M --> needs to go back to racing roots.

[blackdawg]

do any of you feel as though our M cars have become "M"arketing wonders as opposed to thinly veiled track machines?

the biggest issue i always encounter with the M cars: too freaking heavy.

there is no better illustration of this than nurburgring times, for example, between the current E46m3 and the euro 321hp e36m3. very, very close? why? the new car is saddled with 200-300lbs more weight.

in racing, the typical weight penalties are 150lbs.

i know i feel as though my m coupe is a pig at 3000lbs; the miata we used to own was the pure essence of sports car. limited slip, lightweight, handled on rails. and this translated into longer brake and tire life, too.

the new mz cars are 3000lbs.
the new m3 is 3450 lbs.
the new m5 is 4000 lbs.

what's wrong with this picture?

[TD]

Your post make me think back to a review of the E46 M3 I read in the NY Times a few months back. I dug up a link- http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/25/automobiles/25NEIL.html

Added weight plus complex technology added to help manage it is not what true sports cars are about. I too hope this trend does not continue.

Maybe I need to renew my search for a clean, low-mileage E30 M3.

[Mr. The Edge]

Buy a CSL if that's what you want.:D

I for one couldn't be happier with my E46 M3. The fact that we now get the same engine as the rest of the world makes me very very happy. And say what you will about how heavy it is, but it still kicks major butt in every performance measure. Simply the best bang for the buck high performance 4 seater in the world! (Don't bring up the WRX either, because that thing is just too ugly to drive)

[blackdawg]

my coupe goes through brakes and rubber like crazy.

much more so than my instructor's e30m3 (gorgeous) or the raceprepped miata i owned ever did.

so, i'm a firm believer not just on theoretical merits but from personal experience.

that said: i love the new S54 M motor and also am glad they brought it stateside.

[in_d_haus]

and I don't think a Miata can keep up with one on the track either. Plain and simple the new bimmers are more advanced and faster, even though heavier (and safer) than their previous models.

Look at the new race cars, they are all electronics. Take the E46M3 and the F1 cars.

The technology is here to stay.

IMHO,
Haus

[TD]

Originally posted by atyclb
Buy a CSL if that's what you want.:D

I for one couldn't be happier with my E46 M3. The fact that we now get the same engine as the rest of the world makes me very very happy. And say what you will about how heavy it is, but it still kicks major butt in every performance measure. Simply the best bang for the buck high performance 4 seater in the world! (Don't bring up the WRX either, because that thing is just too ugly to drive)

Oh yeah, the CSL. I'll pick one up with the extra $100K I have in my mattress.

BTW, have you read the review I linked?

[blackdawg]

an instructor in a raceprepped miata will embarass novices in C5's or M3s.

i've seen it 3 times now.

let alone e30m3s which "only" have 230hp, but somehow, no one can ever catch them.

there: we're talking about driver ability.

but the weight makes accleration and braking easier on the car and driver. coming down the front straight at gateway at 120+ is fun in a blown coupe, but it's hairy braking it repeatedly versus the lighter cars.

[Mr. The Edge]

I've read it, yes. I still couldn't be happier with my car. Though I haven't driven an E36 M3 (much less the 321 bhp version), I will say that there is a UK board devoted to the M3, and everyone there clearly favors the E46 version to the E36 evo version.

I assume you haven't test driven an E46 M3, correct?

[TD]

Originally posted by in_d_haus

The technology is here to stay.


I don't doubt that. The theoretical argument is- Should it be that way? And is there a market for an updated 2002tii or E30M3?

[TD]

Originally posted by atyclb
I assume you haven't test driven an E46 M3, correct?

Nope. Between my lack of free time outside of the office and the fact that dealers don't like tossing the keys to a new M3 to someone that they KNOW is not going to buy it, I have not driven one yet.

But, and maybe I'm WAY off here, other than a lot more HP, how different does it feel from a 330 w/SP. My former 330 had upgraded (UUC) sways. My complaints with that car centered around how the technology removed the feeling of the driver being connected to the machine. The DSC, the DBW throttle, the self-adjusting clutch, the light, unnatural steering, and the sheer mass of it all combined to make the car feel very capable but not a lot of fun. I found driving that car to be more of a chore than a joy. Hence, it's gone.

