new m3.

[lemming]

heavier.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070119/FREE/70115009/1008/DIONNA

no surprise.

[rumatt]

I saw an E90 couple in person for the first time yesterday. Holy crap the rear end looks like shit. It's like a honda accord but different.

If for some freak of nature I end up with an E90 M3, it will certainly be a 4-door (if it exists).


It won’t lack grip: Those flared wheel arches house standard 18-inch wheels and tires

Ah yes, because 18-inch wheels and tires have MAD grip! :?

[undefined]

e90 = sedan
e92 = coupe

[rumatt]

e90 = sedan
e92 = coupe

I actually knew that. :ack:

[lemming]

it looks like it might start at mid 50k USD for base pricing (one good part of the equation), but 415hp coupled with 3800lbs and only 300ftlbs of torque seems like they didn't see the RS4 coming.

Roundel this month takes an RS4 to the track.

the obvious finding is that the brakes on the RS4 held up the entire track day and they were unsure if this would be the case due to the curb weight. that and their experience with OEM E46M3 brakes not lasting half the day there.

the M5/M6 crowd may not track their cars, but the M3 crowd sure as hell does. a curb weight of 3800lbs with the same old BMW brakes will be disappointing to me. i mean, it would tend to make my life easier, when i head out to an HPDE.......

[BahnBaum]

it looks like it might start at mid 50k USD for base pricing (one good part of the equation), but 415hp coupled with 3800lbs and only 300ftlbs of torque seems like they didn't see the RS4 coming.

Are the 2 cars priced even priced similarly? I thought the RS4 was a 70K car?

Alex

[mark07]

it looks like it might start at mid 50k USD for base pricing (one good part of the equation), but 415hp coupled with 3800lbs and only 300ftlbs of torque seems like they didn't see the RS4 coming.

Roundel this month takes an RS4 to the track.

the obvious finding is that the brakes on the RS4 held up the entire track day and they were unsure if this would be the case due to the curb weight. that and their experience with OEM E46M3 brakes not lasting half the day there.

the M5/M6 crowd may not track their cars, but the M3 crowd sure as hell does. a curb weight of 3800lbs with the same old BMW brakes will be disappointing to me. i mean, it would tend to make my life easier, when i head out to an HPDE.......

Where does the article say it'll weigh 3800 pounds? Or is that just a guess? As far as I know nothing official has been reported by BMW regarding the weight or engine, so my prediction of the ~3600lb curb weight still stands.

The M group is not stupid; They know what needs to be done to be competitive in the market.

Are the 2 cars priced even priced similarly? I thought the RS4 was a 70K car?

Alex

The base price ($66,000) is about how much you'll be able to get a fully loaded E90/92 M3 for.

[lemming]

Where does the article say it'll weigh 3800 pounds? Or is that just a guess? As far as I know nothing official has been reported by BMW regarding the weight or engine, so my prediction of the ~3600lb curb weight still stands.

The M group is not stupid; They know what needs to be done to be competitive in the market.



The base price ($66,000) is about how much you'll be able to get a fully loaded E90/92 M3 for.

it's probably going to be ~100lbs more than the 335i.....which is 3571lbs.....add onto that the reinforcements for an M car, the bigger wheels and tires, the bigger single piston brake rotor and the v8, which by BMW's hinting is about 80lbs heavier than the 3.0tt.......i think my guess is basically how the math works.

3600lbs would be the 100k CSL car, IMHO.

[mark07]

it's probably going to be ~100lbs more than the 335i.....which is 3571lbs.....add onto that the reinforcements for an M car, the bigger wheels and tires, the bigger single piston brake rotor and the v8, which by BMW's hinting is about 80lbs heavier than the 3.0tt.......i think my guess is basically how the math works.

3600lbs would be the 100k CSL car, IMHO.

From a previous post of mine in the last M3 thread:

And as far as weight goes, I doubt it'll be much heavier than 3600 pounds.

The BMW S85 5.0 liter V10 weighs 529 pounds.
Let's assume that a 4.0 liter V8 based on the S85 will weigh about 475 pounds.

The BMW N52 weighs 357 pounds.

The E92 328i weighs 3351. Subtracting the 357 poundsof the engine leaves the weight of a coupe at around 3000 pounds. Add the 475 pounds of the engine and say 150 pounds for bigger brakes, wheels, beefier suspension/chassis, etc. and that gives you about 3625 pounds. Looking at the previous M3's, that doesn't seem to be too farfetched.

