Thinking about going back to an E92 M3

[Edward]

No matter what, people who put down the new car will always look like they can't move on or adapt or afford the new car. I truthfully don't know if I'm biased but I guess I am being objective when I say that I'd keep my car and turn down a no cash involved straight up trade for a loaded new M4 in exchange for my fully optioned 2013 non-civic M3.

It could also be that I'm ready to move on from the M3 category completely though.

I know with certainty though that for the type of city driving I do, I have never once thought "boy I sure wish I had that extra torque and speed of the weird sounding F82."

In similar fashion, I don't want the GT3 because it is faster than my M3. It has very little to do with that and a whole lot more with the qualitative characteristics of the car which no youtube video or numeric statistics can ever convey.

I plan to keep this car indefinitely and keep it as a fun car and get an NA Porsche which I guess kind of limits me to the GT variants for daily-ish use.

[Three Pedal Steve]

The M4 has a higher hood line than the e92 M3 it replaced. The straight six is a longer motor than the V-8. So M4 gets a taller hood with a lower engine bulge.

Maybe it's just me, but going from 8 cylinders to six cylinders is a down-grade.

I drove the M4's at the BMW performance center (in the rain no less) and could never tame the things. Between the DCT and the turbo lag the power was slightly behind me all day. And then when the power and gear arrived it was difficult to deal with all that torque. A few weeks later I drove my e92 M3 (6 speed) on the same track for comparison. I love the linear power delivery of my M3.

BMW says all this was necessary for fuel economy. In reality the new car gains its economy advantage in its gearing. Maybe they should have gone with a seven speed manual with a really tall top gear so it would run at 1650 rpm at 70mph.

[DSilk]

The best way to improve fuel economy is to pare down the weight, but in this day and age where 3,400 lb cars are deemed to be "light" we are unlikely to see sub-3,000 lb. four seat performance coupes anytime soon. Can you imagine the performance and economy of an M3 with the mass of the e30 and the s65 V8 under the bonnet?

[TVMA Doc]

Originally Posted by Law

You're not the first & definitely won't be the last.


You echo some of the members here who have cited similar reasons...just off the top of my head:
8600RPM
JYTsky
AWM3ME2


Its nice to have choices.
Do what makes you happy.

There's also this guy named Stig or something. I'm not certain whether he drives much, however.

http://www.topgear.com/car-news/jere...larkson-bmw-m3

[-BEASTMW-]

Originally Posted by Three Pedal Steve

The M4 has a higher hood line than the e92 M3 it replaced. The straight six is a longer motor than the V-8. So M4 gets a taller hood with a lower engine bulge.

I don't think that's the reason. Other versions of both generations (like the 335i) had I-6s under the non-M hood.

[TVMA Doc]

Originally Posted by Three Pedal Steve

The M4 has a higher hood line than the e92 M3 it replaced. The straight six is a longer motor than the V-8. So M4 gets a taller hood with a lower engine bulge.

Maybe it's just me, but going from 8 cylinders to six cylinders is a down-grade.

I drove the M4's at the BMW performance center (in the rain no less) and could never tame the things. Between the DCT and the turbo lag the power was slightly behind me all day. And then when the power and gear arrived it was difficult to deal with all that torque. A few weeks later I drove my e92 M3 (6 speed) on the same track for comparison. I love the linear power delivery of my M3.

BMW says all this was necessary for fuel economy. In reality the new car gains its economy advantage in its gearing. Maybe they should have gone with a seven speed manual with a really tall top gear so it would run at 1650 rpm at 70mph.

All of this being said, I'm sure you would have eventually found your stride with the M4. My S2000 is much worse in power delivery. There's really only a HUGE surge from about 6000 RPM up when the VTEC kicks in. It's sort of an "all or nothing" type of delivery. Even with that, if you want to drive it hard you get used to keeping it in the power band.

I've never understood all of the complaints about the M3 having "no torque", however. With the nice linear power delivery it is merely a matter of selecting the correct gear. Unlike an S2000 where you REALLY have to not only select the correct gear, but also somehow deal with the almost complete lack of power on the starting grid, if you slightly miscalculate which gear you need and bog it down, you really lose time.

I have no complaints with the e9x series, aside from the fact that it does need a little bit of a diet. I'm not entirely certain where that weight would have come from, however, without running the price tag up significantly.