Have you driven a 330Ci back to back with the E46 M3 and compared? How different is the non-power related feel elements? I am not huge on HP. I relish the sublime "feel" traits of even my wife's E36 323iC. IMO, HP is far less important than those elements of "feel".

That's why that NY Times review stuck in my head. Because that's exactly what he addresses. And his comments are so consistent with what I felt coming out of the 330 w/SP that I'm inclined to believe the reviewer that those complaints DO extend to the E46 M3 as well.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[blackdawg]

so, the entry cost of that handbuilt S54 M motor int he new M3 is $52k or so.

the new 350Z track prepped version will be MSRP'd at 35k.

the new RX8 will be track prepped at 35k (with EVERYTHING).

the lotus elise is coming to the US at 35k.

the boxster S will be revamped with a 3.4litre 280hp motor; boxster S can already hold their own on the track with 250hp.

enthusiasts aren't stupid. if BMW doesn't come out with a lightweight track fighter, it will just go the way of audi and it's fata$$ S4 models which go well in a straight line but don't do very much of anything else all that well.

so: we have to separate price-sensitive enthusiasts (BMW loses) versus price-insensitive (us guys). how many of us will pony up 100k for a CSL when I can buy/will buy a C4S with 350hp for 80k which (with AWD) only weighs 3200 lbs? even if we're price-insensitive, again, we're still educated consumers.

for taking an M to the track, it's still a better proposition to track an e30m3 or an e36m3. M is motorsport. it's not "Gran Touring"; that was the original intent of my post.

[Mr. The Edge]

Originally posted by TD



Have you driven a 330Ci back to back with the E46 M3 and compared? How different is the non-power related feel elements? I am not huge on HP. I relish the sublime "feel" traits of even my wife's E36 323iC. IMO, HP is far less important than those elements of "feel".


Tell me I'm wrong.

Sorry--the M3 is my first BMW. (Talk about a nice introduction to the marque!):angel:

[Mr. The Edge]

I still think the CSL is slated for the $70-80,000 range, not $100,000.

No chump change, I know, but still--$75,000 is a lot less than $100,000

[blackdawg]

and we also own our first E46.

the chassis is nice. not as communicative as my e36m3, very dulled. is it better? probably. more rigid. no doubt a safer car. i really enjoy driving the 325xiT when i get the chance. it's a great commuter car; everything is smooth, insulated, dampened.

no wonder 3 series cars sell so well.

and i have test driven the 6speed e46m3. and the new 2001+ M coupe with 315hp. granted, i drive the old motor everyday and it's blown (SC), so i have a certain reference.

i really enjoy the spooling. it screams to redline. very, very fun. but let me say this: the test drive i took in a 2002 911 C2 was even BETTER. that engine still spools to its 7200rpm redline, but also has the torque that i didn't feel in the new S54 motor. it's more accessible power midrange.

i still dream about that test drive. it was intoxicating.

[TD]

Originally posted by atyclb


Sorry--the M3 is my first BMW. (Talk about a nice introduction to the marque!):angel:

DING DING DING!!!

We have our explanation!!!

Go drive an E36 M3 and I'll try to drive an E46 M3 and we'll resume this discussion.

I've owned an E30 '91 318is (which had the E30M3's suspension), a 2001 330i w/SP (and a bunch of UUC mods including sways) and currently have two E36s (a '99 323iC and a '98 M3 sedan). All of the above are 5-spds.

The 330 had no soul. I'd rather drive the 318is. It was A LOT more fun to drive than the 330. And it definitely had a soul.

Old-timers are not *****ing about newer BMWs just to be cranky. Sure the current models are much more mainstream but they just don't feel as good.

You should have no problem finding an E36M3 to testdrive. Let me know how it goes.

[blackdawg]

you're a dirty, rotten, filthy, stinking scoundrel.

there isn't a day that goes by that i don't miss my e36m3. or when i see one drive by? i mourn.

if mine hadn't been t-boned by a fruitcake, i would still have my e36m3. the m coupe is just a beast compared to that car.

thanks for rubbing that in, buddy.

:thumb:

[Mr. The Edge]

I don't know--there are also tons of guys on the org M3 board who have both or had both. They also really enjoy the new one. Though you WILL hear some of them still rave about the E36.