That's a 20% increase in horsepower for a 6% increase in weight over the previous M3. Compared to the RS4, which weighs nearly 4,000 pounds, it should be quite competitive.

I used the 328i over the 335i because of the huge weight discrepancy. The 335i's dual turbo setup really adds a lot to the weight.

Edit: I may be horribly wrong in my estimations, but I just don't see how this next generation M3 will weigh 400 pounds heavier than the E46 M3. No generation has ever seen that large of a weight increase.

[lemming]

From a previous post of mine in the last M3 thread:



I used the 328i over the 335i because of the huge weight discrepancy. The 335i's dual turbo setup really adds a lot to the weight.

i'd love for you to be right, but the data are trending the wrong way to support your optimism.

the e90 chassis is obviously bigger all around than the e46 and there's no getting around it. the aluminum v8 might be comparable to the iron block straight six, but the weight of wheels plus the inherent increase from the chassis along will carry the weight over 3600 pounds --just for an aty moment, you yourself have already broken 3600lbs in your math......3625. i am firmly standing by my 3700-3800 figure.

[mark07]

i'd love for you to be right, but the data are trending the wrong way to support your optimism.

the e90 chassis is obviously bigger all around than the e46 and there's no getting around it. the aluminum v8 might be comparable to the iron block straight six, but the weight of wheels plus the inherent increase from the chassis along will carry the weight over 3600 pounds --just for an aty moment, you yourself have already broken 3600lbs in your math......3625. i am firmly standing by my 3700-3800 figure.

The E90 sedan is 49 mm longer, 78 mm wider and 9 mm taller than the E46 equivalent. The wheelbase is longer by 35 mm. Despite the increased dimensions, the E90 is lighter than the E46, which can be attributed to the use of lighter materials in construction. Large amounts of aluminium were used in the body work, and the engine block is made of aluminium and magnesium.

And I know I broke 3600lbs in my math, but I never stated that it would be exactly 3600lbs. When I say "~" or "doubt it'll be much heavier than", I mean 3650lb max (just for the record lol.)

I'm this optimistic for a reason. I know that the M division engineers know that in order to be competitive, they need to build a (relatively) light car and i'm confident that they'll be able to achieve it.

[Sharp11]

heavier.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070119/FREE/70115009/1008/DIONNA

no surprise.

I'm not the least bit interested in this car :dunno:

Now the one series, perhaps even in an M .....mmmmm

Ed

[Sharp11]

3600lbs would be the 100k CSL car, IMHO.

If anyone wants to know what 3600lbs feels like just ask.

Btw, I'll have an even better idea once spring comes and I get a couple of autox's under the ZHP's belt.

Ed

[BahnBaum]

If anyone wants to know what 3600lbs feels like just ask.

Btw, I'll have an even better idea once spring comes and I get a couple of autox's under the ZHP's belt.

Ed

Can you swap strut hats, or is that only the m3?

Alex

[zeroday]

0-60 in 5 seconds? my 335i is faster than that.

[rumatt]

0-60 in 5 seconds? my 335i is faster than that.

Not on paper.

[Plaz]

I saw an E90 couple in person for the first time yesterday. Holy crap the rear end looks like shit. It's like a honda accord but different.

:loco:

It's 100x better looking than the sedan's ass.

[bren]

I'm not the least bit interested in this car :dunno:

Now the one series, perhaps even in an M .....mmmmm

Ed

OMG!

I agree with ed :ack:


:p



:loco:

It's 100x better looking than the sedan's ass.

I definitely disagree with that.

[lemming]

0-60 in 5 seconds? my 335i is faster than that.

BMW's problem is that the 335i is so damn good.

i think they're going to have to think seriously about selling an M3CSL this time around.

clearly, they have to look at what MB and Audi are doing and they can see that people will pay $70k for an m3. if they keep the price in the mid to high 50s, then i fully expect a heavy car with inadequate brakes. maybe by pricing it thusly, they can get away with more things than they could at the 70k pricing point.

[undefined]

BMW's problem is that the 335i is so damn good.

i think they're going to have to think seriously about selling an M3CSL this time around.

BMW sold an M3CSL last time around

[zeroday]

Not on paper.

