INDustry distribution
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   BMW M3 and BMW M4 Forum > BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 Forum > BMW M3 (F80) and BMW M4 (F82) General Forum

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-02-2013, 12:49 PM   #45
solstice
Brigadier General
1841
Rep
4,758
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3 6MT
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

I prefer the term "Leergewicht" over Unladen or Kerb gewicht simply because it is currently what BMW ( and Porsche ) uses when reporting weight in Germany. Just another part in limiting confusion and risk of picking the wrong measure.

Last edited by solstice; 12-02-2013 at 12:59 PM..
Appreciate 0
      12-02-2013, 02:47 PM   #46
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
475
Rep
10,408
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by solstice View Post
It seems to me that CURRENTLY we get reliable apples to apples comparison for the European cars by using one of the German/EU Leergewicht weights. It doesn't matter which one as long as it's the same. I.e you can compare Leergewicht EG or Leergewicht DIN and it will be apples to apples. Translation between them is easy, EG is 75kg more than DIN.

We can forget all the other metrics as Kerb weight, Curb weight, Unladen etc. since they just bring confusion and Curb weight especially is not consistently reported. A short description of Leergewicht EG and Leergewicht DIN and where to get these numbers should be sufficient as a sticky IMO.
Mostly agree here. Like I said earlier, I agree that most of the legal/regulatory stuff is largely irrelevant. What matters to enthusiasts is making apples to apples comparisons. However, some definitions/clarifications/examples of terms used by BMW and other manufacturers on their US websites is certainly relevant. What about domestic models on US websites (Corvette, Mustang, etc)? I know, I know, LMGTFY...

What do you think Boss330? Would it make sense to remove all of the legal/regulatory stuff? I know it appears to be an area you are interested in and have done some great research, but it is likely limiting the utility of the sticky. That material could be footnoted or it could also be stated that the OEMs are not clearly following many of these to the letter.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      12-02-2013, 03:47 PM   #47
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
1021
Rep
4,841
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Mostly agree here. Like I said earlier, I agree that most of the legal/regulatory stuff is largely irrelevant. What matters to enthusiasts is making apples to apples comparisons. However, some definitions/clarifications/examples of terms used by BMW and other manufacturers on their US websites is certainly relevant. What about domestic models on US websites (Corvette, Mustang, etc)? I know, I know, LMGTFY...

What do you think Boss330? Would it make sense to remove all of the legal/regulatory stuff? I know it appears to be an area you are interested in and have done some great research, but it is likely limiting the utility of the sticky. That material could be footnoted or it could also be stated that the OEMs are not clearly following many of these to the letter.
Any views on what swamp2 suggests here?

Mods, what do you want?

I want the sticky to be of as much use as possible, so if removing or editing some of the legal stuff makes sense, then I'm open to do that
Appreciate 0
      12-03-2013, 11:39 AM   #48
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
475
Rep
10,408
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Well I see everyone is thrilled to add their input on the thread... I guess weight just isn't as sexy as power. Funny though because a lot of folks here really get it. Solstice and I are on the same page with regards to the best course for the thread, hopefully you see that point. Thanks again for an excellent thread.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      12-03-2013, 12:46 PM   #49
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
1021
Rep
4,841
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Definitions have been removed from the OP in order to make that less "headache infusing" , on the request of other members. Definitions will be linked to this post in the OP.

Definitions:


EU kerb weight:

EU-Directive 92/21/EEC defined "Masses and Dimensions of motor vehicles of category M1" (M1 is the EU-definition of a passenger vehicle with no more than a total seating capacity of 9 persons). Consolidated version of 92/21/EEC (meaning the version including all later updates, including 95/48/EEC as referred to in Wikipedia):

In Appendix 1 to Annex I in § 2.6 there is the definition of how the manufacturer shall state the curb weight of the vehicle when applying for type approval:

Quote:
Mass of the vehicle with bodywork in running order, or mass of the chassis with cab if the manufacturer does not fit the bodywork (including coolant, oils, fuel, tools, spare wheel and driver) (o)
(maximum and minimum)
And further in § 1.1 in Appendix to Annex II the "Mass of the vehicle" is defined as follows:

Quote:
1.1. empty, i.e. in running order as per item 2.6 of Appendix 1 of Annex I, but without driver,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...9951020:EN:PDF