Why don't you ask a well thought out question (like your one above) and see what they have to say?

[Mr. The Edge]

By the way, I would tell you to search the archives, because there have been a few questions about comparing the two. Unfortunately, the search on the M3 board is still COMPLETELY useless. C & A haven't gotten around to improving our search :(

[blackdawg]

because it's a fantastic car for 90% of driving conditions. in experienced hands, it is rewarding and quick: all over town and on the track. it is the leatherman of BMW's lineup.

the "halo" of the M makes it appealing for many people. if you're going to get a nice car, why not the M3? for enthusiasts, it's heavenly because we finally get to sample what europeans have gotten for the past 10 years.

it's still a turn off for the diehards, and for the most part: the M coupe owner is a diehard. sure, we get our saab-types who buy it to "be different", but overall, still diehard bunch. with the demise of the M coupe, most of "us" are left hanging. we will probably hang on to our M coupes, but we're also looking ahead. many have migrated to the Z06 (i know, i know, but it's fast on the track); ordered elises, bought WRX's, and many will probably buy evo7/8's from mitsu.

for those who expect/interpret M as "motorsport", there are not a lot of options now or in the near future. frankly, most anyone can put in more HP in a weight-insensitive fashion like the AMG cars, the jaguar R types, and the audi S cars. and they all are doing so. BMW still manages to hold the upper hand because they still (1) offer manuals and (2) still do better chassis setups; but if you read between the lines of every review.....words such as "substantial"......"weighty"......."heavier"........come up.

:dunno:

[ALEX325i]

Yup. You're wrong bud! :D

Seriously though, I haven't driven a 330 SP, but if it's not THAT different from a 01 325 SP (or 00 323 SP) in terms of handling, feel, etc, it's night and day. I think you'd be surprised by the DBW (i.e. Sport button) throttle, clutch, and steering on the E46 M3. :thumb:

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from... In order to get those nice things (that were there in the first place), one shouldn't have to shell out $56K for an M car...

Originally posted by TD

Tell me I'm wrong.

[nate]

Alright, I guess that it is time for someone to make an intelligent devil's advocate (or sesible) counter argument...

The defense of BMW:

First off, I compiled the weights of certain M cars that are being discussed as well as others

Car Weight(lbs) HP W/HP
M1 3175 277 11.4621
'91 M3 2867 192 14.9323
'96 M3 3175 240 13.2292
'02 M3 3415 333 10.2553
'88 M5 3420 256 13.3584
'91 M5 3803 310 12.2622
'02 M5 4023 394 10.2107
'01 740i 4255 282 15.0887
'02 745i 4376 325 13.4646

(I believe my calculations are accurate, correct me)
(all for US spec)

As is clearly shown, as weight has increased, so has engine power. Power has outpaced the gain in weight, which leaves a lower power to weight ratio, making for a faster car.

Yes, I know what the response to that is going to be. "But, Nathan, M cars are not all about straight line speed..." My response would be the following: Obviously not, I completely agree. M cars are made to be taken to the track, right? Of course, they are. Well, power to weight ratios are a key element of track driving and making the car feel fast on the street, no? Power to weight is the basic measure of how fast a car is. I will cover handling, turning, and track adjustments in a moment. Some more reasons why the current crop of M cars is faster than the old ones. Besides raw power, todays cars are equipped with larger, grippier tires; have much more efficient drivetrains (we have to get that power to the ground, right?); and also have much lower aerodynamic drag, for example the "88 M5 had a Cd of 0.42, the 2002 M5 has one of 0.31, and the 2002 X5 4.4i has a Cd of 0.36. Big improvements here. We can agree that today's M cars are faster in a staight line, right?