But they aren't talking about BMW's specs/estimates (5.5 0-60 for the 335i). They are talking about what it should be able to do. You have to admit it would be ridiculous if this car can't out accelerate a 335i.My guess is it will have do something around 4.6 0-60 for people to be happy with it. Handling aside of course.

Time will tell I suppose but I'm thinking the new m-sport package 335i coupled with Vishnu Performance's Xede and exhaust will give this thing a run for its money for 10k$ less.

[stuka]

BMW sold an M3CSL last time around

Not in the U.S.

And the CSL still had no brakes.

[lemming]

BMW sold an M3CSL last time around

what is the reason it was never brought to the US?

[JST]

what is the reason it was never brought to the US?

It probably would have needed a new set of crash tests, and it likely wasn't worth it for the small volume they expected to shift.

[undefined]

not sure about the exhaust setup and emissions either

[rumatt]

From a previous post of mine in the last M3 thread:

Let's assume that a 4.0 liter V8 based on the S85 will weigh about 475 pounds.

Hows 445 lbs (http://forums.carmudgeons.com/showthread.php?t=9327) sound.

[mark07]

Hmm things are looking good for my "optimistic" weight estimate...

[rumatt]

Hmm things are looking good for my "optimistic" weight estimate...

Maybe they should have used the extra 30 pounds you allotted them and made sure it produced more torque than the non-M 3-series. :ack:

[John V]

It doesn't need torque.

It'll rev to eighty billion RPM.

QED.

[FC]

Well, the issue is not so much the torque number as 295 is not amazing, but it's not bad either. The bigger problem is where in the rpm range does it peak. IIRC, it will peak ~4Krpm and it's not a flat curve either. THAT is the issue I'd have.

But it's unlikely that I'd consider a 3er of any kind for a LONG time, so it doesn't bother me.

[lemming]

this engine is fantastic. but all of the major complaints about the S2000, rx8 and E46 330i come to mind here (no torque). even if the M3 has a 3.91:1 rear end and aggressive gearing, it will be a very on-the-boil sort of experience.

some people absolutely love that.

me? i'm not up for that sort of frenetic experience in a GT-sort of car.

[FC]

me? i'm not up for that sort of frenetic experience in a GT-sort of car.

I think that is the biggest issue. It's a GT car. It should effortlessly and quickly get of the line even at low rpms.

[JST]

Hows 445 lbs (http://forums.carmudgeons.com/showthread.php?t=9327) sound.

Comparisons with the N54 are interesting.

The N54 apparently weighs a bit less--429 lbs (at least according to wikipedia). They have the same peak torque number, though the N54 makes its peak torque from 1300-5000 RPM, while the M3's engine doesn't hit its torque peak until 6500 RPM (and is making about 250 lbs ft at 2000 RPM). The M3 revs to (at least) 8300 RPM, though, compared to 7000 for the N54. Power peak for the N54 is at 5800 RPM; the M3 makes its peak power at 8300.

Has anyone seen the final drive ratio for the M3 yet? With that much rev band (and that little torque), I'd expect to see something pretty tight. 3.75?

Now that we know that the engine weighs about the same, I am even more certain that the M3 won't weigh less than a 335 (comparably equipped, of course).

[FC]

Now that we know that the engine weighs about the same, I am even more certain that the M3 won't weigh less than a 335 (comparably equipped, of course).

I'd say the M3 will weigh more for sure.

[John V]

It has to. Where are they going to remove weight?

[Rob]

Well, the issue is not so much the torque number as 295 is not amazing, but it's not bad either.

Not bad? For a car like this? With a V8? In this market with the competition that exists? It's abysmal. The M5 makes up for this kind of shortcoming in other ways. I am looking forward to see what the M3 has to offer to make it better than its numbers suggest (and overcome that buick-like interior).

[JST]

Not bad? For a car like this? With a V8? In this market with the competition that exists? It's abysmal. The M5 makes up for this kind of shortcoming in other ways. I am looking forward to see what the M3 has to offer to make it better than its numbers suggest (and overcome that buick-like interior).

With that kind of torque number, it is hard to see how the M3 is going to be usefully faster than the 335 in day-to-day driving.


EDIT: And that's before you add aftermarket tuning solutions like the PROcede, which I wouldn't personally do, but which is cheaper than cheap for the extra power it gives you.

[Rob]

Maybe it will have nitrous, yo!

[Nick M3]

With that kind of torque number, it is hard to see how the M3 is going to be usefully faster than the 335 in day-to-day driving.