On the 21.12.2012 Directive 92/21/EEC was repealed and replaced by commision regulation 1230/2012 that implements regulation 661/2009 with regards to masses and dimensions:


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...31:0079:EN:PDF


In Article 2 § 4 "mass in running order" is defined as follows:
  • the mass of the vehicle, with its fuel tank(s) filled to at least 90 % of its or their capacity/ies, including the mass of the driver, of the fuel and liquids, fitted with the standard equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and, when they are fitted, the mass of the bodywork, the cabin, the coupling and the spare wheel(s) as well as the tools;

In Annex I, Appendix 2 the mass in running order shall be established as follows:

Quote:
2.1. The mass in running order shall be checked from the actual mass by weighing the vehicle and deducting the mass of the optional equipment fitted.
And in § 5:

Quote:
‘mass of the optional equipment’ means the mass of the equipment which may be fitted to the vehicle in addition to the standard equipment, in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications;
And § 6:

Quote:
‘actual mass of the vehicle’ means the mass in running order plus the mass of the optional equipment fitted to an individual vehicle;
And § 20:

Quote:
‘mass of the driver’ means a mass rated at 75 kg located at the driver’s seating reference point
Article 7 § 3:

Quote:
3. As from 10 January 2014 manufacturers shall deliver certificates of conformity which are in accordance with this Regulation.

Until 9 January 2014 they shall indicate the actual mass of the vehicle in entry 52 of the certificate of conformity, unless it is indicated in one of the other entries of the certificate of conformity.


The change in relation to 92/21/EEC is that weight of optional equipment has to be stated by the manufacturer, but optional equipment shall still not be included in "mass in running order" (curb weight).

To sum up a EU curb weight:
  • It shall include the driver and fluids when applying for a type approval and will also be the official curb weight of the car. However in the definition of "Mass of the vehicle" in 92/21/EEC, driver is not included. .
  • In the new regulation, 1230/2012/EEC, the weight is now defined as "mass in running order" and includes the driver.
  • If a EU curb weight is given it will be safe to assume that the driver is included, unless stated that it does not. Because as can be seen, Directive 92/21/EEC defines both a curb weight with driver and a curb weight (mass of the vehicle) without the driver. However the industry standard is to quote the "Type approval curb weight", which includes the driver.
  • For new type approvals, EU defines that the "mass in running order" includes the driver, and it is more clearly defined that the weight of optional equipment shall not be included in the curb weight.



US curb weight:

Quote:
Curb weight means the actual or the
manufacturer’s estimated weight of the
vehicle in operational status with all
standard equipment, and weight of fuel
at nominal tank capacity, and the
weight of optional equipment computed
in accordance with § 86.1832–01
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-200...86-1803-01.pdf


And as is apparent from the US definition of curb weight above, options that are expected to be installed in more than 33% of the sold cars must be included in the curb weight.


§ 86.1832–01

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/86.1832-01

Quote:
a) (1) Where it is expected that more than 33 percent of a car line, within a test group, will be equipped with an item (whether that item is standard equipment or an option), the full estimated weight of that item must be included in the curb weight computation for each vehicle available with that item in that car line, within that test group.
Further it is apparent from the US definition that the driver is not included in the curb weight:

From the definition used by US authorities (and also Dept of Defence) Curb weight does not include driver. The US definition of driver weight is 68kg BTW.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/ruli...ervehicle.html


The NHTSA defines curb weight as follows:

Quote:
NHTSA categorizes vehicles by class and “curb” weight. Curb
weight is the weight of a vehicle with standard Equipment including the maximum capacity of fuel, oil, coolant, and air conditioning.
http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shop...r+FAQ#eighteen

Same as FMVSS:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regul...aspx?reg=571.3

And:

Quote:
Unloaded Vehicle Weight
· means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use.
http://www.nasdpts.org/documents/pub...iniguide04.pdf

And from this mini guide to FMVSS regs:

Quote:
Curb Weight: means the weight of a motor vehicle with standard equipment; Maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant; and, if so equipped, air conditioning and additional weight of optional engine. Curb weight does not include the driver, passengers, or cargo.
http://opi.mt.gov/PDF/PupilTransport/PTHAppI.pdf

But, it seems however that manufacturers state a curb weight in the US that does include the driver.

