M3/M4 vs W205 C63 AMG

[mkoesel]

^^^

Everyone is entitled to an opinion here of course, but the cars are obviously competing for the same type of consumer along with others in this segment such as the RS5, upcoming ATS-V, and upcoming RC-F.

It's true that BMW has traditionally won in comparison tests, but the competition has gotten better and inched closer with each generation. You need look no further than F10 M5 comparison tests to see why it makes sense to look at things objectively rather than to just assume the BMW will be the best offering because it's "special" and letting that be the end of the analysis.

That being said, it's generally hard to go wrong in this segment so even just buying the one that pulls you in emotionally is not a bad approach. If that's the BMW offering, great.

[basscadet]

Originally Posted by wisesoul

You obviously care more about power, so buy the C63. The M3 has never been about grunt, it's been about chassis balance.

Chassis balance. Okay, so why not shop for a Subaru BR-Z if all you care about is chassis balance?

You did not bother to address his concern whatsoever which is the simple fact that a turbocharged 3.0 liter 6 cylinder is not an appropriate motor for a $80,000 luxury sports sedan/coupe. Until BMW changes the laws of physics, the saying "there is no replacement for displacement" still applies, just as much with forced-induction motors as anything else.

[basscadet]

Originally Posted by lux

I'm greedy and want it all

For $80k you better GET it all!

I have no idea why people are willing to spend this much money and compromise.

[19x]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

off topic but MAN that e46 looks good in your signature. nice

Thanks.

It's my baby. I don't think I can ever get rid of it.

[basscadet]

Everybody looks for different things in cars. For me, I want it all - the power, the steering feel, the looks. My GT-R had all 3. The E92 M3 I nearly bought felt like a Buick compared to my GT-R, so people who think that BMW is the pinnacle of athletic sports cars are full of it. The BMW traded in that athleticism for practicality (and 2 rear seats) which makes it appealing to many of us.

I can tell you this, my (last generation) Cadillac has communicative steering that is at least as good as the E92 M3. It also has about 150 extra horsepower. It has its own compromises (no DCT, ugly, etc). But the reason I bring this up is because the COMPETITION IS HEATING UP and I encourage all of you to expand your boundaries and consider cars like the C63, the Mustang, and others....you will be shocked to learn that BMW does not have a lock on the luxury sports market like it did 10 years ago.

The Times...they ARE changing. And BMW needs to wake up and smell the goddamned coffee.

[Chill72]

Originally Posted by Never Convicted

Better not argue with him. He's got BMW Sport Pedals.

I'm just having a bit of fun. In reality, go drive RS5 ans C63 (not you specifically) and you will see that they just lack something I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe I'm a ///M fanboy, but I like it and admit it.

[Sy546]

Originally Posted by basscadet

Everybody looks for different things in cars. For me, I want it all - the power, the steering feel, the looks. My GT-R had all 3. The E92 M3 I nearly bought felt like a Buick compared to my GT-R, so people who think that BMW is the pinnacle of athletic sports cars are full of it. The BMW traded in that athleticism for practicality (and 2 rear seats) which makes it appealing to many of us.

I can tell you this, my (last generation) Cadillac has communicative steering that is at least as good as the E92 M3. It also has about 150 extra horsepower. It has its own compromises (no DCT, ugly, etc). But the reason I bring this up is because the COMPETITION IS HEATING UP and I encourage all of you to expand your boundaries and consider cars like the C63, the Mustang, and others....you will be shocked to learn that BMW does not have a lock on the luxury sports market like it did 10 years ago.

The Times...they ARE changing. And BMW needs to wake up and smell the goddamned coffee.

but your GT-R has a twin turbo'd v6 that you said shouldn't be in a $80,000+ car...

and sorry all the cadillacs have been pretty ugly.

The new m3/m4 is dropping a ton of weight, increasing tq by a 100 lbs, & giving you better mileage.... Why the eff are you complaining?