[TVMA Doc]

Originally Posted by m3_love

I used to see a lot of similar threads like this one, but with people contemplating on going back to e46 m3 from an e9x. I remember people used to complain about e9x m3's weight and 'size'... I believe it just takes time for car enthusiasts to accept new concepts. To me however, e9x m3 is the perfect M car and I love every bit of it. Go with what you love and don't look back, just enjoy it.

There's a lot to be said about this point.

I'd say that most reviewers, however, have hit the issue with the fact that the new generation is faster and better in almost everything except steering feel. I don't think that it's really just a "get used to a new concept" sort of thing. You can't replace steering feel, you can only somehow learn to do with numbed down steering.

I drove a new generation and I really didn't "feel" the car. That's possibly more important coming from someone who grew up with no DSC, etc. You NEEDED to feel what the car was doing. It does, however, take away one more piece of information from the driver-it's almost like driving in a video game. You lose that little bit of information that the road is giving you.

I'm sure that car manufacturers will learn how to compensate and somehow get some/all of that feeling back, but for now electronic steering is a compromise made for fuel savings. It is definitely not an upgrade. It's too bad, really. Otherwise the newer car is just a bit better at almost everything.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by TVMA Doc

There's a lot to be said about this point.

I'd say that most reviewers, however, have hit the issue with the fact that the new generation is faster and better in almost everything except steering feel. I don't think that it's really just a "get used to a new concept" sort of thing. You can't replace steering feel, you can only somehow learn to do with numbed down steering.

I drove a new generation and I really didn't "feel" the car. That's possibly more important coming from someone who grew up with no DSC, etc. You NEEDED to feel what the car was doing. It does, however, take away one more piece of information from the driver-it's almost like driving in a video game. You lose that little bit of information that the road is giving you.

I'm sure that car manufacturers will learn how to compensate and somehow get some/all of that feeling back, but for now electronic steering is a compromise made for fuel savings. It is definitely not an upgrade. It's too bad, really. Otherwise the newer car is just a bit better at almost everything.

Brilliantly stated. Improvements will be made to electronic steering assist, but the real revolution in "green" performance and handling will come when advanced materiels like carbon fibre (and whatever comes along that is both stiffer and lighter) can be mass produced to a degree that the costs are manageable for a mass-marketed car. At that point we may see some real weight reduction, enough so that assisted steering is no longer required.

[vincE92M3]

Originally Posted by TVMA Doc

There's a lot to be said about this point.

I'd say that most reviewers, however, have hit the issue with the fact that the new generation is faster and better in almost everything except steering feel. I don't think that it's really just a "get used to a new concept" sort of thing. You can't replace steering feel, you can only somehow learn to do with numbed down steering.

I drove a new generation and I really didn't "feel" the car. That's possibly more important coming from someone who grew up with no DSC, etc. You NEEDED to feel what the car was doing. It does, however, take away one more piece of information from the driver-it's almost like driving in a video game. You lose that little bit of information that the road is giving you.

I'm sure that car manufacturers will learn how to compensate and somehow get some/all of that feeling back, but for now electronic steering is a compromise made for fuel savings. It is definitely not an upgrade. It's too bad, really. Otherwise the newer car is just a bit better at almost everything.

Nicely said. Seems that electric steering is an area of improvement for BMW. Other manufacturers like Porsche have seemed to be successful at this. However, hydraulic steering will never feel the exact same as electric (for now?). As they continue to perfect this technology, consumers all the while will need to accept it as a new standard.

[Bucki14]

Originally Posted by DSilk

The best way to improve fuel economy is to pare down the weight, but in this day and age where 3,400 lb cars are deemed to be "light" we are unlikely to see sub-3,000 lb. four seat performance coupes anytime soon. Can you imagine the performance and economy of an M3 with the mass of the e30 and the s65 V8 under the bonnet?

World Peace?

[DKX4///M]

I MISS my 2003 EVOLUTION VIII (650+ AWHP)..more than any other past rides, and there were many ..However that's the past, I'd NEVER consider trading my M3 for one, not until my midlife crisis at least LOL.

***It's like when a CD from your favorite band comes out, you Almost always hate it at first...then 1 song grows you, then another... 6 months later, its your favorite release.."""

***However, an alternate analogy would be when your fav hard metal band (V8) goes soft and releases an acoustic compilation of crap aka V6 turbo music***

One thing I don't agree with is disliking F8x's JUST bc they went v-6 turbo....it's MORE HORSE POWER, a LOT MORE TORQUE, LIGHTER, possibly stronger (time will ell) and MUCH more responsive to mods (as any forced Induction car is)....OK the sound, sure, it's 100% a let down and "active sound" just ughhh. DISGUSTING...But that can now be disabled, and some decent sounding exhausts are even being released...

