View Full Version : BMW is becoming Mercedes; end of BMW as we know it.
lemming
05-17-2005, 08:16 PM
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=102389
so they relented and are going to move forward with an X3 and X5 M versions, a 5 series M variant and the M z4.
sure, make M versions of the x3 and x5 but not the 1 series.
where in that piece does BMW say they are making M versions of those models?
lemming
05-17-2005, 08:39 PM
they're a coming.
they're a coming.
just two years ago, the partyline was that the z4 3.0 was "fast enough"; now it's basically a no-brainer that the M z4 moves forward.
there is no doubt in my mind, given that they have a BMW official giving official on the record soundbites that these vehicles are coming --and obviously the X mobiles will all be automatics.
unfortunately for BMW, Mercedes will always kick BMW's ass in this arena because their powertrains are so much better and their automatics are, too.
they're a coming.
they're a coming.
just two years ago, the partyline was that the z4 3.0 was "fast enough"; now it's basically a no-brainer that the M z4 moves forward.
there is no doubt in my mind, given that they have a BMW official giving official on the record soundbites that these vehicles are coming --and obviously the X mobiles will all be automatics.
unfortunately for BMW, Mercedes will always kick BMW's ass in this arena because their powertrains are so much better and their automatics are, too.
Not necessarily traditional automatics--I can see them using the SMG, which many people believe is not the same thing.
Pinecone
05-18-2005, 05:03 AM
And the X5 4.6/3.8is is pretty much an M car in heart and soul, and driving experiene already. Only reason no M, is the lack of a manual gearbox (SMG counts).
As for copping out, I consider the 4 door M3 to be more of a cop out.
lemming
05-18-2005, 07:09 AM
And the X5 4.6/3.8is is pretty much an M car in heart and soul, and driving experiene already. Only reason no M, is the lack of a manual gearbox (SMG counts).
As for copping out, I consider the 4 door M3 to be more of a cop out.
so you're one to look at an m5 puzzled, too, then?
to me, M still stands for Motorsport, and that means a racing based platform. so that would be the 3 series solely. but even porsche is going to have gt3 versions of the cayenne.
John V
05-18-2005, 07:11 AM
SMG
:vomit:
And the X5 4.6/3.8is is pretty much an M car in heart and soul, and driving experiene already. Only reason no M, is the lack of a manual gearbox (SMG counts).
As for copping out, I consider the 4 door M3 to be more of a cop out.
so you're one to look at an m5 puzzled, too, then?
to me, M still stands for Motorsport, and that means a racing based platform. so that would be the 3 series solely. but even porsche is going to have gt3 versions of the cayenne.
The only real "racing" M were the E30 M3 and the M1--the rest have all been big engines in "standard" BMW shell.
I have no philosophical objection to calling anything an "M," so long as it drives like one. If BMW is going to build the Ultimate Driving Truck, why not let M modify it?
SMG is the future of M, as well, so putting an SMG into an MX or MSAV or whatever the hell they're going to call it makes sense.
OTOH, I've driven the 4.6is, and I wouldn't say that it drives like an M, primarily because it doesn't have enough engine. Maybe the 4.8is is better, but I'd say that portly fellow probably needs the full M5 V10.
Pinecone
05-18-2005, 11:38 AM
No the 5 is traditionally a 4 door. To me a true 3 series only has two doors. I consder all 4 door 3ers as a cop out.
As for the Ms being big engines in the same body sheel, the same thing can be said of the E30 M3. The current E46 M3 has only a few body parts that are the same as the non-M E46.
WT the 4.6is needing more power, ALL cars need more power. I am sure that Hans Stuck driving the Funf mit Zwolf got out and said nice SAV, but needs more power. :)
JohnV, as for your comment on SMG. :flame: :twisted: :)
No the 5 is traditionally a 4 door. To me a true 3 series only has two doors. I consder all 4 door 3ers as a cop out.
:?
Even der Neue Klasse was available with 4 doors. I think the only "3er" that wasn't was the E21--surely you are not saying that the E21 represents the essence of true 3 series-ness?
Besides, since 3ers now are as big as E28s and E24s used to be, 4 doors are even more sensible.
As for the Ms being big engines in the same body sheel, the same thing can be said of the E30 M3. The current E46 M3 has only a few body parts that are the same as the non-M E46.
I wasn't really talking about the extent of modification--I was talking about racing pedigree. The only real "Motorsport" cars are the M1 and E30 M3, since those really were designed as homologation road cars for racing cars. The other Ms have been street cars, through and through. Nothing wrong with that, but it takes away from any purity of the line objections to offering an M SUV.