[Sy546]

Originally Posted by basscadet

Chassis balance. Okay, so why not shop for a Subaru BR-Z if all you care about is chassis balance?

b.c it has no power (most of us have baseline for "necessary" speed). it has a POS interior. It isn't reliable to track. Any other questions?

[19x]

Originally Posted by Chill72

I'm just having a bit of fun. In reality, go drive RS5 ans C63 (not you specifically) and you will see that they just lack something I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe I'm a ///M fanboy, but I like it and admit it.

Indeed, it's not something that you can easily explain to those with little or no experience with M3's in general.

Originally Posted by basscadet

Everybody looks for different things in cars. For me, I want it all - the power, the steering feel, the looks. My GT-R had all 3. The E92 M3 I nearly bought felt like a Buick compared to my GT-R, so people who think that BMW is the pinnacle of athletic sports cars are full of it. The BMW traded in that athleticism for practicality (and 2 rear seats) which makes it appealing to many of us.

I can tell you this, my (last generation) Cadillac has communicative steering that is at least as good as the E92 M3. It also has about 150 extra horsepower. It has its own compromises (no DCT, ugly, etc). But the reason I bring this up is because the COMPETITION IS HEATING UP and I encourage all of you to expand your boundaries and consider cars like the C63, the Mustang, and others....you will be shocked to learn that BMW does not have a lock on the luxury sports market like it did 10 years ago.

The Times...they ARE changing. And BMW needs to wake up and smell the goddamned coffee.

"The Times" have been "changing" for the last 20 years. Or so they said.

Yet, generation after generation, the M3 has always been regarded as the pinnacle of affordable luxury GT cars. It was always the benchmark in just about every auto magazine article written in the last 25 years, despite being slower than the competition. See where I'm going?

Year after year, there were doubters. I feel that part of the crowd looking into these cars is too young and ignorant to remember what the M3 started as in the e30 days, how it progressed over the years, and how many doubters it silenced, or, dare I say, converted.

I assure you that what we're witnessing now is no different than what the masses were saying when the car first evolved into the e36 M3, then the e46 M3, then the e9x M3, and now the new one. Unfortunately, the internet also evolved and with it a bunch of whiners who can finally be heard on an automotive board such as this one.

Historically, the M3 never did anything best. Meaning, it never excelled in any one category, but rather a series of categories, combined. The M3 gave enthusiasts a perfect blend of performance, luxury, aesthetics, and prestige. And by performance, I mean a combination of unique attributes, not just raw power, or lack thereof. I hate to break it to you, but to some people, it's the whole package that counts.

On the contrary, most M3 competitors differentiated themselves by being notoriously better in one area, only to compromise another. For example, the Mercs in this category were always faster, but none of them came close to the feel in maneuverability and precision that every single M3 to date possessed. As a matter of fact, based on my personal experience, that is the one characteristic that I never found in any other car of the same class and price range.

Different strokes for different folks.

I never understood why people like you need to convince the masses that their choice in cars is wrong and yours is right. Clearly, you should not buy an M3/M4.

[Chill72]

Originally Posted by camber

For example, the Mercs in this category were always faster, but none of them came close to the feel in maneuverability and precision that every single M3 to date possessed. As a matter of fact, based on my personal experience, that is the one characteristic that I never found in any other car of the same class and price range.

Different strokes for different folks.

I never understood why people like you need to convince the masses that their choice in cars is wrong and yours is right. Clearly, you should not buy an M3/M4.

Regarding C63. That engine is the absolute monster, it thunders under WOT like none other I have heard. I grin like a virgin in the whorehouse every time I hear it during track days.

[hwelvaar]

Originally Posted by paddy335

I still think BMW miss a niche by not doing an M3 wagon. Round here at least 25-30% (very much a ballpark) of the C63's are Estates.

Warning: generalization coming up:

That's because AMG drivers are just rich people who fancy a fast car but still need the practicality.
And M drivers want fast cars and don't give a $hit about practicality.

