Motortrend's Carlos Lagos reviews 2015 M3

[Marioalex24]

Today when I pick up my M3 from service at pacific BMW. Saw the new M4 in their show rooms in AW and fell in love at first sight. Therefore I just convince the wife that I'm ordering one. At first I thought it was too big and not so pretty but man after seeing it in person I'm sold. And I haven't even driving it lol.

All these review give positive feed back from the new m3/4. That no doubt I'll be buying one soon.

[Savory]

Reading the youtube comments, I get the feeling no one wanted this car to succeed in the first place just because of Active Sound. It gets a glowing review from Carlos, lays down the numbers (60-0 in 99 ft is ridiculous for a family sedan) and is apparently worthy of the M3 lineage. Meanwhile the commenters are covering both their ears in protest because of Active Sound. BMW knew the amount of ridicule the M5 got because of it yet kept it on the M3. I'm sure half those commenters would change their tune if BMW never disclosed it had AS

[M3ryder55]

Originally Posted by Savory

Reading the youtube comments, I get the feeling no one wanted this car to succeed in the first place just because of Active Sound. It gets a glowing review from Carlos, lays down the numbers (60-0 in 99 ft is ridiculous for a family sedan) and is apparently worthy of the M3 lineage. Meanwhile the commenters are covering both their ears in protest because of Active Sound. BMW knew the amount of ridicule the M5 got because of it yet kept it on the M3. I'm sure half those commenters would change their tune if BMW never disclosed it had AS

Because people hate on success. M3 lineage has been successful for almost 30 years now, nobody wants to see the outgoing model be surpassed. Unfortunately a lot of negativity is coming from this forum, which you wouldn't expect, but thats how it goes sometimes. Eventually, the haters will jump ship. Happened last time with the E9X launch, will happen again.

[SouthernBoy]

The typical review. Sadly I don't think Jeremy Clarkson (or JM or RH) will ever review the M3 or M4 on TV's Top Gear on BBC2.

[Jadar]

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

The typical review. Sadly I don't think Jeremy Clarkson (or JM or RH) will ever review the M3 or M4 on TV's Top Gear on BBC2.

Why do you say that? I would have liked to see them review a 981 cayman s or cayman gts, but that hasn't happened yet either. Go figure...

[Jadar]

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

The typical review. Sadly I don't think Jeremy Clarkson (or JM or RH) will ever review the M3 or M4 on TV's Top Gear on BBC2.

Why do you say that? I remember reading an article recently and Clarkson stated the older he gets the less cars he likes but he's take the M4 as his companion in a heartbeat that's how good it is.

I would have liked to see them review a 981 cayman s or cayman gts, but that hasn't happened yet either. Go figure...

[PhillyNate]

Originally Posted by rngrjag

What? You are saying that EVERY BMW motor in history EXCEPT the S65 was underrated? Where are you getting this from? Please explicate.

It won't be the "S65's legacy" because your statement is not factually accurate.

Mostly hyperbole in my statement but I'll play along. It probably isn't the ONLY BMW engine to not be but BMW has quite a history of underrating hp and other figures on their cars. Lo and behold, the new M3/4 and current M5/6 just to name a few.
I suppose the published HP figures and 0-60 times from BMW on the new M3/4 are "factually accurate" too LOL!!!!

[M3guy3]

i believe the dyno numbers for both cars are low. the E9x IS a 400BHP car. Just look at how fast it is in respect to cars like the mustang 5.0L or camaro SS, LS3 corvette.

I also believe the M4 is underrated clearly. i also don't know why people think its a big deal that the new M4 has way more power... the new model should be much faster and have more power. So BMW did there job here people. Why they underrate the motor this much, idk .

[Vectors2final]

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

The typical review. Sadly I don't think Jeremy Clarkson (or JM or RH) will ever review the M3 or M4 on TV's Top Gear on BBC2.

You must have missed this...

[PhillyNate]

Originally Posted by checkmate

And the award for the most ignorant statement goes to....

Ignorant statement...LMFAO. Hyperbole YES, ignorant...not by a country mile my friend. Check the history of BMW underrating hp and get back to me. ALL I'm saying is it looks like the BMW published numbers/HP figures for the S65 might have been accurate at best.

[Wild_Will]

Originally Posted by Marioalex24

Today when I pick up my M3 from service at pacific BMW. Saw the new M4 in their show rooms in AW and fell in love at first sight. Therefore I just convince the wife that I'm ordering one. At first I thought it was too big and not so pretty but man after seeing it in person I'm sold. And I haven't even driving it lol.

All these review give positive feed back from the new m3/4. That no doubt I'll be buying one soon.

I don't see the desire to buy a first year model esp when you already own a legendary M.