EDIT: And that's before you add aftermarket tuning solutions like the PROcede, which I wouldn't personally do, but which is cheaper than cheap for the extra power it gives you.
The rear gear is a big deal.

But you can probably lease of pair of 335s instead of one M3.

[FC]

Not bad? For a car like this? With a V8? In this market with the competition that exists? It's abysmal.

That may be. All I'm saying is that if the M3 had 295lb-ft from 1800rpm thru say 5K rpm nobody could say the car "has no torque." The competition may have torque monsters, but you could get around that. See just about any NA P-car, particularly the GT3.

[JST]

The rear gear is a big deal.

But you can probably lease of pair of 335s instead of one M3.

Agreed on the rear gear--but there's a limit to how short you can make the gearing and still make the car tolerable for daily driving. I don't want to blast along the highway turning 4K RPM at 70 in 6th.

A 7 speed SMG would be the answer, since it would allow a wide spread of overall gearing. But SMGs are teh suck.

[rumatt]

Agreed on the rear gear--but there's a limit to how short you can make the gearing and still make the car tolerable for daily driving. I don't want to blast along the highway turning 4K RPM at 70 in 6th.

Sure, but would a 15% increase be a big deal?

The max torque is about equal, so that would mean 15% more torque to the wheels. That's a big deal. :dunno:

I guess down real low (1300 RPM or whatever) the torque gap grows in favor of the 335 though.

[Rob]

That may be. All I'm saying is that if the M3 had 295lb-ft from 1800rpm thru say 5K rpm nobody could say the car "has no torque." The competition may have torque monsters, but you could get around that. See just about any NA P-car, particularly the GT3.

The normally aspirated p-cars "cheat" in this area by basic layout and design. The new M will not behave like a p car. On the other hand, I expect they will have done something to overcome this issue and I am looking forward to seeing what it is.

[JST]

Sure, but would a 15% increase be a big deal?

The max torque is about equal, so that would mean 15% more torque to the wheels. That's a big deal. :dunno:

I guess down real low (1300 RPM or whatever) the torque gap grows in favor of the 335 though.

From 1300 to 2000 RPM, the 335 has an unknown but perhaps very substantial torque advantage. From 2000 RPM to 5000 RPM, the 335 has an advantage, narrowing from 45 lbs ft to something less than that at the top.

A 15 percent advantage would be a big deal, but it's not clear that even with gearing that's 15 percent lower the M3 would have any advantage until 5000 RPM.

[FC]

The normally aspirated p-cars "cheat" in this area by basic layout and design. The new M will not behave like a p car. On the other hand, I expect they will have done something to overcome this issue and I am looking forward to seeing what it is.

For sure, but P-engines still offer the bulk of their torque lower in the rev-range, IIRC.

[lemming]

the 997s still have a 3.55:1 rear end to offset their torque number --but it's nothing to scoff at usually because 911s are a LOT lighter than M3s have been, are, or ever will be.

a 997S runs 4.0sec to 60mph and sub 13sec 1/4 mile; this is only 355hp/295#ft. i know absolutely nothing about the new M3, but what i would 'hope' for is a car that can match these numbers plus an 8:00 laptime.

[Theo]

the 997s still have a 3.55:1 rear end to offset their torque number --but it's nothing to scoff at usually because 911s are a LOT lighter than M3s have been, are, or ever will be.

a 997S runs 4.0sec to 60mph and sub 13sec 1/4 mile; this is only 355hp/295#ft. i know absolutely nothing about the new M3, but what i would 'hope' for is a car that can match these numbers plus an 8:00 laptime.


It better run close to those numbers or a chipped 335i looks pretty good even without the lsd.

I still want an M1 with the 3.0 tt, lsd and real 6spd manual. If that comes out, it will be the first car I have actaully lusted after for awhile in a good price point.

[lemming]

i'm expecting good things from BMW this time around.

if the CSL broke 8min at the ring, then this car should do so as is.

[FC]

i'm expecting good things from BMW this time around.

if the CSL broke 8min at the ring, then this car should do so as is.

I dunno about that. The CSL had sticky tires and the weight differential between the E46 CSL and the E92M3 will be in the few hundreds of pounds. I don't think the motor, while very nice, has enough juice to make up on the straights for the new M3's :m3 -ness on the twisties.

I say very low 8:00's and if it cracks 8 it's going to be by 1 or 2 seconds tops. That's my BS guess.