Pinecone
05-18-2005, 06:01 PM
Then how about the M3 LTW in the US. True homologation special. :)
And the M3 GTR not long ago, again homolgation special.
Oh, and 3.0 CSL and Batwing. 2002 Turbo. The first of the M cars, if without the designation.
Actually the Euro M6. It had a second set of injectors for high output setups, running "stock" fuel injection setup. Adn didn't it have a second set of suspension mounting points for lowered cars?
Oh and racing rules changed, so it wasn't as necessary any longer to go that route.
Sorry, no matter how you cut it, to ME a 3er has 2 doors.
lemming
05-18-2005, 10:08 PM
the problem i have with the new M mobiles is that they're super high weight vehicles.
and gearing and high rpm powerplants can only do so much.
lack of torque is lack of torque, however you look at it.
and if you're going to go ahead and make a 4000 pound car, i prefer a big engine with torque. not some high revving thing that depends more on gearing to get moving until revs get up.
so, the "M" vehicles of recent memory (since the debut of the e46m3) all turn me off. and now that they "might" use a broad brushstroke to apply the M "philosophy" across the board, there really is no debate for me. i'll go audi RS4, RS6 or AMG anyday. those vehicles have torque as well as HP.
Pinecone
05-18-2005, 10:45 PM
M6 does what 0 - 60 in some 4.5 seconds?
Top speed unlimited is around 200 or slightly more?
That means TORQUE, POWER, GRUNT< MUSCLE, all those good things. :)
M6 does what 0 - 60 in some 4.5 seconds?
Top speed unlimited is around 200 or slightly more?
That means TORQUE, POWER, GRUNT< MUSCLE, all those good things. :)
A car being fun has nothing to do with numbers. The M6 probably crushes the Elise in most "printed" categories. But the reviews don't lie. People have a blast. Ditto with a Mini, S2000, Boxster, Miata, even the Z4.
The common denominator is "light weight" (at under 3000lbs). All those cars are badly underpowered in comparison, but seem to offer more of driving nirvana, numbers be damned.
Pinecone
05-19-2005, 06:43 AM
Yes they are more "tossable" but ony light wieght makes driving nirvana? Not to me.
I have a set up M Roadster, I have a setup LTW. I have an E46 M3. I find them ALL great fun to drive. And funny, the highest performance one of the 3 is the E46 M3.
I used to own a car that weighed 1400 pounds soaking wet. Yes it was fun to drive. And it had virtually NO horsepower (about 58 on a GOOD day). I prefer power.
And M has never been about absolute light weight, just sometimes lighter than stock. The E24 M6 was not a lightweight car.
M has not been about "sports cars", since other than the M1 and MZ3s none have been truely sports cars. It is about higher performance in the class of car that it started as. The 6 is a GT car, the M6 is a higher performing GT car. It was so inthe 80s, it is so now.
And basically it sounds like if someone handed you the keys to a new Aston you would turn it down since it wasn't light? :)
John V
05-19-2005, 08:18 AM
The E46 M3 can be MADE fun, but it's not fun from the factory.
Fast? Yes. Fun? No.
After I drive Ken's car at NCC this weekend I'll let you know if the modified version with big sticky tires is fun.
JV
And basically it sounds like if someone handed you the keys to a new Aston you would turn it down since it wasn't light? :)
If it were the Aston or nothing (or my car that costs 1/4 the price), then yes. But I'd have better ideas for spending $100K+ in cars than an Aston, if I were ever in such an enviable position.
But my point was precisely about tossability vs performance. I think I rather have tossable car. Now, if I'm driving competitvely, or at least focusing on numbers at a track, etc, then yes, I'd want the car that gets me the lower number. Otherwise, I want the car that gives me the best driving experience.
Sorry, no matter how you cut it, to ME a 3er has 2 doors.
I've had two E46 coupes, and now an E46 sedan, and I have to say that the sedan is better in every meaningful respect. It's got more headroom front and rear (my hair FINALLY doesn't rub the headliner!), substantially more usable luggage space, it's noticeably stiffer, it's easier to get in and out of both for the driver and all the passengers, and its actually nicer on a summer night, because you can get more air in the car with the windows down.
Literally the only practical disadvantage that I can think of is that, in some right hand turn/merge situations, the B-pillar blocks more of your vision than on the coupe.
Oh, and I suppose the center of gravity is a smidge higher, but it's not something I'm likely to ever notice.
...and its actually nicer on a summer night, because you can get more air in the car with the windows down.
OT: Weather permiting, I drive with all the windows down and moonroof open (when under 50-60 mph). If I lower one window, I lower them all (expcet when my wife is with me). It is a lot more comfortable with all of them down for airflow and acoustic reasons as well as more of an open air feel.
