• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

No 2015 M3/M4 Reveal Thread?

2015 4 cylinder stang is better. 😉

Is the 4 series much larger? I like the looks of the m3 but my boss has one and her's is too small on the inside. Felt like I was in a Honda civic.
 
drbrock said:
2015 4 cylinder stang is better. 😉

Is the 4 series much larger? I like the looks of the m3 but my boss has one and her's is too small on the inside. Felt like I was in a Honda civic.
Click to expand...

I think the 4 series is just the 3 series coupe rebadge. The 3 series still being the sedan.
 
drbrock said:
2015 4 cylinder stang is better. 😉

Is the 4 series much larger? I like the looks of the m3 but my boss has one and her's is too small on the inside. Felt like I was in a Honda civic.
Click to expand...

I believe they're typically supposed to be on the smaller side even though they've been getting larger every year. I would expect my performance coupes to naturally feel small.
 
No the 0-60 is definitely impressive. I just get the feeling they left some potential HP on the table. That's why I'm hopeful for a competition package update in 2017 or something. Also keep in mind that while the e9x was lower on torque, it had some pretty nice performance gains just from aftermarket tunes, and it was naturally aspirated so the aftermarket segment had a field day with superchargers. I think this iteration will be a lot more difficult to deal with to increase power.
 
Last edited:
Anything under 4 seconds is in the "you need a perfectly prepped surface" range of 0-60. Honestly, unless a car is AWD, anything under 4 seconds is nearly meaningless. I've had 3.5s 0-60 cars that I never managed to break under 4 seconds, and I've had 4.5s cars that I managed 4.2s in. Things like 60-100 or something similar have far more meaning at these levels than 0-60. My current car is supposedly a 3.8s 0-60 car, but that metric means so little any more that I haven't even bothered trying it.
 
Ferzerp said:
Anything under 4 seconds is in the "you need a perfectly prepped surface" range of 0-60. Honestly, unless a car is AWD, anything under 4 seconds is nearly meaningless. I've had 3.5s 0-60 cars that I never managed to break under 4 seconds, and I've had 4.5s cars that I managed 4.2s in. Things like 60-100 or something similar have far more meaning at these levels than 0-60. My current car is supposedly a 3.8s 0-60 car, but that metric means so little any more that I haven't even bothered trying it.
Click to expand...

http://www.mickeythompsontires.com/strip.php?item=ETStreetRadial

:whiste:
 
Ferzerp said:
Anything under 4 seconds is in the "you need a perfectly prepped surface" range of 0-60. Honestly, unless a car is AWD, anything under 4 seconds is nearly meaningless. I've had 3.5s 0-60 cars that I never managed to break under 4 seconds, and I've had 4.5s cars that I managed 4.2s in. Things like 60-100 or something similar have far more meaning at these levels than 0-60. My current car is supposedly a 3.8s 0-60 car, but that metric means so little any more that I haven't even bothered trying it.
Click to expand...

Yeah the best I've gotten my 2013 Shelby is 4.3 seconds. But I haven't taken it to the drag strip which is where you can probably get it in the 3's.
 
iamwiz82 said:
3.9 seconds is unimpressive?
Click to expand...

People are so jaded by numbers, if it isn't sub-3 some kids won't even read about it, or they say stupid garbage like "that's so slow". But the fact is, most are guys that have only ever read stat sheets, if they got behind the wheel of a true 4-sec (or even 4.5-sec) naught-to-60 car they'd crap their pants. 😉
 
MagickMan said:
People are so jaded by numbers, if it isn't sub-3 some kids won't even read about it, or they say stupid garbage like "that's so slow". But the fact is, most are guys that have only ever read stat sheets, if they got behind the wheel of a true 4-sec (or even 4.5-sec) naught-to-60 car they'd crap their pants. 😉
Click to expand...

I had a 4.5 second 0-60 supercharged mach 1 and I almost shat my pants the first time I drove it. The first time I met my girlfriend she rode in my car and literally cried when I would launch fast, but she eventually learned to respect the power and I even taught her how to drive it 😱
 
Kinda meh on this car. The E46 was awesome compared to everything else when it came out and the E90/92 was pretty unique when first launched. There is just too much competition right now that easily competes.
 
GoodRevrnd said:
Not sure how a thread about a car better known for handling turned into a drag racing thread...
Click to expand...

Oh. I thought we socialized about cars in the garage? Now why not contribute to the thread instead of bashing it? I didn't know we could ONLY talk about handling, track stats, and not any other aspect of any car. Anyway the new bimmer looks good, does anyone know the base price these will start out at? I almost feel like BMW had lost their creative edge, considering most of the BMWs I've seen in the last 5 years look rather similar. Are they going to do a complete refresh, or will they continue with a tried and true design?
 
GoodRevrnd said:
Yes, but the sedan was quoted as only 50lbs heavier than the coupe. These stats are a bit confusing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I definitely think lighter is better, but the numbers are not adding-up to me. Maybe they are providing the bare-bones curb weight with no options or standard creature-comforts. Not sure...
 
ProchargeMe said:
Oh. I thought we socialized about cars in the garage? Now why not contribute to the thread instead of bashing it? I didn't know we could ONLY talk about handling, track stats, and not any other aspect of any car. Anyway the new bimmer looks good, does anyone know the base price these will start out at? I almost feel like BMW had lost their creative edge, considering most of the BMWs I've seen in the last 5 years look rather similar. Are they going to do a complete refresh, or will they continue with a tried and true design?
Click to expand...

I posted a reveal thread about a specific new vehicle, not "hey lets randomly talk about cars." And where did I say we could ONLY talk about handling? I'm pointing out that most of the posts in this tread turned into general drag racing talk, not even about this specific car. Now, how about *you* stop acting like a useless, petty douche.

I know "sausages cut in different lengths" has been a criticism levied at BMW for their designs, but honestly it's always been like that to some degree and I kind of appreciate the elegant simplicity of their unified designs (the exception being those hideous e60s, e63s, and e65s; gg Bangle).

exar333 said:
Agreed. I definitely think lighter is better, but the numbers are not adding-up to me. Maybe they are providing the bare-bones curb weight with no options or standard creature-comforts. Not sure...
Click to expand...

It was my understanding the quoted weight is full fluids, 90% fuel capacity, no driver. You're probably right to some degree about options, though. I think I read power seats (or some version of them) was an option, just as an example.

I certainly hope the weight will be nice and low otherwise the new C63 AMG might crush the M4 all around.


Edit: It looks like BMW quoted the e92 at 3,483 and C&D weighed it at 3,571. It seems like the problems with weights is it's always difficult to find out if they're factoring fuel and driver in or not.
 
Last edited:
GoodRevrnd said:
Edit: It looks like BMW quoted the e92 at 3,483 and C&D weighed it at 3,571. It seems like the problems with weights is it's always difficult to find out if they're factoring fuel and driver in or not.
Click to expand...

C63 and also opened the door for the upcoming ATS-V.
 
I expect the ATS-V will be very close in power and weigh a little bit more. Of course, it'll also cost like $15-20k less.
 
GoodRevrnd said:
I expect the ATS-V will be very close in power and weigh a little bit more. Of course, it'll also cost like $15-20k less.
Click to expand...

I would bet money that the ATS-V will be well within 10% of the M3, easily. Pricing between the two is rather similar with BMW being a tad more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top