Now , I haven't driven an F8x yet (only been a right seater) but if you personally like the F82 more... or feel the F82 chassis is sturdier, the exterior looks nicer, better interior, the steering is tighter OR Vice Versa and your on the E9X's side.....These are ALL great valid points, albeit 110% subjective, but complaining about the OUTPUT (not the sound)of V6 power plant??? More horse-power and LOADS MORE TORQUE coming on much much faster AND at MUCH lower RPMs is one thing I think I hear ppl complaining about that I really personally don't understand whats so ever........

BUT LET ME BE VERY CLEAR! I LOVE pushing my S65 w/ it's intake, BPM Stage II tune, and FULL 3" straight pipes to 8600 + RPMs, through the 6 PERFECTLY sized gears...AND HEARING THAT F1 SCREAM THAT SOUNDS LIKE A A STRAIGHT RACE CAR....

But HAVING to rev the car OVER 5k RPMs just to feel a little HP power (what torque? LMAO) under my right foot is def not my favorite thing about EMMA (My E92)

Since I haven't had the pleasure of pushing the turbo 6 n the F8X, The big 16g in my EVO 8, and in-line 4 will have to suffice for comparison purposes...

2003 Evolution VIII 5 spd w/ Methanol injection, 28psi (30+peak) and a "Q-tec" or Quicktime performance exhaust cut-off valve /dump tube (w/ an HKS 2.75" down pipe combined with an HKS 272* exhaust (268* intake) cams, an EVO 9 MR 10.5" hot side) ...OHHH, and def can't forget the Injen hard i\c piping... from 2500 RPM's to 8200RPMs (Raised), When you hit the gas and you'd see that boost gauge rocket from -8psi to 30+psi INSTANTLY in really any gear...

Looking at my watch "waiting for the HP to 'come on" is the ONLY thing I don't like about the 4.0 n\a S65 in my 2011 M3 coupe...While you might be thinking I'm way off topic, I have to believe you can get a similar but probably even exaggerated (positively) feel from the right combo of parts in the F-series...

RANT over, if anyone bothered to read it, hope it made sense to you lol...Def Brought me bak behind the wheel of my EVO VIII THOUGH

[//M3ftw]

You got me thinking off topic and about my Evo with 609whp haha. Miss her everyday but would never trade my m3 in for one. I feel like I'm too old at 27 for an Evo again. But to be on topic, my next car would be an m4 if they sounded half decent. I spent 4K on an exhaust so I can hear the heart of my car everyday I drive it. If a car sounds horrible which the new m3/m4s do to me, it just ruins it for me.

[jphughan]

Never would have given up the M3 if I hadn't been able to get a GT4. Drove a friend's M4 on twisty roads moderately aggressively and it felt very familiar in terms of handling, which was both good and bad -- good because I got comfortable with it immediately, but bad because it didn't feel markedly better, which is a problem for people considering upgrading. Turn-in was better than my E9x M3 even with camber plates, but steering was numb, and it didn't feel meaningfully lighter, which was the main thing that appealed to me when reading about it. The sound from in the cabin definitely isn't bad, but it's still not as good as the S65, and yeah the sound from outside the car is already a dead horse not worth beating further. The engine itself had ample thrust anywhere, but there was little fun in winding it out; it was just fast, not especially fun -- not emotional.

I came away from that experience thinking that if I didn't already have an M3, insisted on buying new, and couldn't get or live with a GT4, then I could likely be happy with an F8x, especially if I'd never even experienced an E9x. M3/4s remain the best all around car money can buy IMHO, with the possible exception of a Golf R/GTI if some performance can be traded for more practicality. But given that I DID already have an E92, there was no way the F8x was worth the trade-in value of my car plus $40K+ to upgrade, in fact I wouldn't have even taken an even trade for a brand new one. I can see the value of a turbo for someone who commutes and just wants straight-line acceleration and great fuel economy at the same time, but I don't think that's what M cars should be about, and it's definitely not what they're about for me personally.

[G80indy]

With the nasty weather lately I'm flirting with getting a gently used SAV/SUV.

