Official BMW M3 M4 Specs: 430HP, 369+ LB-FT, Under 3306 Pounds, Bi-Turbo Inline 6 Cyl

[Malek@MRF]

Originally Posted by m3evobr

Hi Malek,

1) Solid mount rear axle - Used a lot before than 13 years ago on Porsches and they incorporate that in their production cars on the RS models (964) in the early 90s.


2) I'm with you with the massive power, but regardless, the E90/2 felt underpowered, and underwhelming maybe due to the lack of torque, maybe due to it's high weight, but really liked the nature of the engine for sure.

3) Cars getting better, is really subjective, and I believe that better has a lot to do with feeling and emotion as well as it has with build quality, performance, durability etc. I personally didn't buy a 'modern' M car just because they no longer could deliver that. This being the biggest reason why a lot of the guys on Porsche forums (rennlist) are bailing out on the 991.
I personally drove one and while it has much improved interior if compared to the 997, the car is bigger, (feels big) the steering wheel feeling just sucks if compared to 997 and the list goes on and on.... is it a bad car ??? No, by any means, and maybe a great car for those that never had Porsches before.
Same thing happened with M cars, but hopefully they are getting back on track.

6) Agreed with Mercedes and Audi, which this second I don't even see as a threat as they just dont drive well IMO. M3 GTS gave GT3RS a run for their $$$ ?
Well if you consider a gap of 15 seconds comparing the 3.8 RS vs GTS a run for their money, I would say that's not quite accurate.
Now only 2 seconds faster than a CSL ?
Thank you, I'll take the CSL any day of the week. 2 Seconds at the ring could be just weather difference, so going back to the previous topic, I would take a lighter and less powerful car in the name of feel and handling any day.

Not sure where the 15 second gap is coming from. The E92 M3 GTS did the Nordschleife in 7:48 and the 997 GT3 RS 3.8 did it in 7:43. That's a 5 second difference, and yes that is giving the GT3-RS a run for it's money.

As much as I love the E46 M3 CSL, it's looks, its design philosophy and what it stands for, the fact that it is equipped with an SMG II makes it inferior. The M-DCT is a marvel of technology which rivals some of the best dual clutch gear boxes out there to date.

1) This may apply to Porsche's, however this does not apply to BMW vehicles until recently. The most recent M vehicles to get the unitized rear subframe are the M3 GTS, CRT, F10 M5 and F13/F12 M6.

2) The E92 M3 is not underpowered. It has a high revving nature and needs to be wound up to really appreciate its power delivery. A stock 335 feels faster on the street often times than an S65 powered M3 does. What the speed feels like is irrelevant, the E92 was a fast car. Fast or slow, the delivery of the engine was to die for.

3) The E92 M3 was a great M car. It feels connected with the driver. Yes it got heavier in comparison to the E46, but it also got better. It performed better in every way imaginable. The E46 carries over methodologies from the E30 days. It practically employs the same front suspension lay out from an E30 with a massive camber roll off which required exxagerated amounts of negative camber to maintain front end grip and the rear end was adopted from an E36 M3 for the most part. Unfortunately the E46 was plagued with an SMG. The 6MT was a much better variant.

The E9x platform changed the entire suspension lay out front & rear with respect to previous generations. For those of us who know the ins and outs of the current model, the underpinnings are nearly identical to the E9x M3 on the F8x model. They improved on things that should have been done previously and what some of us have been preaching for a while.

Examples:

Rear lower trailing arm is no longer a stamped steel unit with soft rubber bushings. It is evident it is a forged Al arm like the rest of the links in the rear with spherical bearings as bushings. As mentioned previously as well, the unitized subframe.

The 991 despite how it feels (yes I have lots of seat time in this car and the 997), is better than the 997. Its larger, wider, longer, but lighter and more balanced. The base 997 was awesome, but also twitchy. The brand new GT3 is awesome, and one of the most exciting cars of the year, even if it's not offered in 6MT and they ditched the Metzger.

6) Not sure where the 15 second gap is coming from. The E92 M3 GTS did the Nordschleife in 7:48 and the 997 GT3 RS 3.8 did it in 7:43. That's a 5 second difference, and yes that is giving the GT3-RS a run for it's money.

As much as I love the E46 M3 CSL, it's looks, its design philosophy and what it stands for, the fact that it is equipped with an SMG II makes it inferior. The M-DCT is a marvel of technology which rivals some of the best dual clutch gear boxes in production vehicles out there to date.

[///M5Bruno]

SOLD.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by Technic

I keep reading about these so called "purists" and I wonder if they actually buy any new cars, much less M3s.

