don't look at this thread.. R&T sedan comparo M3 v IS-F v C63 v RS4

[rai]

------>>>http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6696

one of the slower M3s 0-100 10.5sec

if there's anything holding the BMW back, it's the engine — at once its biggest asset and most glaring irritation.

it's still only 4.0 liters, the smallest capacity in the test. This means the lowest peak torque of 295 lb.-ft., generated at 3900 rpm. By contrast, the Mercedes feels as if it has this much at 2500, and packs on an additional 150 lb.-ft. or so by the time it reaches 5000 rpm. "The M3's V-8 is a very special piece, but it just doesn't have the punch of the Mercedes, or even the Lexus," noted Monticello. As such, the M3 was the tail-ender in 0–60 acceleration (4.6 sec.) and couldn't crack the 12s in the quarter mile.

if catlike handling reflexes top your priority list, and you don't mind elevated revs to extract the full goodness of a somewhat high-strung engine, the M3 sedan may be the ticket. Its price-as-tested is also the lowest of the group at $59,050 (including four years of maintenance), while lacking some of the office-on-wheels telematics fitted to the Mercedes and Lexus. But we don't really need those things in a Sturm und Drang sports sedan, do we?

[RealSanaii]

obviously, this test is an outlier to the rest. But none the less, IS-FAIL!

[hellrotm]

The IS-F racks up another last place, this is getting comical.

Results

1) C63 AMG 577.5 points
2) M3 sedan 576.7 points
3) RS4 567.1 points
4) IS-F 564.3 points

[Krueger///M3]

At least the M3 coupe wins all of the comparisons, looks like the sedan just doesn't...

[gbb357]

I can't believe they only got 4.6 to 60 with the M3 and couldn't crack 12 secs on the 1/4 mile.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

I can't believe they only got 4.6 to 60 with the M3 and couldn't crack 12 secs on the 1/4 mile.

I have never seen the IS-F or M3 (E92 or E90) crack the 12 second 1/4 mi. Please show me those results.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I have never seen the IS-F or M3 (E92 or E90) crack the 12 second 1/4 mi. Please show me those results.

In the vernacular, "crack the 12 second 1/4 mile" means 12.99 or better.

This test is a great read, and for those anal retentive folks among us (see me in the corner over here, waving my hand in the air?), poring thru the data and results pages gives a treasure trove of useful information.

The BMW powerplant, which gets a mild spanking by the other three (once again) for its lack of low end and midrange, yields to the M3's highest score in "Driving Excitement", which not only addresses the overall chassis feel, but also pays homage, I suspect, to that rush the driver gets when the tach needle moves over to the right hand side of the dial.

Nice.

Looking forward to the inevitable comparison in Car & Driver, which will also yield a treasure trove of comparison data.

Bruce

[T Bone]

Few comments:

• M3 braking is the best with only 2 piddly sliding pistons
• Looks like BMW didn't have a press ringer
• MDCT should fix that up....the 2 slowest cars were manuals
• Audi - ridiculous pricing and weight distribution

[!Xoible]

lol i could careless... i hope IS, MB, and Audio drivers enjoy their rides as much as im enjoying mine...

the #'s they got reflect lesser driving skills compared to all other magazines.

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I have never seen the IS-F or M3 (E92 or E90) crack the 12 second 1/4 mi. Please show me those results.

Here's one from Motor Trend. The order goes M3, ISF, & C63.


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html

[gbb357]

And here's the one from Car and Driver.

[sayemthree]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

The IS-F racks up another last place, this is getting comical.

Results

1) C63 AMG 577.5 points
2) M3 sedan 576.7 points
3) RS4 567.1 points
4) IS-F 564.3 points

LOL!!!!!!!!!

[footie]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The BMW powerplant, which gets a mild spanking by the other three (once again) for its lack of low end and midrange, yields to the M3's highest score in "Driving Excitement", which not only addresses the overall chassis feel, but also pays homage, I suspect, to that rush the driver gets when the tach needle moves over to the right hand side of the dial.

Bruce

Haven't had the pleasure of getting to drive an M3 without the 1200miles restriction on preceding so only 5500rpm to play with. When confined to this, though the engine is still musical and has reasonable torque you do come away from the test drive with the feeling of 'so what, it wasn't that special a car'. OK, when you actually begin to pile on the speed and throwing it into corners you can start to feel that front end grip so many people talk about and the chassis and steering comes more alive (not a dance with info but that's a plus in my opinion). But I feel until you get to experience that engine butting the rev limiter I reckon you are only scratching the surface of what makes this car great.

A long winded entry to my question.

Why does BMW not supply it's dealers with cars that are run-in?

Two test drives drop and both have been limited to 5500 revs.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

Here's one from Motor Trend. The order goes M3, ISF, & C63.

Bruce explained this above. Did you catch that?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

This test is a great read, and for those anal retentive folks among us (see me in the corner over here, waving my hand in the air?), poring thru the data and results pages gives a treasure trove of useful information.

The BMW powerplant, which gets a mild spanking by the other three (once again) for its lack of low end and midrange, yields to the M3's highest score in "Driving Excitement", which not only addresses the overall chassis feel, but also pays homage, I suspect, to that rush the driver gets when the tach needle moves over to the right hand side of the dial.

Why is this "treasure trove" of data any more valuable than the reports that do not show the "spanking" by the other three? You must admit that the numbers obtained in this test are all well toward the worst end of the range (if not the worst) that are tracked in our "More performance figures" thread. Grain of salt...

