Edmunds First Drive: 2008 BMW M3

[GTaudiophile]

Read It Here!

The use of trick materials like an aluminum-silicon alloy crankcase also helps minimize weight so the new V8 is actually 33 pounds lighter than the inline-6 it replaces.

 

[ElFenix]

meh. sounds like the 335 is so close it doesn't matter. i bet with the 15 grand saved you could easily mod the 335 up (which isn't down that much power and is way up on torque over this V8 to begin with). the big difference is the diff, of course. and the fact that you'd be running around in a potentially warranty-less brand new bmw.

 

[theeedude]

Not bad, but I was expecting a more glorious sound from such a high revving engine. Also, "steering feel is good, but not great" is not something that is acceptable for an M3, IMO.
Plus CTS-v is going to have the LS7 which does sound glorious in the Z-06 and puts down about 100 more horsepower and tonnes more torque.

 

[Fenixgoon]

RS4 > j00

 

[GTaudiophile]

After reading the review last night, my opinion is: Another dud from BMW. When will they learn that the further they go from producing pure sports cars to using gee-whiz-bang technology, the fewer hardcore customers they will attract? But hardcore means nothing to them any more. They know that BMW badge + crap = mega sales.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
After reading the review last night, my opinion is: Another dud from BMW. When will they learn that the further they go from producing pure sports cars to using gee-whiz-bang technology, the fewer hardcore customers they will attract? But hardcore means nothing to them any more. They know that BMW badge + crap = mega sales.

I'd say you're taking it WAY too far on this one. The irony is that while it clearly includes a host of new technology that arguably numbs the driver's perception of the road, it is likely still far superior to any Audi in that regard, yet people still laud the S4 and RS4. I betcha the M3 is a beast of a car to actually drive, and as fast or faster under real conditions than an RS4. Let's wait until more info is in before condemning BMW, whose last new product, the 335i, is pretty awesome (and arguably the M3's most compelling competitor).

 

[Jahee]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
RS4 > j00

Agreed!..

 

[overst33r]

Brakes fading on a 60k car... tsk tsk

 

[thirdeye]

I just don't really understand the low displacement high cylinder engines BMW is coming out with. Who wants a V8 that revs to 8500rpms but makes the same or less tq than many 6 cylinders. Hell my STi has more TQ than that thing in stock form.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: thirdeye
I just don't really understand the low displacement high cylinder engines BMW is coming out with. Who wants a V8 that revs to 8500rpms but makes the same or less tq than many 6 cylinders. Hell my STi has more TQ than that thing in stock form.

As a matter of mathmatics, any engine that builds horsepower at high RPMs will have comparatively low torque - the further from 5500 RPM it builds max HP, the less torque it will have. I don't know why people fail to understand that the "low torque" of high-revving VTEC and VANOS engines is a direct function of the fact that they rev above 8K, and build their max power at high RPMs. This is the same reason F1 engines have comparatively modest torque, while building massive power at 10K+ RPMs.

 

[thirdeye]

I completely understand how TQ is affected w/ low displacement/high revving engines. I'm saying I don't understand why choose to use it in something that weighs so much. I'd rather have more TQ and a lower rev-limit for a daily driven car. Not to say ~ 300lb/ft of tq is unacceptable, it's just low for a that much $$$.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
After reading the review last night, my opinion is: Another dud from BMW. When will they learn that the further they go from producing pure sports cars to using gee-whiz-bang technology, the fewer hardcore customers they will attract? But hardcore means nothing to them any more. They know that BMW badge + crap = mega sales.

I'd say you're taking it WAY too far on this one. The irony is that while it clearly includes a host of new technology that arguably numbs the driver's perception of the road, it is likely still far superior to any Audi in that regard, yet people still laud the S4 and RS4. I betcha the M3 is a beast of a car to actually drive, and as fast or faster under real conditions than an RS4. Let's wait until more info is in before condemning BMW, whose last new product, the 335i, is pretty awesome (and arguably the M3's most compelling competitor).

there's a reason why people love the RS4 so much, you know. especially for a few grand more, no idrive, no bangling, and quattro

 

[Sunrise089]

Well it looks like I might have been right in the other M3 thread we have here.