On to handling, track tuning and track driving....Alright, first off, I presume that you would agree that structural rigidity had improved over time and by each generation. I don't want to look these figures up, so I will take this as given. Since the current batch of M cars is the most rigid that M cars have ever been and more rigid frames allow for much more precise suspension tuning, no? Since the body will flex much less in turns, we can tune the suspension on our M cars much more accurately and be able to produce consistent results in the turns. This property would be very attractive to someone who is going to truly race his new M car. Besides that, a more ridgid frame also is much safer in the event of a track accident (God forbid!). Now that we've established that the current M cars can be tuned more precicely at the track (and for street comfort), we can move on to their physical design and shape. Todays cars are also wider and lower to the ground. Remember Pontiac's ad campaign? There is some truth that wider is better. Lower is better too. The physical weight of a car is obviously an issue at the track. Quick transitions are always to be avoided on the track (we can agree on this), so that shap weight shifts are minimized. Obviously, if we reduce the weight of a car, it will do better in abrupt trasitions, ceteris peribus, eh? That is not a huge issue on the track, because good drivers avoid such movements (auto-x is different). On to Braking, of course, weight is a key componet. Whenever weight is added, brakes must be upgraded as well as tires. Today's cars have the best brakes ever put on stock BMWs.

I contend that adverse weight effects have been mitigated by stiffer bodies, bigger brakes, bigger tires, and more power.

On to the "feel" component. First, off, I will say that the current M cars give good feedback on the track and enough to tell the driver what is happening. My non-M car does as well. Much of the steering feedback is lost from increases in strucural rigidity and consumer demands for more compliant cars. The current M cars feel good, IMO.

My conception of an M car is a car that can be driven reasonably comfortably every day and taken to the race track for some fun on Sunday. Given my conception of M cars, the current product line is the best that it has ever been. Sure it would be nice to reduce weight without the expense of structural rigidity, but considering the state of the car market, with government and consumer demands, BMW is doing pretty damn good.

BMW is currently working on much lighter cars with improved rigidity, this would be the best of both worlds. Remember the Z5 concept. I would take a few hundred pounds with my 80hp and much stiffer body and better suspension :thumb:

[blackdawg]

a german head of engineering is quoted as saying, ".....the time for putting bigger engines into heavier cars is over with....we need to move back to lightweight platforms again.....";

it's back to the contention of what a sports car is. there are not any M cars made today which are sports cars.

thusly, whence "motorsport"?

[blackdawg]

i remember the car i really liked when it cam eout was the e34M5. the problem? it weighs 3415 pounds.

everyone hated it. while it upped the HP to 315hp over time, it was a complete dog.

in fact, you can easily pick those cars up for chump change these days with low mileage.

the horror in 1991 was an M5 weighing 3415lbs.....how much do any of the M cars weigh now?

why can porsche, ferrari, and honda all target a weight of 3000 pounds?

counter-counterpoint.

engineering in LESS weight is the most expensive thing. we won't see it in BMWs again until they surpass (easily) 1million sales again and maybe they have to spend less on their F1 budget in the near future. otherwise, it's too cost prohibitive.

[ALEX325i]

Originally posted by blackdawg
a german head of engineering is quoted as saying, ".....the time for putting bigger engines into heavier cars is over with....we need to move back to lightweight platforms again.....";

it's back to the contention of what a sports car is. there are not any M cars made today which are sports cars.

thusly, whence "motorsport"?

I agree... That's why I'm considering an S3 as a replacement for my 325i... Z5 may be an alternative... ;) Anyway, I don't see myself trading the 325i before late 2003/early 2004...

[in_d_haus]

Another point for BMW.

They are a manuafcturer of street automobiles, not race cars (yes, they have a racing program)

Customers of BMW should not be looking for a racecar. There are far better solutions to racing applications than any streetcar. If we are trying to judge bimmer by the fact that we can't take a car off the lot and competitively track the car we are simply looking in the wrong place.

Next, One of the reasons bimmer didn't build the 2002 for MY2002 (even though they have the ability and even the tooling) was that the car would NOT be able to be licensed. It does not meet current safety, emission, or mileage requirements. If modified to you get....the current 3er or a close representation of.

Look at the Mini, it's BIGGER than the origional for this very reason.

When the E30 came out the laws were much more relaxed, that car could never be licensed by manufacturer today.

A sad fact of life is that our beloved //M will probably, someday, disappear or just become a wheel and stripe package in the future as the restrictions increase.

My .02
Haus

[nate]

Originally posted by blackdawg
a german head of engineering is quoted as saying, ".....the time for putting bigger engines into heavier cars is over with....we need to move back to lightweight platforms again.....";

it's back to the contention of what a sports car is. there are not any M cars made today which are sports cars.

thusly, whence "motorsport"?