The problem with "feel" is that you can get much more with a $25,000 Miata than with an M3. The new M3/M4 will be expensive, high performance cars, so by definition that "feel" must include power and performance.

Thankfully there are still some cars out there for the so-called purists.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by Malek@MRF

2) [/I][I][I]The E92 M3 is not underpowered. It has a high revving nature and needs to be wound up to really appreciate its power delivery. A stock 335 feels faster on the street often times than an S65 powered M3 does. What the speed feels like is irrelevant, the E92 was a fast car. Fast or slow, the delivery of the engine was to die for.

Exactly the 335i is at home on the streets. Take it to the track it is the one that starts to feel lazy. The E92 M3 comes alive, S65 is magical on a track day.

The S65 wasn't built to be driven lazily around town. It is one of the last true Motorsport engines. They designed and built it to do exactly what it does.

[zuggerat89]

Maybe it's the crappy speakers on my iPhone, but the engine sound in the Bruno video sounds incredibly artificial and un-inline 6 sounding -- more like how a video game would interpret engine noises rather than actual mechanisms banging and clanking to create noise.

Probably the speakers on my iPhone but was just wondering if anyone else had that same reaction.

Why my text is in italics, I have no idea.

[m3evobr]

Originally Posted by Malek@MRF

1) This may apply to Porsche's, however this does not apply to BMW vehicles until recently. The most recent M vehicles to get the unitized rear subframe are the M3 GTS, CRT, F10 M5 and F13/F12 M6.

2) The E92 M3 is not underpowered. It has a high revving nature and needs to be wound up to really appreciate its power delivery. A stock 335 feels faster on the street often times than an S65 powered M3 does. What the speed feels like is irrelevant, the E92 was a fast car. Fast or slow, the delivery of the engine was to die for.

3) The E92 M3 was a great M car. It feels connected with the driver. Yes it got heavier in comparison to the E46, but it also got better. It performed better in every way imaginable. The E46 carries over methodologies from the E30 days. It practically employs the same front suspension lay out from an E30 with a massive camber roll off which required exxagerated amounts of negative camber to maintain front end grip and the rear end was adopted from an E36 M3 for the most part. Unfortunately the E46 was plagued with an SMG. The 6MT was a much better variant.

The E9x platform changed the entire suspension lay out front & rear with respect to previous generations. For those of us who know the ins and outs of the current model, the underpinnings are nearly identical to the E9x M3 on the F8x model. They improved on things that should have been done previously and what some of us have been preaching for a while.

Examples:

Rear lower trailing arm is no longer a stamped steel unit with soft rubber bushings. It is evident it is a forged Al arm like the rest of the links in the rear with spherical bearings as bushings. As mentioned previously as well, the unitized subframe.

The 991 despite how it feels (yes I have lots of seat time in this car and the 997), is better than the 997. Its larger, wider, longer, but lighter and more balanced. The base 997 was awesome, but also twitchy. The brand new GT3 is awesome, and one of the most exciting cars of the year, even if it's not offered in 6MT and they ditched the Metzger.

6) Not sure where the 15 second gap is coming from. The E92 M3 GTS did the Nordschleife in 7:48 and the 997 GT3 RS 3.8 did it in 7:43. That's a 5 second difference, and yes that is giving the GT3-RS a run for it's money.

As much as I love the E46 M3 CSL, it's looks, its design philosophy and what it stands for, the fact that it is equipped with an SMG II makes it inferior. The M-DCT is a marvel of technology which rivals some of the best dual clutch gear boxes in production vehicles out there to date.

1) correct only on BMW

2) Please read it correctly. Underpowered for it's weight. The engine is brilliant

3) I understand very well how this works. I understand a lot about set up as I set up my cars myself. The fact they changed the geometry allowed the car to be a better car, but doesn't mean faster is better, the E9X is a muted heavy car that is not track worthy from factory, but I'm not here to talk about the flaws of this car as every car has it's own flaws.

6) Please .... get your facts straight. You're comparing with a test performed in 2003 !!!!! 10 years ago !!!!!! In case you don't know there are several iterations of GT3 RS, starting with the 996 model that was never available in the USA.


For comparison purposes as the BMW M3 GTS was a 2010 test, use the same time frame, a car that is current for it's time, which is a 997.2 GT3 RS (3.8)

Here is the lap time

30. Porsche 911 GT3 RS 7:33.00 Onboard N/A '10

Source - http://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-t...times-top-100/

SO YES, IT IS A LIFE TIME !!! 48-33 = 15 seconds.