Just wait for the Mid Life refresh and comp pack.

[rubber_ducky]

Originally Posted by alpinweiss 335i

Very suspicious to me that BMW claims only 2-3%. It's quite glaring on most recordings I've heard. I guess I'll have to wait till I can drive it myself.

I'd like to know where that 2-3% number came from myself. Seems like too trivial an amount to bother implementing the system. In a world where manufacturers cut costs wherever possible, BMW spent money to engineer a system that enhances interior sound by 3% at most? I doubt it

[SouthernBoy]

Originally Posted by Vectors2final

You must have missed this...

That's not what I was talking about. I said on "TV" as in a video segment. He writes about almost every car on earth, but it to appear on the TV show is a whole other thing.

[EndBosS]

Originally Posted by Wild_Will

I don't see the desire to buy a first year model esp when you already own a legendary M.

Just wait for the Mid Life refresh and comp pack.

or you can get a new one, and when there is a Mid Life refresh, get that one...

[mlhj83]

Comparing a turbo engined and a naturally aspirated engined car on a rolling road will always favour the turbo. Turbos are able to generate positive air pressure to a specified boost level (even with a lower atmospheric pressure, up to a point), while NA engines obviously rely on atmospheric pressure. Therefore, unless rolling road dynos are able to feed air at the same velocity as the car is supposed to be travelling for that engine speed at a particular gear, a NA engine is being starved of air, thus generating far less power than expected.

The K&N dyno fans clearly aren't blowing up to 140mph. Tuner dynos are good at comparing before and after, nothing more.

[Jonjt]

Originally Posted by mlhj83

Comparing a turbo engined and a naturally aspirated engined car on a rolling road will always favour the turbo. Turbos are able to generate positive air pressure to a specified boost level (even with a lower atmospheric pressure, up to a point), while NA engines obviously rely on atmospheric pressure. Therefore, unless rolling road dynos are able to feed air at the same velocity as the car is supposed to be travelling for that engine speed at a particular gear, a NA engine is being starved of air, thus generating far less power than expected.

Dyanmic pressure at road speeds is quite low. I'd be really surprised if it made a consistently measurable difference in wheel power.

[mlhj83]

Originally Posted by Jonjt

Dyanmic pressure at road speeds is quite low. I'd be really surprised if it made a consistently measurable difference in wheel power.

But the NA engine intakes are being starved of air, as air is being consumed faster than atmospheric pressure can replenish the intakes, therefore a NA engine intakes require moving air (matching the velocity of he vehicle) to generate it's specified power output.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by mlhj83

Comparing a turbo engined and a naturally aspirated engined car on a rolling road will always favour the turbo. Turbos are able to generate positive air pressure to a specified boost level (even with a lower atmospheric pressure, up to a point), while NA engines obviously rely on atmospheric pressure. Therefore, unless rolling road dynos are able to feed air at the same velocity as the car is supposed to be travelling for that engine speed at a particular gear, a NA engine is being starved of air, thus generating far less power than expected.

The K&N dyno fans clearly aren't blowing up to 140mph. Tuner dynos are good at comparing before and after, nothing more.

The S65 airbox is vented on the hood, so there is no benefit from RAM effects.

Further, if you do the math, you will find out that RAM effect is negligible for the speeds of road cars.

Sucking hot air from the dyno room is usually the culprit for reduced power due to poor ventilation.

[mlhj83]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

The S65 airbox is vented on the hood, so there is no benefit from RAM effects.

Further, if you do the math, you will find out that RAM effect is negligible for the speeds of road cars.

Sucking hot air from the dyno room is usually the culprit for reduced power due to poor ventilation.

I'm not talking about ram effect, I'm purely referring to replenishment.

[BhamDavid]

Originally Posted by Jonjt

Dyanmic pressure at road speeds is quite low. I'd be really surprised if it made a consistently measurable difference in wheel power.

If you had a giant air scoop well up in the airstream away from the turbulence of the car body, you might see some small effect. But, the air intake is enclosed in the bodywork which might be under slight vacuum as the aerodynamic design is to pull a slight vacuum under the car for downforce.

The best place for increased pressure to the intake system would be at the base of the windshield which is a low velocity, therefore high pressure area.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by mlhj83

I'm not talking about ram effect, I'm referring to pure replenishment.

Same thing.

Flow is a function of pressure delta between upstream and downstream.

[mlhj83]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Same thing.

Flow is a function of pressure delta between upstream and downstream.

I understand flow. I still think that the NA engine is consuming air faster than atmospheric pressure alone can adequately replenish. And the dyno fans aren't blowing fast enough to aid replenishment.

If you blow air into a syringe at the same rate as the plunger is being pulled, the syringe will fill up faster than relying on a negative air pressure alone.