To take one example, the Focus ST is quoted at:

1437kg EU curb weight (with driver and 90% fuel)
1463kg US curb weight (extra weight probably due to the 33% option rule in the US)

http://www.config.ford.de/fordconnec...ytmodelspc.htm

http://www.ford.com/cars/focus/speci...ns/capacities/


Difference between the EU and US curb weight:

Difference between US and EU curb weights can be summarized as follows:
  • 90% fuel in EU
  • 100% fuel in the US
  • EU curb weight is for the base version of the car, with no extra equipment added but should include driver at 75kg (if the car is sold without AC in a base version, then AC does not have to be included in the curb weight).
  • US curb weight must include options that is expected to be installed in more than 33% of vehicles sold, but does not, by definition, include driver. However it seems US curb weights are quoted in brochures etc with driver



DIN weight:

DIN 70020 that defines weights also includes fuel, driver and fluids.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leergewicht

Before 2006 there was also a DIN norm that operated with "dry weight", but from 2005 all type approved vehicles have a curb weight consisting of vehicle, including a full tank of fuel (in the German system, 90% according to EU), driver, tool kit, warning triangle and spare tire (when fitted).

The DIN standards are not free to download, you have to buy them and I don't have access to DIN 70020, but I suspect that DIN 70020 might also have a similar paragraph as shown above for the EU-Directive where weight also can be defined WITHOUT driver.

In January 2006 the DIN 70020 standard was revoked in favour of ISO standard 1176:1990

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/ca...?csnumber=5760

However from what I know and have found out, the DIN/ISO/EU definitions on weight are similar. So basically a DIN curb weight will be equal to a EU curb weight. But as the old DIN weights did not include driver, I guess that when there is a reference from someone such as BMW, or others, to a "DIN curb weight" it can be assumed that it is without driver.


Let me finish with a curiosity:

In Japan the GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) is calculated from the curb weight of the car, with the addition of the number of passengers (incl. driver) the vehicle has seats for. Not such a curiosity in itself perhaps, but in Japan they don't use 75kg per person (P). No, it's 55kg. And over here in Europe we have had a bit of cars imported from Japan. They don't come with a VIN-tag stating our usual US and EU GVWR, but only come with the registrartion documents that state a GVWR of curb weight + (P x 55kg). So, unless the manufacturer of the car can confirm that the Japanese version of the vehicle has the same GVWR as the European version, the vehicle will "loose" 1 or 2 in passenger capacity... I.e, the car has a loading capacity (difference between curb weight and GVWR) that is only large enough to allow for 3 of the 5 it has in seating capacity...
Appreciate 0
      12-03-2013, 01:08 PM   #50
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
1021
Rep
4,841
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Well I see everyone is thrilled to add their input on the thread... I guess weight just isn't as sexy as power. Funny though because a lot of folks here really get it. Solstice and I are on the same page with regards to the best course for the thread, hopefully you see that point. Thanks again for an excellent thread.


If only people realized how important weight is... HP is "only" good for acceleration, weight matters both for braking energy/distance and handling! Low weight was sexy to Lotus founder Colin Chapman, he knew what it took to create a fun car

But I guess this thread isn't about volume of replies, but more of a reference where the info can be referenced to/looked up etc. Instead of searching the net every time

I have edited the OP, any other suggestions on how to improve it?

Solstice: Note that I have added some info to the X5/Cayenne comparison in the OP. Agree on the added info?
Appreciate 0
      12-03-2013, 01:21 PM   #51
solstice
Brigadier General
1841
Rep
4,758
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3 6MT
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post


If only people realized how important weight is... HP is "only" good for acceleration, weight matters both for braking energy/distance and handling! Low weight was sexy to Lotus founder Colin Chapman, he knew what it took to create a fun car

But I guess this thread isn't about volume of replies, but more of a reference where the info can be referenced to/looked up etc. Instead of searching the net every time

I have edited the OP, any other suggestions on how to improve it?

Solstice: Note that I have added some info to the X5/Cayenne comparison in the OP. Agree on the added info?
Yes, thanks.
A suggestion though would be to start the thread with just the standards and terminology used by the manufacturers currently with a brief description. Something like this:

Weigth standards currently used by BMW and other German brands on their official web sites.