Pinecone
05-19-2005, 11:55 AM
I LIKE driving the E46 M3. I find it great fun, street or especially on the trak Only problem with it on the street is the limts are SO high that you are barely scratching the surface without being totally insane with speed.
If you like a tossable car, fine, but don't say that the car not god because of one factor that is for you and maybe not for many others. And the E46 IS somewhat tossable, you just have to be careful not to let it get too far.
For the all time tossable car I have pushed to the limits is the Alfa Spider. That car HAD to be driven in a drift. GREAT fun, and pretty fast.
As for 4 doors, yeah, they are very practical, and both of our Jeeps have 4 doors. BUT, TO ME, a 3er and ESPECIALLY an M3 has only two doors.
Nick M3
05-19-2005, 12:08 PM
Terry, get with the program. M3s suck. :twisted:
As for 4 doors, yeah, they are very practical, and both of our Jeeps have 4 doors. BUT, TO ME, a 3er and ESPECIALLY an M3 has only two doors.
What I'm trying to figure out is why this is so. Is it because that little jot of impracticality goes with the car's character? Personally, the thing I found appealing about the M3 (both of the ones I've had) was that they offered blistering performance without demanding a lot of sacrifices--unlike, say, a Corvette, I could realistically use them as my only car.
To me, that's the real character of the car. As clyde says, BMWs aren't the ultimate driving machine--they are the ultimate compromise machine, and Ms are the ultimate BMWs. If I had a choice between a) a car that offered good practicality and superlative performance, and b) a car that offered more practicality with exactly the same performance, it should not be surprising that I would buy the second one every time.
Given a choice between 2 and 4 doors, I'll take 4 every time. I'd rather have five, but that does start to affect performance.
As for 4 doors, yeah, they are very practical, and both of our Jeeps have 4 doors. BUT, TO ME, a 3er and ESPECIALLY an M3 has only two doors.
What I'm trying to figure out is why this is so. Is it because that little jot of impracticality goes with the car's character? Personally, the thing I found appealing about the M3 (both of the ones I've had) was that they offered blistering performance without demanding a lot of sacrifices--unlike, say, a Corvette, I could realistically use them as my only car.
To me, that's the real character of the car. As clyde says, BMWs aren't the ultimate driving machine--they are the ultimate compromise machine, and Ms are the ultimate BMWs. If I had a choice between a) a car that offered good practicality and superlative performance, and b) a car that offered more practicality with exactly the same performance, it should not be surprising that I would buy the second one every time.
Given a choice between 2 and 4 doors, I'll take 4 every time. I'd rather have five, but that does start to affect performance.
I bought my e36 M3 two years ago. Once I learned that the coupe did not benefit from improved performance over the sedan, I stopped looking at coupes.
If a car is going to compromise comfort and practicality, it had better do it for a damn good reason. Buying a sedan was a no-brainer.
I hold the coupe to a higher standard. It must make up for its lack of day-to-day usefulness by having some other compelling upside.
John V
05-19-2005, 01:12 PM
I bought my e36 M3 two years ago. Once I learned that the coupe did not benefit from improved performance over the sedan, I stopped looking at coupes.
The coupe versions are slightly lighter, at least the E36 non-M versions, when similarly equipped. Jack Mott weighed a couple identically equipped cars and the 2-door versions were between 75 and 100lbs lighter. He posted the results on bimmerforums a couple months ago.
"The Ultimate Compromise Machine." I like that. It's very true. It's the reason I don't own a Corvette or an S2000. (Well, besides the fact that I don't like the S2000's engine).
I bought my e36 M3 two years ago. Once I learned that the coupe did not benefit from improved performance over the sedan, I stopped looking at coupes.
The coupe versions are slightly lighter, at least the E36 non-M versions, when similarly equipped. Jack Mott weighed a couple identically equipped cars and the 2-door versions were between 75 and 100lbs lighter. He posted the results on bimmerforums a couple months ago.
Interesting. BMW lists the e36 m3 sedan and coupe at identical weights.
If I had a choice between a) a car that offered good practicality and superlative performance, and b) a car that offered more practicality with exactly the same performance, it should not be surprising that I would buy the second one every time.
Exactly.
Coupes look better :P
To me, the best-looking E46 is the pre-facelift Ci with the M-technik (ZHP)body kit.
To me, the best-looking E46 is the pre-facelift Ci with the M-technik (ZHP)body kit.
I think that's called an M3 :P
Coupes look better :P
To me, the best-looking E46 is the pre-facelift Ci with the M-technik (ZHP)body kit.