Even if BMW would make a wagon M3, it wouldn't account for 5% of M3 sales. So no business case...

[nonagon]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

Warning: generalization coming up:

That's because AMG drivers are just rich people who fancy a fast car but still need the practicality.
And M drivers want fast cars and don't give a $hit about practicality.

Even if BMW would make a wagon M3, it wouldn't account for 5% of M3 sales. So no business case...

An M3 wagon could be cool, but I agree it would be serving a smaller market. Even so, it's not a valid generalization to say M drivers don't care about practicality. Beside the performance and handling, M cars are easy to live with as a daily drivers, more so than little 2 seaters anyway, and that certainly factors in to some people's buying decisions. Wagons, maybe due to a stigma, just don't sell as well as SUVs/crossovers, but there are always those few who prefer wagons. If you were going to own one car, ideally it would be one that wouldn't limit you in any way, whether it's practicality or fun factor. I think the only compromise is wagons don't usually look as good as the sedans they're based off of, but that's subjective and there are exceptions.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

Warning: generalization coming up:

That's because AMG drivers are just rich people who fancy a fast car but still need the practicality.
And M drivers want fast cars and don't give a $hit about practicality.

Even if BMW would make a wagon M3, it wouldn't account for 5% of M3 sales. So no business case...

09 C63 and 11 M3 impractical rich crew

[basscadet]

Originally Posted by camber

I assure you that what we're witnessing now is no different than what the masses were saying when the car first evolved into the e36 M3, then the e46 M3, then the e9x M3, and now the new one. Unfortunately, the internet also evolved and with it a bunch of whiners who can finally be heard on an automotive board such as this one.

Oh, I have no doubt there are more Internet whiners. But what you are ignoring is a simple fact: the cars that Audi, Mercedes, and others made in the era of the E36, E46, and E92 were frankly terrible cars. They were understeering, slow, boring cars. BMW's M3 and M5 laughed off the competition and they were the darling of the auto press.

Today things are different. You can bury your head in the sand but towards the end of the life cycle of the E92 the competition started to wake up.

I have the financial ability to purchase any car in this segment and I put a premium on handling and power. Never in a THOUSAND YEARS would I have considered buying anything but BMW for my daily ride but here I am driving something else. Why is that? Why is the F10 getting savaged in reviews, why is the F30 failing to excite professional journalists?

Maybe it is time to stop making excuses for BMW and waking up to the fact that expecting LESS from BMW is a sure way of encouraging them to continue to focus on things other than driving excitement? At what point do you start to become a BMW fanboy and NOT a driving enthusiast? If you cannot even possibly consider the offerings from other car companies when they are demonstrably equal or better to BMWs, then what are you if not a fanboy?

[basscadet]

Originally Posted by S.hasan546

but your GT-R has a twin turbo'd v6 that you said shouldn't be in a $80,000+ car...

and sorry all the cadillacs have been pretty ugly.

The new m3/m4 is dropping a ton of weight, increasing tq by a 100 lbs, & giving you better mileage.... Why the eff are you complaining?

It's a hand-built motor with more displacement (3.8 vs 3.0) that makes more power and more torque everywhere. Apples and oranges.

What are we getting with the M3? The same engine that is in the 335i but with some forged internal parts, better radiators, and turbos that are actually smaller than those in the 335i. And I am supposed to be excited about this?

[Savory]

Originally Posted by basscadet

Chassis balance. Okay, so why not shop for a Subaru BR-Z if all you care about is chassis balance?

You did not bother to address his concern whatsoever which is the simple fact that a turbocharged 3.0 liter 6 cylinder is not an appropriate motor for a $80,000 luxury sports sedan/coupe. Until BMW changes the laws of physics, the saying "there is no replacement for displacement" still applies, just as much with forced-induction motors as anything else.

If all you want is power/big motor, the M3 has historically never been that choice. Why not the BRZ? Should I be confined to Coke if I want Pepsi? The M3 is still a desirable car to a lot of us, obviously not for yourself.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by camber

Indeed, it's not something that you can easily explain to those with little or no experience with M3's in general.