I just drove an X5 X drive 35i and the lag was massive. A solid second or two from putting the pedal down, which is a long time when merging into busy traffic. I am surprised at my own disappointment.
We are spoiled by NA throttle response.
Don't laugh but I got back into the Pilot (my wife's) and even smiled a bit because of the throttle response in it!

[Sid3waze]

Originally Posted by jphughan

Never would have given up the M3 if I hadn't been able to get a GT4. Drove a friend's M4 on twisty roads moderately aggressively and it felt very familiar in terms of handling, which was both good and bad -- good because I got comfortable with it immediately, but bad because it didn't feel markedly better, which is a problem for people considering upgrading. Turn-in was better than my E9x M3 even with camber plates, but steering was numb, and it didn't feel meaningfully lighter, which was the main thing that appealed to me when reading about it. The sound from in the cabin definitely isn't bad, but it's still not as good as the S65, and yeah the sound from outside the car is already a dead horse not worth beating further. The engine itself had ample thrust anywhere, but there was little fun in winding it out; it was just fast, not especially fun -- not emotional.

I came away from that experience thinking that if I didn't already have an M3, insisted on buying new, and couldn't get or live with a GT4, then I could likely be happy with an F8x, especially if I'd never even experienced an E9x. M3/4s remain the best all around car money can buy IMHO, with the possible exception of a Golf R/GTI if some performance can be traded for more practicality. But given that I DID already have an E92, there was no way the F8x was worth the trade-in value of my car plus $40K+ to upgrade, in fact I wouldn't have even taken an even trade for a brand new one. I can see the value of a turbo for someone who commutes and just wants straight-line acceleration and great fuel economy at the same time, but I don't think that's what M cars should be about, and it's definitely not what they're about for me personally.

Well said!

I think only a person that experienced/owned every generation M3 would understand me much better. To date my favorite m3 is and will always be the e46 m3 and thats because of its rawness. Congrats on the gt4, thats a different level of enjoyment.

[BRBM]

Originally Posted by Sid3waze

Some might call me crazy but I am seriously considering trading my 2015 m4 for a low Mileage E92. I've owned my M4 for over a year now and I find myself missing my M3 more and more each month. I know many E9x owners complained about lack of torque but IMO it forced you to drive the car.

Any E9x charged owner ever encounter a F8x? If so, what was the outcome?

Anyone think I'm crazy for thinking this?

Things I miss about my old E92
- The noise
- Steering feel
- Steering feedback
- Motor has more character than the s55

Here's a few pics of my m4 and old e92

You ain't crazy. You had 'em both, and I'm guessing as daily drivers. Damn smart in my book. And as a future owner (with any luck), I'm on record as someone that will follow your lead.........first choice: low mileage/later model E9_.

At better example might be this. I've no interest in the current C63 or C63S models. Yes, they're an upgrade and more refined in many ways and could I drive one? Sure. But their not as special feeling as the original 6.2 V8 powered models in my view. Often accused of being too rough around the edges, likes to go Sid3waze too much, etc. (Ah, you like that!?) Not the case. Those comments are way overblown in that regard after driving one for almost 5 years. Little things like feeling a gentle vibration through the gas pedal reminding of the beast within is sorely lacking in the new models.

I want me a frickin' E-90-whatever, too. 'Cause as you know, in addition to the positives you noted, that downsized 4.0 V8 comes directly from the M5's V10, which won - if I'm not mistaken - International Performance Engine of the Year three years in a row. (2004-2006) Same engine, two cylinders chopped off.

So, lastly, haven't read thru the whole thread, but I'm pulling for you to find a good one and make that move, Sid3waze. (Do it-do it-do it-do it!!!!!!!!! Hell yeah.)

[Helmsman]

Originally Posted by BRBM

You ain't crazy. You had 'em both, and I'm guessing as daily drivers. Damn smart in my book. And as a future owner (with any luck), I'm on record as someone that will follow your lead.........first choice: low mileage/later model E9_.

At better example might be this. I've no interest in the current C63 or C63S models. Yes, they're an upgrade and more refined in many ways and could I drive one? Sure. But their not as special feeling as the original 6.2 V8 powered models in my view. Often accused of being too rough around the edges, likes to go Sid3waze too much, etc. (Ah, you like that!?) Not the case. Those comments are way overblown in that regard after driving one for almost 5 years. Little things like feeling a gentle vibration through the gas pedal reminding of the beast within is sorely lacking in the new models.