Germany:
1. Leergewicht EU ( Car with 90% fuel, 68kg driver, 7kg luggage )
2. Leergewicht DIN ( Car with 90% fuel, no driver, no luggage )

USA:
1. Curb weight ( Inconsistent reporting, with or without driver, unknown and inconsistent equipment level ).

Recommendation:
Use the European standards for apples to apples comparison. For cars that lack European weights further research is needed to determine the content of "Curb weight".
Appreciate 0
      12-03-2013, 02:05 PM   #52
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
1021
Rep
4,841
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by solstice View Post
Yes, thanks.
A suggestion though would be to start the thread with just the standards and terminology used by the manufacturers currently with a brief description. Something like this:

Weigth standards currently used by BMW and other German brands on their official web sites.

Germany:
1. Leergewicht EU ( Car with 90% fuel, 68kg driver, 7kg luggage )
2. Leergewicht DIN ( Car with 90% fuel, no driver, no luggage )

USA:
1. Curb weight ( Inconsistent reporting, with or without driver, unknown and inconsistent equipment level ).

Recommendation:
Use the European standards for apples to apples comparison. For cars that lack European weights further research is needed to determine the content of "Curb weight".
Thank you very much

Added the great summary you provided
Appreciate 0
      12-03-2013, 03:12 PM   #53
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
475
Rep
10,408
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Look much improved to me.

What about unladen as reported by BMW. Specifically the E93 M3 is reported on BMWUSA.com using unladen. Perhaps that is a "standard" they will no longer use?
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      12-03-2013, 04:00 PM   #54
solstice
Brigadier General
1841
Rep
4,758
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3 6MT
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Look much improved to me.

What about unladen as reported by BMW. Specifically the E93 M3 is reported on BMWUSA.com using unladen. Perhaps that is a "standard" they will no longer use?
As I understand it Unladen is just another word for Leergewicht but is no longer used on BMW.de which I think uses Leergewicht exclusively. Being the same I also think you need to know if it's Unlden EU or Unladen DIN otherwise it's rather useless without looking up the matching Leergewicht number. In summary avoid bmwusa.com numbers since you still need to check them against BMW.de
Appreciate 0
      12-03-2013, 04:07 PM   #55
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
1021
Rep
4,841
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Look much improved to me.

What about unladen as reported by BMW. Specifically the E93 M3 is reported on BMWUSA.com using unladen. Perhaps that is a "standard" they will no longer use?
The unladen weight for the E93 M3 on BMWUSA.com is the same as Leergewicht EG 1882-1885kg (which accounts for difference between 90% and 100% fuel).

For the F10 M5 they use Curb Weight at 4387lbs / 1992kg. On BMW.de the Leergewicht EG is quoted at 1945kg... Same with 428i where the Leergewicht EG weight is 1545kg (AT) and US Curb weight is 1575kg. So a 47kg increase for the US M5 weight and a 30kg increase for the US 428i weight (probably down to the added 10% fuel and the US 33% option rule).

Seems like US curb weights are, like solstice pointed out, not the easiest estimates to compare. Even BMW has different weight standards on their US website (as the E93 M3 doesn't seem to include options and is similar to the Leergewicht EG figure. Whereas the newer F10 M5 and F32 428i seems to include the 33% option weights, and weights are not similar to Leergewicht EG...)
Appreciate 0
      12-15-2013, 06:58 PM   #56
Zayken
Private
United Arab Emirates
24
Rep
95
Posts

Drives: F10 M5
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dubai

iTrader: (0)

All these details concerning the weight are nice, but too complicated for my slow brain.
So what i did ? Just click at the first link where it shows the weight of a "mortal" 435i

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicle...ata/index.html

Already have checked the weight ? Ok lets move now and click at the link bellow where it shows the lighter godspeed M4 !

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicle...ata/index.html

Got it ? All these extra light materials, the extended use of carbon, bla bla bla for what ????

FOR a freakin 435i weight ?????? So these F8. -35i cars with a nice tune added will be equal in terms of hp/kg ratio with the M cars at the 2/3 of the M price ? Deym !
Appreciate 0
      12-16-2013, 08:58 AM   #57
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
1021
Rep
4,841
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zayken View Post
All these details concerning the weight are nice, but too complicated for my slow brain.
So what i did ? Just click at the first link where it shows the weight of a "mortal" 435i

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicle...ata/index.html

Already have checked the weight ? Ok lets move now and click at the link bellow where it shows the lighter godspeed M4 !