When a Mustang GT can hang with and basically tie an M3 in a track test, that's a fundamental change to me. So, in some ways, this level of performance has become marginalized. The secret sauce is not so secret anymore. It also goes back to profitability equation in the industry which has become more difficult to solve in recent years.

There are still ways to differentiate, but it is a bit more difficult today. As a consumer, my approach is to look at it all objectively and see where things fall. It's true there is some suspicious sounding digs being taken in this thread - but I see them coming from both sides. Hopefully the mean result is some level of rational debate.

Competition is good. Ignoring the completion is bad.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

Even if BMW would make a wagon M3, it wouldn't account for 5% of M3 sales. So no business case...

Surely the C63 Estate accounts for only a tiny percentage of C63 sales as well. And I doubt the RS4 sells in much higher numbers than the C63 Estate, though it happens to account for 100% of RS4 sales because there is no RS4 sedan available currently (I bet that will change come B9 though - lets see what happens).

[19x]

Originally Posted by basscadet

Oh, I have no doubt there are more Internet whiners. But what you are ignoring is a simple fact: the cars that Audi, Mercedes, and others made in the era of the E36, E46, and E92 were frankly terrible cars. They were understeering, slow, boring cars. BMW's M3 and M5 laughed off the competition and they were the darling of the auto press.

Today things are different. You can bury your head in the sand but towards the end of the life cycle of the E92 the competition started to wake up.

I have the financial ability to purchase any car in this segment and I put a premium on handling and power. Never in a THOUSAND YEARS would I have considered buying anything but BMW for my daily ride but here I am driving something else. Why is that? Why is the F10 getting savaged in reviews, why is the F30 failing to excite professional journalists?

Maybe it is time to stop making excuses for BMW and waking up to the fact that expecting LESS from BMW is a sure way of encouraging them to continue to focus on things other than driving excitement? At what point do you start to become a BMW fanboy and NOT a driving enthusiast? If you cannot even possibly consider the offerings from other car companies when they are demonstrably equal or better to BMWs, then what are you if not a fanboy?

Well, again, many of the BMW "fanboys" that you are referring to became fanboys for a reason. They liked something about the car that the competition simply didn't offer.

I don't think anyone is making excuses. I can acknowledge that the competition is out there, but I will disagree that they have been "catching up". On the contrary, I think they've distanced themselves even more. The newest Audis and Mercs I drove still feel like boat anchors to me. They still don't possess the precision feel and feedback of the M3.

Lastly, you're ignoring the simple fact that NO unbiased source has driven the new M3/M4 and actually reviewed it. Everything we've heard so far is mere speculation and what the cars look like on paper. So you cannot possibly conclude that the competition is caught up.

And even when the M3 doesn't score high in reviews, you have to remember that at the end of the day I'm the judge of what I like. I decide what I think is better. And, thus far, none of the competitors come close in the driver feedback and manuevarability aspect in my book. Yes, I drove them all at some point.

[19x]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

When a Mustang GT can hang with and basically tie an M3 in a track test, that's a fundamental change to me. So, in some ways, this level of performance has become marginalized. The secret sauce is not so secret anymore. It also goes back to profitability equation in the industry which has become more difficult to solve in recent years.

There are still ways to differentiate, but it is a bit more difficult today. As a consumer, my approach is to look at it all objectively and see where things fall. It's true there is some suspicious sounding digs being taken in this thread - but I see them coming from both sides. Hopefully the mean result is some level of rational debate.

Competition is good. Ignoring the completion is bad.

Agreed for the most part.

But, again, you missed the simple fact that not everyone defines a car and its "competition" in terms of performance. Saying the Mustang is as fast as the M3 today is strictly basing the comparison on performance.

To some, that's not as meaningful.