There are an incredible number of factors to consider when building a car. You can only build a lightweight platform IF it can meet all saftey requirements and customer expectations in a COST LIMITED environment. Given that businesses are restriced by costs and consumer demands, we cannot expect a 3000lb M5 until the technology is such that it can be done cheaply. Otherwise, bigger engines and better componets are used to make the slightly larger car better than the previoius one. So, now we have a 3400lb M3 that is faster in a straightaway, faster in the turns, safer, more ridgid, and more comfortable. What is the problem?

The new cars still will be faster than the old ones around a road course...

Please, tell me what a "sports car" is...

[nate]

Originally posted by blackdawg
i remember the car i really liked when it cam eout was the e34M5. the problem? it weighs 3415 pounds.

everyone hated it. while it upped the HP to 315hp over time, it was a complete dog.

in fact, you can easily pick those cars up for chump change these days with low mileage.

the horror in 1991 was an M5 weighing 3415lbs.....how much do any of the M cars weigh now?

why can porsche, ferrari, and honda all target a weight of 3000 pounds?

counter-counterpoint.

engineering in LESS weight is the most expensive thing. we won't see it in BMWs again until they surpass (easily) 1million sales again and maybe they have to spend less on their F1 budget in the near future. otherwise, it's too cost prohibitive.

According to edmunds, the 1991 M5 weighed in at 3803 lbs (http://www.edmunds.com/used/1991/bmw/5series/4drm5sedan/specs.html?id=lin0066)

Of course being lighter is more expensive. Why do you think BMW is reaserching how to make lighter cars cheaper?

[blackdawg]

i feel that BMW doesn't build one.

my opinion is that the ferrari 360 modena is a sports car, but the 550 and the 456 are not. the porsche 911 used to be a sports car; still close, but more of a GT (excluding the GT2 or the GT3 cars).

a sports car, by some nebulous definition, probably does numerically based things well, tracks exquisitely well, and is marginally street-able. the current M3 would be the closest IF there were options to remove power seats, power windows, take out the rear seats.....oh wait, that's the CSL coming.

so, right now, i don't see a "sports car" in bmw's lineup. i see GTs and "sporty" cars.

to use golf analogies: BMW's are (in my mind) akin to Pings or Callaways --> they're terrific instruments but their cast and so you lose a little bit of feel; they also have quite a bit of "high-end" aura associated with them. but single digit handicappers would probably gravitate still toward forged clubs like mizuno blades. even if they're less flashy, they have better feel for consistent swingers who can shape their shots.

i have driven the e46m3, the e39m5, an e30m3, an e36m3, a 2000 m coupe and a 2001 m coupe. the e46 and the e39 car have a couple layers of deadening material --> the same feel is i still lust after from my e36m3 or the e30m3 is dulled.

at the end of the day, i don't buy the weight issue. it's not as though if they charged 65-68k for the m3, that people wouldn't buy it. they still would. it just speaks of a new corporate culture. people still buy AMG cars at those prices. every single one of them.

[nate]

Originally posted by blackdawg
i feel that BMW doesn't build one.

my opinion is that the ferrari 360 modena is a sports car, but the 550 and the 456 are not. the porsche 911 used to be a sports car; still close, but more of a GT (excluding the GT2 or the GT3 cars).

a sports car, by some nebulous definition, probably does numerically based things well, tracks exquisitely well, and is marginally street-able. the current M3 would be the closest IF there were options to remove power seats, power windows, take out the rear seats.....oh wait, that's the CSL coming.

so, right now, i don't see a "sports car" in bmw's lineup. i see GTs and "sporty" cars.

to use golf analogies: BMW's are (in my mind) akin to Pings or Callaways --> they're terrific instruments but their cast and so you lose a little bit of feel; they also have quite a bit of "high-end" aura associated with them. but single digit handicappers would probably gravitate still toward forged clubs like mizuno blades. even if they're less flashy, they have better feel for consistent swingers who can shape their shots.

i have driven the e46m3, the e39m5, an e30m3, an e36m3, a 2000 m coupe and a 2001 m coupe. the e46 and the e39 car have a couple layers of deadening material --> the same feel is i still lust after from my e36m3 or the e30m3 is dulled.

at the end of the day, i don't buy the weight issue. it's not as though if they charged 65-68k for the m3, that people wouldn't buy it. they still would. it just speaks of a new corporate culture. people still buy AMG cars at those prices. every single one of them.

