still too thick, hi-fi very good, iDrive still baffling. Just the right amount of bespoke touches to make it feel that much more special than an F30 3 Series. Incidentally, geeks like me are rejoicing that this car gets its own internal designation - F80. The coupe is F82.

Looks
Not mine to judge really. But if the M3, in that baby blue colour (which is actually a metallic on closer inspection) isn't the best looking M3 since the 1990 Sport Evolution, then I'll call all those E46 CSL owners Jessies. Actually, the CSL is a belting looking thing, isn't it. Look, the F80 has such a sexy rear axle set-down on the road, that people like us will point and grin at them.

Would you?
Absolutely. I loved my E92, but it was surprisingly limited as my daily driver. Opportunities to enjoy that motor beyond 7,000 were predictably limited, the lack of torque left you exposed to turbo hot hatches and, well, you know my thoughts on the range.

This car rights all of those wrongs. In isolation, the motor gets blown into next week by the current C63 507 for pure noise and theatre, but on the road the BMW's fuel consumption and massive torque would swing it for me. Sounds boring, but that's what matters in a daily driver.Not to mention the transmission which makes the Merc's feel pretty antiquated now. And I still think the powertrain feels special enough for an M car.

The rest of the package is BMW M at its best. I think it's a truly special car. It made me smile for the two days that I drove it. When the video comes out in the next few weeks, watch the section where we talk through the level of modification over standard 3er. This car is 50 per cent new.

It's a blinder. I'll have the saloon, the dampers, the big brakes, the DCT, and probably the baby blue. So exactly the car I drove on the launch then.

Chris


Read full notes here:
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/defa...?storyId=30002

Thx

[Kuwen]

Originally Posted by rich8102

If I were looking for a daily driver it wouldn't be an M car. I would get a 335/435. I want my M car to be truly special and appeal to the niche. Def not the masses. If I'm driving an M I'm really not too concerned with mpg. Give me a BEAST that is full of excitement!!! If I stop for a couple extra fill ups at the pump, it's all good. It gives me time to admire the car from the outside too.

Can't help but suggest the car your describing falls more in Viper territory than M territory.

I also can't help but think if price (incl. fuel economy) were no object, 9+ people out of 10 would prefer an M3/M4 or M5/M6 over the vehicles from which they're derived (and have for generations) which is contrary to the idea that they should or have only appealed to a niche group.

Truly special cars are not exlusive to those with niche appeal, in fact in my mind it's the exact opposite. The fact that reviewer after reviewer has stated the M3/M4 can be your daily driver through the week, cart your family around in the evenings and serve up bliss on the track on the weekends is something precious few manufacturers offer.

[solstice]

"why is 'high rpm to the detriment of low rpm' better than 'consistent and solid throughout'?"

It's a preference some of us have. I could not afford high performance cars when I got to the age of having a driver's license. Hence I gravitated towards sports bikes. The first time I rode a GSX-R 1100 at age 18 it took my breath away and I had to have it. The rush of an high rpm performance engine screaming towards a high redline is truly something special that to me no high TQ engine can compete with. It's what I prefer and what I feel is a racing character. It also makes for an engine easier to modulate when driving on the vehicles limits. You don;t see many bikes with turbos and there is a reason for that. The power delivery is just to abrubt which make it hard to handle. I will always prefer this type of power delivery, always. However I don't dislike turbo cars, they have their own charm just like a high TQ low rpm Harley Davidson engine has and has just as many if not more passionate followers.

[YungDro]

Originally Posted by rich8102

If I were looking for a daily driver it wouldn't be an M car. I would get a 335/435. I want my M car to be truly special and appeal to the niche. Def not the masses. If I'm driving an M I'm really not too concerned with mpg. Give me a BEAST that is full of excitement!!! If I stop for a couple extra fill ups at the pump, it's all good. It gives me time to admire the car from the outside too.

he did say its special though and a proper M car. sounds and looks nothing like a 335i or a 435i. Plus it looks stunning. If you want it to be more special than it already is just wait for a special edition version such as a GTS or CSL in future.. IMO it is a beast than can also be used for a daily driver which really is the best of both worlds. the new m3 m4 does 8.7 to 100mph thats f***ing nuts for public roads.. and with a simple ecu tune which most M3 / M4 owners are going to do it will be even faster

[YungDro]

Originally Posted by Tonymiabmw

Sutcliffs approach was basically the car doesn't have the sound, or throttle response of a V8 so I'm disappointed. To me I just don't find that a very good review. It didn't tell me anything. Just that he favors a V8. I just don't see a Chris Harris review based around I don't like this car because it doesn't have a big N/A V8.

+1

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by BMW M3 CRT

Can you show me, where he say this ???