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicle...ata/index.html

Got it ? All these extra light materials, the extended use of carbon, bla bla bla for what ????

FOR a freakin 435i weight ?????? So these F8. -35i cars with a nice tune added will be equal in terms of hp/kg ratio with the M cars at the 2/3 of the M price ? Deym !
If that is the only parameter that is of importance to you, then yes, go ahead and buy a 335i and tune it. You will possibly be able to keep up with a M4 in a drag race, but try and keep up, lap after lap, on a track and it might be a different scenario.

And, probably for the first time, the M version is lighter than a BMW AG version. Compare a E9x M3 vs a 335i and see if the M3 is lighter than the 335i. Perhaps you then will appreciate the weight loss diet of the M4
Appreciate 0
      12-16-2013, 04:48 PM   #58
Zayken
Private
United Arab Emirates
24
Rep
95
Posts

Drives: F10 M5
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dubai

iTrader: (0)

I am just trying to point out that all this triumphs about the new M4 weight reduction because of the use of exotic materials are misleading us.

In reality the new M4 has the same weight with the 435i which has the same weight with the E92 335i, and hence I see no evolution at all at this point.

Moreover I am seeing an S55 engine almost identical to N55, I am seeing M adaptive suspension offered both for M4 and 435 ,I am seeing m sport brakes offered for the 435 , I am seeing a perfect gearbox which makes the DCT feels not so faster anymore and many more, which makes me wonder,

Where is the evolution ? At pre-charged turbos at sport and sport+ ?
At carbon roof ?
Is it coming from the new seats ? From the fake engine sound produced by the stereo ?

As far as I remember, the previous E92, didn't have : nice gearbox, M suspension, M brakes, M exhaust . So E92 M3 had an advantage at handling and performance at corners !

Its not the same anymore !

Its the first time in my life that I can afford an M car, and before I proceed, I am putting all data down ! Where is the added value hidden in this case ?
I am looking forward to see/read good reviews
Appreciate 0
      12-17-2013, 02:04 AM   #59
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
475
Rep
10,408
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zayken View Post
I am just trying to point out that all this triumphs about the new M4 weight reduction because of the use of exotic materials are misleading us.

In reality the new M4 has the same weight with the 435i which has the same weight with the E92 335i, and hence I see no evolution at all at this point.

Moreover I am seeing an S55 engine almost identical to N55, I am seeing M adaptive suspension offered both for M4 and 435 ,I am seeing m sport brakes offered for the 435 , I am seeing a perfect gearbox which makes the DCT feels not so faster anymore and many more, which makes me wonder,

Where is the evolution ? At pre-charged turbos at sport and sport+ ?
At carbon roof ?
Is it coming from the new seats ? From the fake engine sound produced by the stereo ?

As far as I remember, the previous E92, didn't have : nice gearbox, M suspension, M brakes, M exhaust . So E92 M3 had an advantage at handling and performance at corners !

Its not the same anymore !

Its the first time in my life that I can afford an M car, and before I proceed, I am putting all data down ! Where is the added value hidden in this case ?
I am looking forward to see/read good reviews
Let's not get too far off topic here. Similar points are being discussed in many other threads. I do see your points, they are fiarly valide, but a car is often more than the sum of it's parts. Yes I totally agree the latest BMW M cars are becoming a bit less special. Either way the new M3/M4's will trounce the existing cars at the strip and track. They will do so primarily due to a much improved power to weight ratio, with a whole plethora of other contributing factors (lower CG, lower drivetrain inertia, totally revised suspension, active M diff, better brakes, better tires, better cooling, etc.).
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      12-17-2013, 05:36 AM   #60
jonasaurus
Brigadier General
jonasaurus's Avatar
United Kingdom
68
Rep
3,184
Posts

Drives: E90 M3 [Sold]
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NYC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zayken View Post
I am just trying to point out that all this triumphs about the new M4 weight reduction because of the use of exotic materials are misleading us.

In reality the new M4 has the same weight with the 435i which has the same weight with the E92 335i, and hence I see no evolution at all at this point.

Moreover I am seeing an S55 engine almost identical to N55, I am seeing M adaptive suspension offered both for M4 and 435 ,I am seeing m sport brakes offered for the 435 , I am seeing a perfect gearbox which makes the DCT feels not so faster anymore and many more, which makes me wonder,

Where is the evolution ? At pre-charged turbos at sport and sport+ ?
At carbon roof ?
Is it coming from the new seats ? From the fake engine sound produced by the stereo ?