Why isn't the Z3, especially the M coupe a sports car? "Marginally" streetable? There is nothing marginal about a 360 being steetable, it sure as hell is. If we bought into your defenition of a "sports car," almost no one would ever buy a one.

Your AMG price analogy is invalid, MB sells MUCH fewer AMG models than BMW sells M cars...

[Mr. The Edge]

Originally posted by blackdawg
i feel that BMW doesn't build one.


a sports car, by some nebulous definition, probably does numerically based things well, tracks exquisitely well, and is marginally street-able. the current M3 would be the closest IF there were options to remove power seats, power windows, take out the rear seats.....oh wait, that's the CSL coming.



Power seats are not standard, power windows, from what I have heard, actually are lighter than non-power (or at least weigh the same) And you can remove the rear seat if you really want to. (I think)

[nate]

Originally posted by atyclb


Power seats are not standard, power windows, from what I have heard, actually are lighter than non-power (or at least weigh the same) And you can remove the rear seat if you really want to. (I think)

I should have caught this error...the only E46s with standard power seats are the cabrios. Presumably for the integrated seatbelt.

Also, Z8 is not a sports car either?

[glaws]

I LOVE blackdog and td. Some of the best ranters on this board. Both have good points. Let me offer my humble opinion. The M3 is the best out of the box "drivers car" that we have today. Some cars handle better but only have two seats. Some cars are faster and only have two seats. Some cars need various bolt ons or chips to be as fast or faster and handle as well. The M3 is extremely fast and its handling limits are outside my own personal limits, for now. It seats four in comfort and is fairly well apointed inside. Has a very distinctive look and sound. I aint gonna mod and I aint gonna chip. This is the perfect car for me.

[in_d_haus]

Per Enzo Ferrari the only "true" American sports car was the Jeep, due to wheelbase, hp/weight ratio, and manuverability. Pissed off Chevy since this was a slam aimed at the 'vette.

[blackdawg]

yeah, i dunno about the z8. by numbers alone, it's the most sports car categorical BMW. it runs the nurburgring the fastest of all of them at about 8:10 or 8:12.

i guess i forgot about that car; sorry. mostly because when i think about its 128k asking price, i'm leaning toward either the 115k 996tt or the 125k Ferrari 360.

isn't this a great discussion, though?

i'm enjoying it. it's nice to have a break from the "clears or ambers" turn light signal posts.

:angel:

[ALEX325i]

Originally posted by in_d_haus
Per Enzo Ferrari the only "true" American sports car was the Jeep, due to wheelbase, hp/weight ratio, and manuverability. Pissed off Chevy since this was a slam aimed at the 'vette.

:D I hadn't heard that one before... :D I bet that one really pissed GM off. :lmao: Although (as far as the C5 is concerned) I disagree with the whole maneuverability thing. The C5 handles like a dream :thumb: Looking at the numbers, it handles better than my M3 (1.0g on the skidpad).

[in_d_haus]

Well I learned that in my high school auto shop textbook. Enzo is gone now so he didn't see the C5. I'm sure he'd agree...well maybe not! :D

I'm thinking of test driving a C5 just for grins..

[M3]

I totally agree with BlackDawg. I've owned many cars including crx's, rx7's, 300zxTT, s2000, E36 M3, 330Ci and E46 M3. The E36 M3 was definitely more of a driver's car than the E46 M3. It handled better, cornered flatter and somehow even had a better ride than the E46 M3. It also had as much usable power (called torque) for it's weight.

The E46 has 333 horsepower, but you have to wind it out to use any of that (like the s2000) and that's just not possible most of the time on the street. In normal driving you can feel torque at work everytime you step on the gas without having to wind it out and break the speed barrier.

My other favorite car was the 1st gen CRX. When the 2nd gen arrived, it was heavier and just not as fun to drive. The s2000 was fun, but rode like a truck and had no usable power (low end). I agree, BMW needs to get back to their roots. That's what made them so great!