[BimmerNFS]

I am loving everything about this car. I drive a n54 e90 and absolutely love it!. I am very interested how the indirect intercooler will do. One weak point in the n54 was the factory intercooler. Hopefully this will help improve intake temperatures! The shorter stroke will also mean this thing is gonna be a rev monster!

[ramuman]

Originally Posted by Mattgfx

The top mounted intercooler kinda worries me. Doesn't seem like it will cool those turbos well enough. I bet BMW knows more than i do though lol

It's an air to water intercooler . It doesn't really matter where they mount it since the radiator is up front. Looking at the engine, they're using what they learned with the S63 and keeping all the plumbing as short as possible.

Plus, think of it as homage to the Cooper S

[Maxx2]

Just grabbed a few pics of the redline...

[gymtime]

Originally Posted by ixse

Gotta move on with new tech.. Otherwise your m3 will get lapped by new base mustang..

If all you care about is straight performance why don't you buy a Mustang for half the price and then do $40k in mods....it will blow the doors off an M4

[ramuman]

Originally Posted by Maxx2

Just grabbed a few pics of the redline...

I hate how the LCD at the bottom of the gauges doesn't fill the cutout. I had an X5 as a company car for a few months and it drove me crazy at night.

First shot of the redline though . I liked the sliding redline in the E9x more than this which is E46ish, but I'm sure I'll get over it.

[m5sparky]

is the m division turning around? i loved my e46 m3 so much and this reminds me off it. paper shows way to much to good to be true things lol i really hope this will be one badass m3 , so it can share the garage with my gtr

[zuggerat89]

Glad we finally have some closure on that topic!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Wake up and smell the paradigm shift.

Reality is calling...

Support your claim with data or its rubbish.

I guess this (among other subtleties of performance, feel and fun) is why many have observed the common graduation from BMW to Porsche and from Porsche to Ferrari. Just because a lot of OEMs are doing something (turbos) doesn't mean it really represents what most enthusiasts want. Of course the largest reason for so many turbos is mpg not performance...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by paddy335

Ferrari announced this week that all their next gen cars will be turbo-charged.

I don't think Ferrari is a good comparo anyway, though Porsche certainly is.

The rumor I heard was that the switch will happen in 2016...

I've also heard that they absolutely will not implement a turbo system in a new production vehicle that has any trace of turbo lag whatsoever.

Like I said neither is a perfect comparison but both are still meaningful.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Malek@MRF

I'm fine with a respectful disagreement, however you are comparing a BMW to a Ferrari. A vehicle (Ferrari 458) that is 3 times the price of a loaded M4 will be. A standard 458 is also equipped with an Aluminum Monocoque and weighs 3050 lbs dry. Cost is a major factor, and I do agree with you that BMW is cutting corners with FI. It also seems that BMW is trying to rid their M vehicles of penalties and taxes for being gas guzzlers. FI is the only way for them to accomplish this.

Not to mention Ferrari is already switching over to FI.

By the way, I love all your posts.

Thanks, but no I am not necessarily comparing the cars nor the companies. I am comparing the philosophy of different companies who make sports cars. In particular the very key issue of cost vs. feel and FI vs. NA.

On a similar note, despite cost, the S85 and S65 engines are the closest engines just about any OEM has ever made to those coming out of Maranello.

See comment just above also about Ferrari's efforts in modern turbocharging. They will, like pretty much everything the company does, be epic.

[paddy335]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The rumor I heard was that the switch will happen in 2016...

I've also heard that they absolutely will not implement a turbo system in a new production vehicle that has any trace of turbo lag whatsoever.

I guess that means 2016 must be when their next gen models are coming in.

The great cycle of auto evolution eh. It's only 25 years since they produced the F40, which certainly wasn't known for it's lack of lag and is an all-time great.

[paddy335]

Originally Posted by swamp2

See comment just above also about Ferrari's efforts in modern turbocharging. They will, like pretty much everything the company does, be epic.

Except make practical control interfaces

[Carl L]

Originally Posted by paddy335

Except make practical control interfaces

And onboard fires and crash safety. A DD that can do some trackdays- hard to beat an M3 at any price despite its imperfections.

[BMWI6]

I believe that all those e92 m3 owners who bought a 2013 because it was the "last real M" got rappppeeeddd. This car is just out of control. I NEED one

[Minkster]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

Personally think to 60 will be tough to break 3.7s due to tire size/grip vs low end torque, but 12 flat in 1/4-mile seems about right. Will be interesting when some of the guys run the CarTest software info using some gear ratio assumptions.

Agree. Those numbers are approaching C6 Z06 territory.

[zeel]

I'm looking forward to this car. Love FI.