: 2008 M3



AznPrydeRegalRyde
08-18-07, 08:44 PM
Is anyone else as unimpressed by this car as I am? The hp ratings are ok, and the hi-rpm redline v8 will probably be a good treat as well.

But only 295 lbs-ft peak is kinda on the low side. Especially when they say that 85% is available over a range of 6500 rpms. Thats great, but thats only 250 lbs-ft. Nice curve, but still really low torque. And its curb weight is over 3600 lbs, not at all a lightweight. I know straight line speed is not BMW's forte, but considering how often you'll get a chance to push a M3 through some fast turns, is it really worth it?

I can see a 335i coupe with a tune pulling on this in a straight.

It doesn't even look much more aggressive.

Blackout
08-18-07, 08:57 PM
Is anyone else as unimpressed by this car as I am? The hp ratings are ok, and the hi-rpm redline v8 will probably be a good treat as well.

But only 295 lbs-ft peak is kinda on the low side. Especially when they say that 85% is available over a range of 6500 rpms. Thats great, but thats only 250 lbs-ft. Nice curve, but still really low torque. And its curb weight is over 3600 lbs, not at all a lightweight. I know straight line speed is not BMW's forte, but considering how often you'll get a chance to push a M3 through some fast turns, is it really worth it?

I can see a 335i coupe with a tune pulling on this in a straight.

It doesn't even look much more aggressive.

Not everybody wants a straight line fast car, ask Elise owners which they would rather have. I'd much rather have a car that is low on power but is a blast to drive around rather then a car that can go straight for 11 seconds in the 1/4

thebigjimsho
08-19-07, 10:32 AM
M5s only have 383lb/ft of torque and that beast will eat the V's lunch and get to 60 in just over 4 seconds. The torque may be low but the powerband is wide and high. It will be much faster than you think...

AznPrydeRegalRyde
08-19-07, 01:55 PM
Not everybody wants a straight line fast car, ask Elise owners which they would rather have. I'd much rather have a car that is low on power but is a blast to drive around rather then a car that can go straight for 11 seconds in the 1/4 I found the Elise kinda boring actually. Tame, but I drove an Exige first, so that may have influenced it.

I prefer a great drive over speed as well. Thats why I have a Ducati when I could have had a 'Busa. I'd love to get an M3 CSL, It's been a dream car of mine. I don't even know if they sell in the US. I know M cars are more about driving dynamics then straight line speed. But Im still not impressed by the numbers. The competitors offer cars now that are fun to drive. The new C class is suppose to be a good drive, and it has gobs more power.

thebigjimsho
08-19-07, 02:03 PM
I found the Elise kinda boring actually. Tame, but I drove an Exige first, so that may have influenced it.

I prefer a great drive over speed as well. Thats why I have a Ducati when I could have had a 'Busa. I'd love to get an M3 CSL, It's been a dream car of mine. I don't even know if they sell in the US. I know M cars are more about driving dynamics then straight line speed. But Im still not impressed by the numbers. The competitors offer cars now that are fun to drive. The new C class is suppose to be a good drive, and it has gobs more power.Yeah, but the C class won't be faster. And there has never been a 3 series BMW, except for maybe a 318, that hasn't been fun to drive.

Again, an M5 with high hp, low tq numbers in a heavier car than the V will eat the V. The M3 will do the same.

AznPrydeRegalRyde
08-19-07, 07:22 PM
Yeah, but the C class won't be faster. And there has never been a 3 series BMW, except for maybe a 318, that hasn't been fun to drive.

Again, an M5 with high hp, low tq numbers in a heavier car than the V will eat the V. The M3 will do the same.C-class won't be faster on a track, maybe, but in a straight line, the C63 is going to murder the M3.
The C63 is getting the new AMG V8, 7 spd, 451 hp, 370 lbs-ft from 2000-6500. Only weighs about 150 lbs more, as well.

It just doesn't seem like they're taking much of a step ahead with this car, compared to the e46, which was a huge improvement over the e36. I just hope you can get it without active steering and i-drive.

thebigjimsho
08-19-07, 09:26 PM
C-class won't be faster on a track, maybe, but in a straight line, the C63 is going to murder the M3.
The C63 is getting the new AMG V8, 7 spd, 451 hp, 370 lbs-ft from 2000-6500. Only weighs about 150 lbs more, as well.

It just doesn't seem like they're taking much of a step ahead with this car, compared to the e46, which was a huge improvement over the e36. I just hope you can get it without active steering and i-drive.Just like the E55 "murders" the M5 in a straight line?

E55:0-60 4.1sec, 1/4 mile 12.5sec@114mph. 469hp/516lb ft. 4493lbs.
M5 :0-60 4.2sec, 1/4 mile 12.5sec@118mph. 500hp/383lb ft. 4110lbs.

I think you're going to be very surprised on the acceleration numbers. There's a lot to be said for a high revving powerplant. You can stay in a gear longer. TQ isn't as important. But you do have to work the shifter. But Mercedes has always been for the lazy man. The BMW is more involving. The new M3 will not get murdered by the C63 and at the track, where it counts, buh-bye!