Anyways, after the stupid amount of M3 hype edmunds has been offering recently, I expected a glowing review. Instead, I see it as mixed at best. The engine doesn't sound as good, the idle doesn't feel as racy, you have to drive it hard to feel the performance additions, brakes fade, they quote BMW's hopefully overly-conservative performance numbers, and directly compare it unfavorably to the 335i when price is included in the discussion.

You know, they really should have learned the lesson the previous gen 540i and M5 demonstrated: it IS possible to have a car considered the best in it's class in the world, and still offer an even better version. Unlike the new 550i, the 335i has achieved world-class status in it's class (or any class), but unless the new M3 is a LOT quicker than BMW is advertising, or they turn down the boost in the 335i and stop underrating it (and surely they won't do that, right?) then there is no way the M3 can justify 20k over the 335i.

 

[exdeath]

I love how everyone is so quick to bash an American car for having a 'gas guzzling V8', but BMW comes out with a V8 and everyone praises it as the ultimate engineering marvel. *gag*

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
After reading the review last night, my opinion is: Another dud from BMW. When will they learn that the further they go from producing pure sports cars to using gee-whiz-bang technology, the fewer hardcore customers they will attract? But hardcore means nothing to them any more. They know that BMW badge + crap = mega sales.

I'd say you're taking it WAY too far on this one. The irony is that while it clearly includes a host of new technology that arguably numbs the driver's perception of the road, it is likely still far superior to any Audi in that regard, yet people still laud the S4 and RS4. I betcha the M3 is a beast of a car to actually drive, and as fast or faster under real conditions than an RS4. Let's wait until more info is in before condemning BMW, whose last new product, the 335i, is pretty awesome (and arguably the M3's most compelling competitor).

there's a reason why people love the RS4 so much, you know. especially for a few grand more, no idrive, no bangling, and quattro

Yeah, the 335i is pretty impressive, performance wise.

In fact, apples to apples, the 335i beat the RS4 around VIR on the same day, same conditions, same driver. It's even more surprising because VIR is a great track for the RS4:

http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...ightning-lap-2007.html

Compilation of 2006 and 2007:

1 - Chevrolet Corvette Z06 - 2:58.2
2 - Ford GT: 3:00.7
3 - Dodge Viper: 3:01.6
4 - Porsche 911 GT3 -3:01.8
5 - Chevrolet Corvette C6 - 3:03.6
6 - Lotus Exige S - 3:04.5
7 - Audi R8 - 3:04.6
8 - Porsche 911 Turbo - 3:05.8
9 - Shelby GT500- 3:05.9
10 - Lotus Elise: 3:09.2
11 - Porsche Cayman S: 3:09.5
12 - BMW M6: 3:10.0
13 - BMW 335i - 3:10.5
14 - Audi RS4- 3:11.2
15 - BMW Z4M - 3:11.7
16 - Nissan 350Z: 3:12.5
17 - Mitsubishi Evo MR: 3:13.5
18 - Pontiac Solstice GXP - 3:15.7
19 - Mazda Speed 3 - 3:16.0
20 - Dodge Charger SRT8: 3:18.2
21 - Mazda RX-8: 3:19.0
22 - Chevy Cobalt SS: 3:20.6
23 - Ford Mustang GT: 3:20.9
24 - Mini Cooper S - 3:22.9
25/26 - VW GTI and Honda Civic Si: 3:24.6
27 - Mazda MX-5: 3:29.3

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: exdeath
I love how everyone is so quick to bash an American car for having a 'gas guzzling V8', but BMW comes out with a V8 and everyone praises it as the ultimate engineering marvel. *gag*

Seems like you say that in every thread...

