First look at the fourth-gen BMW M3

Discussion in 'European Cars' started by ajzahn, Apr 3, 2007.

  1. 295-lb-ft of torque isn't good for a car that weights over 3600lbs.
     
  2. shut your mouth, chinaman. This car tugs 12.34 lbs per torque, whereas the e46 tugged 13.2, which means this car is better. No one is gonna say the e46M3 had a torque problem. Furthermore, the torque of this car is available over more of the revrange. Mechanically, it's such a beast. It's V8 is 33 lbs less than the iron-block I6 departing. The only sad thing I felt when I learned that is why with all the weight saving tech BMW has learned, does the car have to be bigger and heavier than the last. It's by no means big and heavy as far as most 4-seater coupes go, but it could be so so so much lighter.
     
  3. So let's get it all into perspective. The M3 is more powerful than the RS4, it's lighter, it has more torque per lbs, it's more balenced, and if pricing is correct, will cost 10% less.

    Easy choice then.
     
  4. Gewicht

    Leergewicht 1650 kg

    Zul. Gesamtgewicht 2200 kg

    Source: Audi.de

    10kg lighter then the S4.
    1kg=>2.2046 LBS
    1650kg x 2.2046 = 3638lbs
     
  5. You're a very smart man, Mr. huub for someone who has yet to live a single lifetime.

    nice.
    even.
    marketable.

    This is sources from Audi USA. It may be safty regulation stuff, but 300lbs of it? I'm not so convinced.
     
  6. Not to mention, what precisely does unloaded weight mean? Cause BMW made their measurement with a 75kg weight inserted to represent the driver.
     
  7. 75kg weight for driver, damn I guess its not made for me
     
  8. Funny......

    Sport auto btw rated the RS4 with a full tank at 1720kg which would be 3790lbs. so that's probably your difference.
     
  9. Sadly I must agree with people like Relayagent on the fact the new M3 is less brutish than its predecessors. There's also less of a visual difference between that and the normal 3 this time around, mainly thanks to the fenders being less pronounced. It's too elegant and doesn't really do it for me... And that front air dam fails.

    Thumbs up for the regular E92 though.
     
  10. Indeedy.

    Doesn't hurt that it looks better either.
     
  11. Only if you're blind.
     
  12. seriously.
     
  13. Your opinion reads like you've only seen the spy pictures.
     
  14. thanks for the info.
     
  15. simply the new benchmark!
     
  16. I dont like it, the old M3s look way meaner. This is just...weak.
    I'd take the mustang over this just based on looks. Either that or an older M3
     
  17. a benchmark for what?
    uglyness?

    its not going to dominate the Audi RS4 or C 63 AMG
     
  18. i guarentee when the next generation M3 comes out most of you will say "oh gosh, this is ugly, that E92 looked so hot, why'd they change it???"
     
  19. not really.
     
  20. Err, yes, it will dominate the RS4 and the C63 both.
     
  21. nah. the e46 m3 was really awesome and rocked both the c55 and the rs4, but the new rs4 already rocks the e92m3 and the c63 will do better too i think.
     
  22. i doubt the merc, maybe rs4, will be anywhere near as much fun to drive as the bmw
     
  23. What do you mean "already rocks the E92 M3"? AFAIK, there have been no tests of the new M3. And why do you think BMW has spent ages upon ages developing this car if not to smack the RS4 across the face?

    And the C63 will be much too heavy, and not focused enough to stand a chance.
     
  24. sure it will. Looks better and performs better!
     
  25. the RS4 wud and still will wipe the floor with it, i used to own one, nuthing like it, better handling from that awsome quattro system
     

Share This Page