To me, the best-looking e46 is your car (yours too, JST).
To me, the best-looking E46 is the pre-facelift Ci with the M-technik (ZHP)body kit.
I think that's called an M3 :P
Uhm, no. I don't like the M3's over-the-top body kit, 4 exhaust pipes and bulging hood.
Coupes look better :P
To me, the best-looking E46 is the pre-facelift Ci with the M-technik (ZHP)body kit.
To me, the best-looking e46 is your car (yours too, JST).
It is a VERY close second. And I like it better from the side, but I prefer the Ci for the front and rear.
John V
05-19-2005, 02:47 PM
I bought my e36 M3 two years ago. Once I learned that the coupe did not benefit from improved performance over the sedan, I stopped looking at coupes.
The coupe versions are slightly lighter, at least the E36 non-M versions, when similarly equipped. Jack Mott weighed a couple identically equipped cars and the 2-door versions were between 75 and 100lbs lighter. He posted the results on bimmerforums a couple months ago.
Interesting. BMW lists the e36 m3 sedan and coupe at identical weights.
Indeed they do. Manufacturer weight numbers are frequently off, sometimes by hundreds of pounds.
I bought my e36 M3 two years ago. Once I learned that the coupe did not benefit from improved performance over the sedan, I stopped looking at coupes.
The coupe versions are slightly lighter, at least the E36 non-M versions, when similarly equipped. Jack Mott weighed a couple identically equipped cars and the 2-door versions were between 75 and 100lbs lighter. He posted the results on bimmerforums a couple months ago.
Interesting. BMW lists the e36 m3 sedan and coupe at identical weights.
Indeed they do. Manufacturer weight numbers are frequently off, sometimes by hundreds of pounds.
Now I need to know, Dammit.
Coupes look better :P
To me, the best-looking E46 is the pre-facelift Ci with the M-technik (ZHP)body kit.
To me, the best-looking e46 is your car (yours too, JST).
I agree, actually. My previous favorite was the pre-facelift 323/325Ci with Type 44 wheels, which, not coincidentally, is one of the other E46s I've had.
My decision to buy a coupe over a sedan back in 2000 was motivated by the fact that you couldn't get the Type 44s on the 323 back then--instead, they had those horrid V-spoke 16" wheels. Also, the coupe (IIRC) was slightly cheaper with the options I wanted.
Uhm, no. I don't like the M3's over-the-top body kit
:?
Over the top body kit?
elbert
05-19-2005, 03:48 PM
to me, M still stands for Motorsport, and that means a racing based platform. so that would be the 3 series solely.
So this doesn't count? :dunno:
http://www.hisparally.net/hisparally/galerias/1105647352-Bmw%20X5-Servia,%20Palacios-Dakar%202005--15.jpg
Pinecone
05-20-2005, 03:42 PM
Plus/Minus
Sedans weigh more than coupes.
Sedans are more torsionally rigid than coupes.
I prefer coupes anyway. :twisted:
John V
05-20-2005, 05:41 PM
Sedans are more torsionally rigid than coupes.
I don't think anybody has proven that.
elbert
05-20-2005, 05:59 PM
Sedans are more torsionally rigid than coupes.
I don't think anybody has proven that.
http://surface-energy.com/carmudgeons/rigidity.jpg
killerdeck
05-20-2005, 08:35 PM
Coupes look better :P
To me, the best-looking E46 is the pre-facelift Ci with the M-technik (ZHP)body kit.
To me, the best-looking e46 is your car (yours too, JST).
It is a VERY close second. And I like it better from the side, but I prefer the Ci for the front and rear.
I couldnt agree more. The Ci with ZHP is my favorite E46 too. Went with the four door for usefullness and less expensive (ie Great lease deal vs none with the coupe).
After I drive Ken's car at NCC this weekend I'll let you know if the modified version with big sticky tires is fun.
JV
So? :eeps:
John V
05-22-2005, 06:37 PM
After I drive Ken's car at NCC this weekend I'll let you know if the modified version with big sticky tires is fun.
JV
So? :eeps:
Definitely fun. More fun than the RX-8? Dunno...
The car does not feel like an M3 anymore. And the best part about his setup is how forgiving it is. It's a little loose off the power and very planted on-power. And it turns in like a car should. The magical part is it's on fairly inexpensive Koni SA's in front (DA's in rear) with tolerable spring rates and camber plates. That and the big wheels and tires is basically it. It hasn't been corner balanced, it's not running 1000lb springs. Very tolerable for the street.
Must be a monster at FedEx.
We're working on a plan for us to share the car for most of the BMW events. We're going to share mine for two of them.
:)
JV
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.