 

[Sunrise089]

@Apex: thanks for compiling that, I had read both C&D stories, but not put the numbers together.

I would say that after looking at things, the two big winners are the normal C6 and the GT500 - The 'Vette handily beating the 911 Turbo is just cool, and the GT500, which otherwise seems like a terrible car, getting more use out of it's 500hp than the M6 should be embarrassing to BMW. (The GT500 would be even better if they got some more cars to fill in that huge gap between it and the Elise - 3.3seconds...maybe a Carrera S or that new CLK63AMG Black Series could fill in there).

I would say the most disappointing is either the 911 Turbo, which is way slower and less fun than the GT3 (does anyone even think a GT2 with Turbo power and GT3 suspension/tires/brakes will even be faster? Maybe because of the tires, but that GT3 engine seems like a gem), and the Z4M. The Z4M is lighter and more powerful than the 335i, plus is supposed to be a sports car rather than a GT, and yet it's more than a second slower.

There are a couple of other cars that were reviewed this year I would have liked to see tested - the Ferrari 599 would be one, and a Ariel Atom with the 300hp engine would be another (I wonder if it would be tops here, since the track seems to reward power).

Finally, I think there should be a qualifier on the GT3's times, since overall I prefer the tires provided on the vehicle to be used to simulate real-world performance, but of all the cars I know sold today, the GT3 comes with the most track-biased tires, and the only ones that probably wouldn't work on a daily-driver at all.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
After reading the review last night, my opinion is: Another dud from BMW. When will they learn that the further they go from producing pure sports cars to using gee-whiz-bang technology, the fewer hardcore customers they will attract? But hardcore means nothing to them any more. They know that BMW badge + crap = mega sales.

I'd say you're taking it WAY too far on this one. The irony is that while it clearly includes a host of new technology that arguably numbs the driver's perception of the road, it is likely still far superior to any Audi in that regard, yet people still laud the S4 and RS4. I betcha the M3 is a beast of a car to actually drive, and as fast or faster under real conditions than an RS4. Let's wait until more info is in before condemning BMW, whose last new product, the 335i, is pretty awesome (and arguably the M3's most compelling competitor).

there's a reason why people love the RS4 so much, you know. especially for a few grand more, no idrive, no bangling, and quattro

Yeah, the 335i is pretty impressive, performance wise.

In fact, apples to apples, the 335i beat the RS4 around VIR on the same day, same conditions, same driver. It's even more surprising because VIR is a great track for the RS4:

i'm not, vw's and audis are typically on the fat side of sedan - the extra weight of the RS4 probably made that time difference, i suspect.

 

[ElFenix]

the S4 probably sounds better, if nothing else.

god that is a hot sounding car.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the S4 probably sounds better, if nothing else.

god that is a hot sounding car.

Nah... The RS4>S4 in the sound department, easily, or did you forget the R?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Top Gear (the magazine) gave the M3 a 10/10.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the S4 probably sounds better, if nothing else.

god that is a hot sounding car.

Nah... The RS4>S4 in the sound department, easily, or did you forget the R?

i'm talking in comparison to the M3.

and i'm not sure that i've heard an RS4 in person.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the S4 probably sounds better, if nothing else.

god that is a hot sounding car.

Nah... The RS4>S4 in the sound department, easily, or did you forget the R?

i'm talking in comparison to the M3.

and i'm not sure that i've heard an RS4 in person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBkX8GS5FoY

I've never heard it in person either, but I don't think that will change your opinion much...

I know, not stock in video but overall about describes the noise. Take out whine...

 

[jpeyton]

The tantalizing, hard-edged bark of the old M3 six that teased and cajoled is no more. And the M3 is poorer for it.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

The tantalizing, hard-edged bark of the old M3 six that teased and cajoled is no more. And the M3 is poorer for it.

It's sometimes a little too metallic for me, but I still love it.