For me this sounds more like ... "you must controll the rear axis of the car better to be fast" ... what for him means more fun !?

I think the relevant quote is this:

"Compared to, say, an E46 you lose a tiny amount of instant zap, but considering it has two turbochargers, you can take several stabs mid-corner to trim your line and the response is always there."

Although, the person you're replying to said "previous gen", which would have been the E92.

It's a nuanced point, and I'm not sure the person you were replying to took it correctly.

Firstly, would you consider the throttle response of the S65 to be sharper than the S54? I wouldn't. The S65 has more power, but throttle response on the S54 was spectacular as well. So Chris is saying that the S55 doesn't have the same throttle response. No surprise there. Then he goes on evaluate it in context.

"...you can take several stabs mid-corner to trim your line and the response is always there."

I think we could safely say that Chris is indicating that the throttle response is adequate to control the attitude with the throttle. However, the part about how you can take several stabs, I think, is a qualifier. That is to say, it requires several stabs. He's saying, it's still possible to control corner attitude with the throttle using a few stabs. He doesn't state it explicitly, but with the S65, it's a single stab. All 8 cylinders show up immediately.

That's my interpretation anyway.

[DieGrüneHölle]

Originally Posted by Never Convicted

LOL...last night you were saying where's the Chris Harris review so we can get the true story, and now you say that Sutcliffe is his equal, because he picked another car for the sound it makes. Maybe they should sumo wrestle so you can pick?

No. I hold Sutcliffe view just as equally as Harris. They are both top shelf journalists. They just happen to have a different opinion. Harris even eluded to that in is remarks. I guess you can find that amusing.

I remember saying Harris's review was going to be one giant nut gusher. You could tell by his tweets, he would not shut up. Don't remember saying true story. But I am probably mis-remembering.

I can also give some cliff notes of the Sutcliffe comparo if you only think he picked the C63 because of engine noise.

[DieGrüneHölle]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

Absolutely. I do feel like his reviews tended to be better years ago than they are now, but that could be my rose tinted glasses.



That's interesting. You're the first person I've seen who likes Harris and Catchpole, but you're not as crazy about Suttcliffe and Bovingdon.

I think they all have distinct strengths, but the underlying trait they all share is an ability to convey a vivid picture and explain things in a relative viewpoint. They all happen to be great more than capable of taking most tested cars to their limit, and can talk fluidly while doing so. My take on the four:

Harris:
+Amazing vocabulary, really articulate.
+His ability to control oversteer is well above your typical journo.
-You can make the argument that he drifts too much, but he's honest about it and knows that it doesn't offer much value outside of popcorn entertainment.

Catchpole:
+Great storytelling, descriptive vocab.
+His level-headed composure. He's always calm and collective to the point that you can't help but smile whenever he cracks one as they're rare to see.

Bovingdon:
+He's always enthusiastic, smiling, and just seems genuinely happy getting behind the wheel of a proper car.
+He's very critical, in a good way.

Suttcliffe:
+Also seems to be happy all the time. Always throwing out the British lingo like "bonkers" and "crackers."
+Seems to do a lot of interesting comparisons with Autocar, and his opinions are usually different than the norm.

Edit: I re-read your post and it looks like I misread your mention of Bovingdon. Carlos Lago has the potential to be a great state-side reviewer, too. He's good now, but he lacks variety with his descriptions. I can only listen to him say "this car [turns/breaks/accelerates] really, really, really [well/poorly]".

Catchpole does has some very good reviews. Enyoed the recent video of the CRT. Dickie Meaden from Evo is also quite good.

Lago not so good. Of the American journalists/reviewers he is probably the best.

[M3guy3]

so over all the car will be great. although he hints at certain things that some people might not like. as someone who owned a e92 and e46. i feel that high RPM sound and feel might be a bit disappointing in the new car. for the first time in years, i might not be getting a M car.

[V1.47fan]

I'm waiting for Jeremy Clarkson to tell me which car to get.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by Tonymiabmw

Sutcliffs approach was basically the car doesn't have the sound, or throttle response of a V8 so I'm disappointed. To me I just don't find that a very good review. It didn't tell me anything. Just that he favors a V8. I just don't see a Chris Harris review based around I don't like this car because it doesn't have a big N/A V8.

Sutcliffe also preferred the W204's hydraulic steering.

But, he preferred the DCT to the MCT. I just have a feeling that not many people paid close attention to the review. He heaped plenty of praise on the M as well.

In any event, I thought Chris once again gave his honest opinion of the car. He touched on all of the things that matter to us as enthusiasts.

His video review will likely be the most comprehensive yet.

Very much looking forward to driving the F80.