I want me a frickin' E-90-whatever, too. 'Cause as you know, in addition to the positives you noted, that downsized 4.0 V8 comes directly from the M5's V10, which won - if I'm not mistaken - International Performance Engine of the Year three years in a row. (2004-2006) Same engine, two cylinders chopped off.

So, lastly, haven't read thru the whole thread, but I'm pulling for you to find a good one and make that move, Sid3waze. (Do it-do it-do it-do it!!!!!!!!! Hell yeah.)

Sure the S65 is a "derivate" from the S85 V10, but the V8 certainly have made it's on way on the Award path:

" International Engine of the Year for the 3.0 to 4.0 L category in 2008, 2009, 2010,[1] 2011, and 2012."...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_S65

[xaappx]

Originally Posted by Helmsman

Sure the S65 is a "derivate" from the S85 V10, but the V8 certainly have made it's on way on the Award path:

" International Engine of the Year for the 3.0 to 4.0 L category in 2008, 2009, 2010,[1] 2011, and 2012."...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_S65

Is this category for 3.0L to 4.0L V8s or just all 3.0L to 4.0L engines?

If so, I don't know of many 3.0L to 4.0L V8s, so maybe it won by default?

[Helmsman]

Originally Posted by xaappx

Is this category for 3.0L to 4.0L V8s or just all 3.0L to 4.0L engines?

If so, I don't know of many 3.0L to 4.0L V8s, so maybe it won by default?

I leave that for you to find out for us mate..

[Rudeboy]

OP, if you decide to re-up for the M3, and wanna sell the cf spoiler and splitter, I'll take em off your hands!

[jphughan]

Originally Posted by BRBM

I want me a frickin' E-90-whatever, too. 'Cause as you know, in addition to the positives you noted, that downsized 4.0 V8 comes directly from the M5's V10, which won - if I'm not mistaken - International Performance Engine of the Year three years in a row. (2004-2006) Same engine, two cylinders chopped off.

Originally Posted by xaappx

Is this category for 3.0L to 4.0L V8s or just all 3.0L to 4.0L engines?

If so, I don't know of many 3.0L to 4.0L V8s, so maybe it won by default?

Not only is the S65 based off an engine that won that award, the S65 itself won that award in its category for 5 of the 6 years for which it was eligible (2008-2012), edged out only in the final year of its eligibility (2013) to the engine in the MP4-12C -- but even in that year it came in second. The category was 3-4L engines of any configuration, not just V8s, so there was plenty of competition. (Note: Engines that were exactly 3L competed in the 2-3L category, which is how the N54 won in some of the same years.)

The S85 did even better, though. It "only" won in its category in the first 4 years of the 6 in which it was eligible, but in 3 of those years it also won Best Performance Engine, and in 2 of those years it won International Engine of the Year overall. But considering how totally outrageous an engine it was at the time -- especially given that it was fitted into a big sedan! -- that shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

[BRBM]

Originally Posted by Helmsman

Sure the S65 is a "derivate" from the S85 V10, but the V8 certainly have made it's on way on the Award path:

" International Engine of the Year for the 3.0 to 4.0 L category in 2008, 2009, 2010,[1] 2011, and 2012."...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_S65

Originally Posted by jphughan

Not only is the S65 based off an engine that won that award, the S65 itself won that award in its category for 5 of the 6 years for which it was eligible (2008-2012), edged out only in the final year of its eligibility (2013) to the engine in the MP4-12C -- but even in that year it came in second. The category was 3-4L engines of any configuration, not just V8s, so there was plenty of competition. (Note: Engines that were exactly 3L competed in the 2-3L category, which is how the N54 won in some of the same years.)

The S85 did even better, though. It "only" won in its category in the first 4 years of the 6 in which it was eligible, but in 3 of those years it also won Best Performance Engine, and in 2 of those years it won International Engine of the Year overall. But considering how totally outrageous an engine it was at the time -- especially given that it was fitted into a big sedan! -- that shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

Well I'll be damned!! Thank you both for setting me straight, 'cause in my mind the 4.0 was equally badass.........who knew? Drinks on me.

That said, here's the whole Wiki page, where apparently I was so stuck in the row with my beloved AMG M156 that I didn't read one stinkin' row higher to the 3.0-4.0s. Yes, a dumbass moment on my part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...ne_of_the_Year

Last, but not least, one must man-up............so, I stand corrected, more or less, for my research falling short. I knew that f----er was a great engine! Now I want it even more.