Kadonny
08-20-07, 05:40 PM
I agree with Bigjim. People seem to underestimate the BMWs just because they carry lower torque. Bad, bad thing to do, very bad.

AznPrydeRegalRyde
09-01-07, 12:58 PM
Just like the E55 "murders" the M5 in a straight line?

E55:0-60 4.1sec, 1/4 mile 12.5sec@114mph. 469hp/516lb ft. 4493lbs.
M5 :0-60 4.2sec, 1/4 mile 12.5sec@118mph. 500hp/383lb ft. 4110lbs.

I think you're going to be very surprised on the acceleration numbers. There's a lot to be said for a high revving powerplant. You can stay in a gear longer. TQ isn't as important. But you do have to work the shifter. But Mercedes has always been for the lazy man. The BMW is more involving. The new M3 will not get murdered by the C63 and at the track, where it counts, buh-bye!Yes, but that comparison is faulty. The C63 has 140 lbs-ft more torque then the M3, just like the e55>M5. But the M5 has more hp then the E55, whereas the M3 has a fair bit less hp then the C63 (414 vs 451). Also, the C63 is only 150 lbs heavier. It also has a 7 spd for better acceleration, a new trick LSD, and the stability systems can be completely turned off finally. The C63 AMG, for the first time, is built from the ground up as an M3 fighter. Better weight distribution then any other C-class, completely revised suspension geometry, insanely strong brakes. The C63 is not only going to kill the M3 in a straight line, you'll be surprised how much of a fight it'll give an M3 on a track.

And by the way, surprised by an M3? Seriously, noone is ever surprised by how fast an M3 is...god...you make it sound like you guys are the only ones who have legimate experience with cars. People will be as surprised by this C63 as they were by the V.

I stand by my statement, this M3 isn't the large leap forward it needs to be. C63 and IS-F are going to be close enough in driving dynamics to seriously make potential M3 owners think twice. They wont steal diehard M fans, but they'll steal some hi-perf sport sedan fans who lease a new one every 2 years.

MediumD
09-01-07, 08:57 PM
People seem to underestimate the BMWs just because they carry lower torque.

At the same time, people seem to overestimate the BMWs just because they're BMWs.

thebigjimsho
09-04-07, 08:00 PM
Yes, but that comparison is faulty. The C63 has 140 lbs-ft more torque then the M3, just like the e55>M5. But the M5 has more hp then the E55, whereas the M3 has a fair bit less hp then the C63 (414 vs 451). Also, the C63 is only 150 lbs heavier. It also has a 7 spd for better acceleration, a new trick LSD, and the stability systems can be completely turned off finally. The C63 AMG, for the first time, is built from the ground up as an M3 fighter. Better weight distribution then any other C-class, completely revised suspension geometry, insanely strong brakes. The C63 is not only going to kill the M3 in a straight line, you'll be surprised how much of a fight it'll give an M3 on a track.

And by the way, surprised by an M3? Seriously, noone is ever surprised by how fast an M3 is...god...you make it sound like you guys are the only ones who have legimate experience with cars. People will be as surprised by this C63 as they were by the V.

I stand by my statement, this M3 isn't the large leap forward it needs to be. C63 and IS-F are going to be close enough in driving dynamics to seriously make potential M3 owners think twice. They wont steal diehard M fans, but they'll steal some hi-perf sport sedan fans who lease a new one every 2 years.Sure, whatever you say. You obviously don't realize that an engine's powerband and how high that powerband goes, like 8400 rpm, makes a HUGE difference. Like a highly efficient SHO engine that "only" puts out 220hp but revs high and hard can give a 300hp Camaro all it can handle on the highway.

As for Lexus and Mercedes, they have YET to make a car that can outhandle the M3. No matter how hard they try, BMW keeps raising the bar. 7 gears are great since the C63 needs it to stay in its powerband. The M3 doesn't need a torque converter nor 7 gears. The C63 will not murder the M3 in acceleration. But the M3 will murder the C63 on the track.

I stand by my statement.

Seattle CTS-V
09-11-07, 06:37 PM
...you guys crack me up. I'm going to reserve my final opinion on which car is better for the future comparos that EVERY car magazine is dying to publish.

Initially though, I vote +1 on the C63 for both acceleration and handling. The car rags are the only ones that have driven both cars and they all seem to think the new M3 has lost it's edge and the upcoming C63 handles better than any other AMG offered to the US market (with the exception of the CLK63 Black series). The motor is quite amazing as well at 457hp/443tq. It does rev to over 7k rpms...which is still shy of the M3's. I don't think AMG has ever tried to make a car outhandle the M3. They have a slightly different target audience...just like Cadillac. A really big motor and decent handling has been their game. They apparantly have changed their game a little for the new C63. It pains me to say it but this is the car that could pull me away from the next CTS-V...especially if the new V turns out to be even heavier than the current one.

http://www.topgear.com/drives/C7/K1/roadtests/20/01.html

I'll take mine in white:

http://www.asphalte.ch/Events/IAA07/IAA07-Merco1.php