As someone who used to regularly track and autox his car, I can tell you that Evo 8's and 9's were much more performance focused vehicles than the M3 was. They were lighter, handled better, and were faster both in straight line and around the corners than the e46 M3. So what?

The thought of ever owning an Evo never crossed my mind, despite the fact that it outperformed my M3 at half the price. After driving one on numerous occasions, I couldn't wait to get back in my M3. As great of a performer as the Evo 8/9 was for its time, it never felt as rewarding, as progressive, as precise, as mechanical, and as refined as my M3. And, to me, no amount of its performance could ever match the feel of my M3.

[BMW M3 CRT]

Originally Posted by Savory

If all you want is power/big motor, the M3 has historically never been that choice. Why not the BRZ? Should I be confined to Coke if I want Pepsi? The M3 is still a desirable car to a lot of us, obviously not for yourself.

Your intention is to misunderstood Basscadets post ???

An M3 was never about the biggest power / biggest engine .... RIGHT ... but an M3 was ever until now about an unique, exciting, emotional and sporty engine -> this is one of the important things described as "M Spirit" and "Rennsporttechnik für die Straße" and this is gone with the S55 ... don´t misunderstand me, the new M3/M4 will be an great car and "the best M3 ever" but the heart of the spirit was lost with this engine decision !!!

If they had decided that ~430hp are enough and therefore bring the F8x with an slightly modified S65, none would complaining that the new car has less hp than its competitors, because the engine fulfil all demand of an real and great M engine!

But if the decides the new M3/M4 need an turbo engine, because turbo engine is the engine of the present generation, than an lighter 4.0ltr.V8TT based on the S63Tü were the best option in terms of M spirit and M worthyness, second - for me - would be an innovative new 3.0-3.3ltr.V6TT also based on the S63Tü an developed at Nissan GT-R standards and third an 3.0-3.3ltr.I6TT (based on an half N73?) with greater bore than stroke like first rumored here on bimmerpost.

AND last ... no matter what turbo engine they would have been chosen ... he should in any case have more hp than only 430 ... to justify the rejection of the great NA S65 !!!

[dreamsongs]

Originally Posted by camber

Well, again, many of the BMW "fanboys" that you are referring to became fanboys for a reason. They liked something about the car that the competition simply didn't offer.

I don't think anyone is making excuses. I can acknowledge that the competition is out there, but I will disagree that they have been "catching up". On the contrary, I think they've distanced themselves even more. The newest Audis and Mercs I drove still feel like boat anchors to me. They still don't possess the precision feel and feedback of the M3.

Lastly, you're ignoring the simple fact that NO unbiased source has driven the new M3/M4 and actually reviewed it. Everything we've heard so far is mere speculation and what the cars look like on paper. So you cannot possibly conclude that the competition is caught up.

And even when the M3 doesn't score high in reviews, you have to remember that at the end of the day I'm the judge of what I like. I decide what I think is better. And, thus far, none of the competitors come close in the driver feedback and manuevarability aspect in my book. Yes, I drove them all at some point.

I agree that it comes down to personal taste in the end. It really has to be a mix of speed/power, interior feel, exterior looks, transmission, handling and how you feel when you drive it.

I've had 2 M's, e46 and e92 and loved them both. When the lease was up last year on my e92 I probably would've gone straight to the new M4 if it was available but it wasn't, so I got myself into a vert 335i until the m4 is out.

I'm looking at everything, I have one more year to make up my mind. The M3 has always been special to me but I agree with some posters that the competition is closing the gap quickly and I also admit I was disappointed when I first heard about them going back to the I6.

Somewhere inside I'm also disappointed that it's only going to be 425 HP although the torque is an improvement. Especially when HP is someting many consumers at this price level take into consideration.

I have one year to make up my mind, I've had 6 BMW's and 2 M's so i'm quite at ease with the brand. I fortunately can buy any car at this 65-80k price range so I'm not going to rush into an M4 just because....

I'll reserve my choice until I drive all the competitors and see where the M4 sits at that time....