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Bruce explained this above. Did you catch that?

On that Motor Trend data i posted, you can't see the which cars is each figures are for. That's why i had to tell you which order they are in, that's all. Not the order on how they where ranked, just the data figures.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Why is this "treasure trove" of data any more valuable than the reports that do not show the "spanking" by the other three? You must admit that the numbers obtained in this test are all well toward the worst end of the range (if not the worst) that are tracked in our "More performance figures" thread. Grain of salt...

OK, this made me grin - but jesus, guy, an entire phalanx of neurosurgeons could stay busy analyzing your BMW neurons!

I personally don't give a damn who wins and loses, but, in addition to showing that these cars are overall essentially equals, with slightly varying strengths and weaknesses, the data is valuable because it shows not only performance, but speeds in gears, fuel economy, tire sizes, interior room, blah, blah, blah - all on a couple of pages, and of course tested on the same day in the same venue. All that, plus the comparative results of how the testers ranked them in 12 different categories.

My reference to the engines was in regard to the fact that they beat up the M3 V8 in the verbiage for its low end weakness (compared to the others, of course), and presumably for that reason they beat it up again in the numbered "Engine" rankings (the lowest score of the four). But then they gave the bimmer top marks for "Driving Excitement". My point was that they must really appreciate that top end rush (just the way everyone else does) to give it top marks. The chassis is a given, but the car would need more than that to top each of the others in that driving excitement category, so it's gotta be that top end glory everybody talks about. Capiche?

Getting back to the data, one more interesting point (of several), is that they gave the M3 nearly top marks for "Ride", and this car didn't even have the adjustable shocks!

Check it all out. Treasure trove! (But only if you don't care who wins, so on second thought, maybe you should skip it.)

Bruce

PS - As to the acceleration results, maybe they had a low barometer, maybe they had a headwind (I don't think they run the cars in two directions to cancel that out). Who knows? Who cares? Same day testing.

This is the same magazine that came up with those astoundingly quick times (that fanboys quote as gospel) when they tested a Euro version of the car in Germany. Maybe it's Karma.

[SteelTorque]

The M3 got spanked good in the 1/4 mile and 0-60 test and one of the guys on this forum was hoping to hit 11's with DCT. Wow!

Like I said before, most people in real life will hit high 12's with the new M3, especially at most tracks where prep is not perfect.

[M3NTAL]

I haven't seen anywhere that people with DCT hope to get "11s", only .2s faster 0-60mph. Bottom line it's still alot faster than your all wheel drive 335, so you really have no room to talk. So... Don't.

I knew before even seeing the results of this article who would win. It opens up with something like "who can spin the wheels in top gear at the end of a straightaway" It's typical American "I gots me a big engine dat can smoke dem tires" journalism. Just look at the big guy thats quoted on one of the pages, he looks to be missing some teeth. They go on to say that the M3 has the best handling and ride and what not, but like I said handling isn't what these guys were looking for, they were looking for a straight-line drag car "that can spin it's tires in top gear." They said it themselves.

[footie]

Is the only thing that important to some people the fact of which proves to be ultimately the quickest.

I can't fathom that at all, surely the most important thing is the experience of driving the bloody thing. Re-read the results in full and see what I clearly did, that the M3 is a very talented car indeed. They knocked the engine in one sentence yet in others reckoned it's harmony with it's chassis was brilliant, the M3 is a class act and the fact that other are quicker neither upsets me or makes me believe I choose the wrong car.

The C63 is quicker in acceleration, the RS4 is definitely quicker in difficult conditions and the IS-F is easily as quick without half the effort but none of these (not even the RS4) can entertain like the M3, or offer the same reward for putting that extra effort in.

[OzCarfreak]

Originally Posted by footie

Is the only thing that important to some people the fact of which proves to be ultimately the quickest.

I can't fathom that at all, surely the most important thing is the experience of driving the bloody thing. Re-read the results in full and see what I clearly did, that the M3 is a very talented car indeed. They knocked the engine in one sentence yet in others reckoned it's harmony with it's chassis was brilliant, the M3 is a class act and the fact that other are quicker neither upsets me or makes me believe I choose the wrong car.

The C63 is quicker in acceleration, the RS4 is definitely quicker in difficult conditions and the IS-F is easily as quick without half the effort but none of these (not even the RS4) can entertain like the M3, or offer the same reward for putting that extra effort in.

From Experience the RS4 entertains more than these cars on a wet skid pan area.

[SteelTorque]

Originally Posted by M3NTAL

I haven't seen anywhere that people with DCT hope to get "11s", only .2s faster 0-60mph. Bottom line it's still alot faster than your all wheel drive 335, so you really have no room to talk. So... Don't.

I knew before even seeing the results of this article who would win. It opens up with something like "who can spin the wheels in top gear at the end of a straightaway" It's typical American "I gots me a big engine dat can smoke dem tires" journalism. Just look at the big guy thats quoted on one of the pages, he looks to be missing some teeth. They go on to say that the M3 has the best handling and ride and what not, but like I said handling isn't what these guys were looking for, they were looking for a straight-line drag car "that can spin it's tires in top gear." They said it themselves.

Ahh, you must have missed this thread, maybe you were to busy analizying your M3 insecurities:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...5&postcount=50

Back on topic, this is the 3rd test i've seen with a 13.0 sec 1/4 mile result. Not impressive for a car that costs 70k. It even got beat by the IS-F.
Traction must be a problem with that car....even with so little torque....oh well... maybe the CSL will do better...