As far as I remember, the previous E92, didn't have : nice gearbox, M suspension, M brakes, M exhaust . So E92 M3 had an advantage at handling and performance at corners !

Its not the same anymore !

Its the first time in my life that I can afford an M car, and before I proceed, I am putting all data down ! Where is the added value hidden in this case ?
I am looking forward to see/read good reviews
Strong statement understand its your opinion but youre definitely viewing the new M3/M4 as a glass half empty. Evolution of the M3 (and M4) has been driven by various factors ranging from regulation/laws to wider consumer wants or needs (business drivers) as an example. So can be difficult to evaluate the two cars by just looking at their discrete parts and comparing if the 'lesser' models have 'similar' parts.

S55 whilst sharing similarities with the N55 has different internals so not sure you'd say its the same as such, its reasonable to say its not a totally bespoke engine (I buy into that argument). If it was the same as you suggest you should go get the 435i and make a few tweaks of your own and voila you're done. Some of the CFRP applications such as the prop shaft is relatively speaking ground breaking for a mass market car, but that is just one example.

When the time comes go drive both and then evaluate for yourself and come back and tell us if you think the 435i is the better value proposition for you. Hopefully it won't be the 335i vs M3 argument all over again.
__________________
///M3 | E90 LCI | Space Grey | Fox Red with CF Structure | 6MT | 260M | My build
Appreciate 0
      12-17-2013, 11:04 AM   #61
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
1021
Rep
4,841
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

As others have pointed out. let's keep those discussions in the threads that are allready discussing these topics. This is a thread about curb weights in general. Not a thread about the weight loss or development of the F8x.
Appreciate 0
      12-17-2013, 01:44 PM   #62
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
475
Rep
10,408
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonasaurus View Post
Some of the CFRP applications such as the prop shaft is relatively speaking ground breaking for a mass market car, but that is just one example.
Poor example these have been around on production cars for over a decade... Link. Don't fall to prey to BMWs marketing machine.

OK, now back on topic, I promise...
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      12-17-2013, 04:39 PM   #63
jonasaurus
Brigadier General
jonasaurus's Avatar
United Kingdom
68
Rep
3,184
Posts

Drives: E90 M3 [Sold]
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NYC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonasaurus View Post
Some of the CFRP applications such as the prop shaft is relatively speaking ground breaking for a mass market car, but that is just one example.
Poor example these have been around on production cars for over a decade... Link. Don't fall to prey to BMWs marketing machine.

OK, now back on topic, I promise...
Ah ok I stand corrected on that example, let me go back to the drawing board !
__________________
///M3 | E90 LCI | Space Grey | Fox Red with CF Structure | 6MT | 260M | My build
Appreciate 0
      12-18-2013, 04:31 PM   #64
MRV99
Major
MRV99's Avatar
United_States
238
Rep
1,066
Posts

Drives: 2017 M3 ZCP / 2017 RRS SC
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Naperville

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2017 BMW M3 ZCP  [0.00]
I am pretty sure my f8x will have the same options as my e90 except w/ HUD. It will be lighter no matter what. That is what is nice.
__________________

17 M3 ZCP -- 2017 Range Rover Sport SC
--RIP--
12 X5 50i Sport -- 11 M3 DCT -- 2011 X5 50i(Lemon) -- 2008 550 Msport -- 2007 x5 4.8 sport -- 2004 545 sport -- 2002 x5 4.4 sport -- 2001 540i Msport 2000 SL500 -- 1997 SL500
Appreciate 0
      02-22-2014, 03:01 AM   #65
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
475
Rep
10,408
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

From the official german brochure we have weights without and with driver, M4 and M3 and MT and M-DCT.
Attached Images
 
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      02-22-2014, 03:36 AM   #66
CanAutM3
Lieutenant General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
11395
Rep
17,060
Posts

Drives: 2019 M4cs
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2019 BMW M4cs  [0.00]
2018 Audi RS3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
From the official german brochure we have weights without and with driver, M4 and M3 and MT and M-DCT.
So the weights published by Jason are confirmed.

This also confirms the 89lb weight penalty of the DCT
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 AM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST