2008 M3 Pics

[Bavarian Motorist]

Originally Posted by John V

I'll take broadband torque over a high peak horsepower number anyday. Horsepower per liter is a worthless statistic, but it looks great in print.

I loved my '95 M3, but the cars have gone up in weight since then and BMW lost me as a customer.

Screw that. HP/L means high-revving, high pitched amazing sound and amazing experience.


I'll take that any day over an 8.3l v10 w/ 510hp.

[John V]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

Screw that. HP/L means high-revving, high pitched amazing sound and amazing experience.

Hm. Fair enough. I'd rather go faster

[Bavarian Motorist]

I guess for me personally, part of the experience of going faster is feeling it and feeling the inspiration.

Can't have one w/out the other, just like feeling like you're going fast and not going fast isn't so great either.

[John V]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

I guess for me personally, part of the experience of going faster is feeling it and feeling the inspiration.

Understandable. I've been spoiled in the past by engines that produce a nice solid wall of torque from idle to redline, and they're so much more usable on the street than a peaky, high-winding engine that produces a bunch of peak horsepower.

[Bavarian Motorist]

You are right about that. Especially considering 987s have a HUGE DEAD SPOT at about 2k RPM (which the ECU flash I bought claims to remove) and it is very annoying. Feels like a crappy automatic transmission.


Let's say you are going WOT in a torquey, muscular car. You feel yourself moving fast, especially due to the torque, but do you ever need to be going that fast for daily driving? Surely half the throttle will get you in front of any cars you want to pass with ease.


So the other half of the equation would be just what I am talking about, the thrill, and that would better justify using that driving technique. Maybe I am totally wrong about this.

I'm only explaining again because I think I did a poor job explaining the first time.



I think the solution is that we all need a Lamborghini. Problem solved. Who's in?

[djomlas]

i dont think that car has the "M" look to it at all, looks like a piped out accord,it needs to look more agressve, something just seems to be missing.
i do like the CF roof tho, tail light are fuglyyy...

but then again, i cant wait to see what AC Schnitzer and Rieger will come out with for this car..

e30 m3>e36 m3>e46 m3>this whatever looking m3
one day i will get another e30 (M this time)

[mach schnell]

Looks like a Pontiac! The E46 (previous generation) is much more athletic and agressive looking. The other unfortunate thing is that BMW does too good a job of incorporating the 'luxury' factor into their sport coupes. At least with Porsche, even surrounded by creature comforts, you still felt like you were driving a sports car. BMW gets caught up making their cars too driveable for the the lame-o's out there who want a nice, comfortable driving experience back and forth to work and the grocery store

[SD987]

Dr. Mach, nice of you to stop by. How's life and your cars treating you?

[mtch]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

Screw that. HP/L means high-revving, high pitched amazing sound and amazing experience.


I'll take that any day over an 8.3l v10 w/ 510hp.

I had a modified RSX type S which dynoed 214 WHP (39 HP over stock dyno). It was a high revving, screaming terror, which made 107 WHP/L. Fairly high, lots of fun and a great experience. BUT, that car or it's experience wouldn't compare to large displacement big hp dog sled. My uncle has a CTS-V, and the 400 hp & flat tq curve are increadible, even in something as lame as a CTS. Even though it revs slower, it's so loud, deep and throaty it would vibrate wall hangings when revved while sitting in the driveway. flogging that car, NOW THAT WAS AN EXPERIENCE

[Slashmatt]

I can't believe this car. It's absolutely unrecognizeable as a BMW. I believe that BMW's "California Design Center" has less respect for the brand and its history than true car enthusiasts do. That's a shame.

[Bavarian Motorist]

Originally Posted by mtch

I had a modified RSX type S which dynoed 214 WHP (39 HP over stock dyno). It was a high revving, screaming terror, which made 107 WHP/L. Fairly high, lots of fun and a great experience. BUT, that car or it's experience wouldn't compare to large displacement big hp dog sled. My uncle has a CTS-V, and the 400 hp & flat tq curve are increadible, even in something as lame as a CTS. Even though it revs slower, it's so loud, deep and throaty it would vibrate wall hangings when revved while sitting in the driveway. flogging that car, NOW THAT WAS AN EXPERIENCE

All right...but we're talking 214whp to like 350whp.



What about this M3 as compared to a Corvette?

[John V]

Hmmm. M3 versus Corvette?

400 horsepower for the 'vette versus 410-430 for the M3. Close.

400lb-ft of torque for the 'vette versus less than 300 for the M3. Not close.

The C6 Corvette is in the ballpark of 3200-3250lbs. The E92 M3 will be north of 3600lbs, probably north of 3700lbs. No comparison. Though, to be fair, the Corvette is a two-seat sports car with a bit of luxury. The M3 is a four-seat luxury GT, not a sports car. Two very different cars.

Bavarian Motorist, drive a C5 Z06 corvette sometime. It is all sound and fury up to its 6,500 RPM redline. It revs quickly, it's geared short, and it sounds like nothing else. Then come back and tell us how you feel about horsepower per liter.

First year CTS-Vs had the same drivetrain as the Z06. Who says they aren't fun in a completely un-Boxsteresque way? Video, right click save as

[Slashmatt]

Originally Posted by John V

Hmmm. M3 versus Corvette?

400 horsepower for the 'vette versus 410-430 for the M3. Close.

400lb-ft of torque for the 'vette versus less than 300 for the M3. Not close.

The C6 Corvette is in the ballpark of 3200-3250lbs. The E92 M3 will be north of 3600lbs, probably north of 3700lbs. No comparison. Though, to be fair, the Corvette is a two-seat sports car with a bit of luxury. The M3 is a four-seat luxury GT, not a sports car. Two very different cars.

Bavarian Motorist, drive a C5 Z06 corvette sometime. It is all sound and fury up to its 6,500 RPM redline. It revs quickly, it's geared short, and it sounds like nothing else. Then come back and tell us how you feel about horsepower per liter.

First year CTS-Vs had the same drivetrain as the Z06. Who says they aren't fun in a completely un-Boxsteresque way? Video, right click save as

I say they're not fun. I've driven a few CTS-Vs. If you like driving a Corvette that's carrying a 1000lb load, you'll like driving a CTS-V.

My Silverado has the same series V8 as the CTS-V, so I guess you could say they're more truck like than the average car too.

[John V]

The current CTS-V has the LS2 engine. There is no Silverado with an LS2.

The LS2 is the base Corvette engine.

The CTS-V is not my cup of tea, but it is fun in the same way a '60s musclecar is fun.

[Bavarian Motorist]

I drove a c6 recently and I made a thread about it.



So how about a 360 modena vs a C6?

[Slashmatt]

Originally Posted by John V

The current CTS-V has the LS2 engine. There is no Silverado with an LS2.

The LS2 is the base Corvette engine.

The CTS-V is not my cup of tea, but it is fun in the same way a '60s musclecar is fun.

I didn't say that they had the same engine, I said the engines were in the same series, LS.

And, yes, the engine in my pickup truck has very similar characteristics to the LS2. I've driven my Dad's'03 Z06 on the racetrack a few times and had the car for a while myself. The LS V8's are really good engines, but I still say that the caddy is not an entertaining car to drive.