[jw]

This has been a very interesting thread. A lot of very valid points being debated. Unfortunately, I can't personaly attest to the performance of any M Model since I've never driven one. However, from a high level perspective I would tend to believe that BMW is engineering as fine as automobile that they can given the current market conditions.

When it comes to the discussion of a sports car, that's another thing. I've had the pleasure to ride and drive in many. One of the most basic criteria I would associate with any sports car is 2 seats or less. When I looked it up at dictionary.com, they tend to agree. Given that, I would only consider the M Roadster and M Coupe the only BMW M models that are true sports cars.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=sports%20car

sports car
n.
An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sports car

n : a small low car with a high-powered engine; usually seats two persons [syn: sport car]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[Mr. The Edge]

Originally posted by jw
Given that, I would only consider the M Roadster and M Coupe the only BMW M models that are true sports cars.


What about the Z8? Oh--never mind; you said the only M models...

[blackdawg]

to summarize the various postings: i think most of us agree the E46M3 is exemplary in pure numbers and a relative bargain at 46k or so.

but it's not a pure sports car.

for everyday driving it excels. but is it a sports car? no. it's superb GT. and in the current M lineup, that's about where they're aiming.

for track people or people who get hooked on driver's schools: the new M3 means a much greater envelope of performance. but at the next level: you'll pay dearly for that weight because it means faster wear on tires and brakes. it means swept area per swept area, those 3000 pound cars have it all over you sittin at 3450 (3650 with 1 driver). it's just physics.

if my M coupe is a slug at 3000 pounds (and, it IS), how do you think someone like me would feel about a car weighing 400 pounds more? my next car, with almost the same HP PLUS all wheel drive (C4S) is STILL lighter. plus a tractive advantage, plus cubic inches, plus superior brakes.

and you should hear how mollified porsche purists are about how refined and GT-ish the new 996 has become.

different crowds, that's all.

[MDork]

i think blackdawg has made a lot of good points regarding whether or not bmw is making a pure sports car or not....however, its my opinion that in keeping with the "ultimate driving machine" philosophy, bmw has incorporated luxury and comfort in with the "driving" experience. whether or not this leads to a more exhilirating "sports" car is another subject altogether....

honestly, if bmw sold the m3 as a lightweight track warrior, i.e. no amenities---i for one would love it but the target market in general would hate it and all buy the c32 amg or something similar. bmw has to cater to their target market if they want to remain independent and financially successful.

personally, i agree with many of the comments regarding the direction of bmw. the e36 m3 does feel "sharper" in my opinion than the e 46 which is one reason why i chose the m coupe---which is as close to a "drivers car" as you can get----

i think there are many of us who would love a bmw without the nav system and multifunction wheel and all the other heavy crap that ruins the car...but does anyone remember the c5 hardtop??? chevy tried to sell a stripped, cheap version of the c5 with the raciest suspension and it didnt sell....so they turned it into the z06, gave back the amenities, and beefed up the hp....instant winner---

i guess what im trying to say is that i agree with both sides in that i would love a true sports car from bmw but i dont think its economically possible for them to do....theyre leaving that up to lotus and mitsu (evo) as mentioned earlier-----in a way bmw has slotted itself as the car you can drive hard around town in comfort....leaving you to buy a lower maintenance, amenity free car for weekends at the track

[Mr. The Edge]

Well said. BMW does exist to make money, and they do all sorts of market analysis to determine what options etc. will generate the greatest profit.

I am very glad, however, that they still give M3 buyers quite a bit of choice as to what options are included or left off the car.

You can buy a new M3 with manual seats, in cloth, with no sunroof, no NAV,etc for an MSRP of $46575 and still not feel like you're in a completely stripped car. You can order pretty much any option individually too--you don't HAVE to get the premium package to get leather, or a sunroof or the NAV etc. These days, that $46000 is awfully close to an all-options 330ci.

[ALEX325i]

Originally posted by atyclb
Well said. BMW does exist to make money, and they do all sorts of market analysis to determine what options etc. will generate the greatest profit.

I am very glad, however, that they still give M3 buyers quite a bit of choice as to what options are included or left off the car.

You can buy a new M3 with manual seats, in cloth, with no sunroof, no NAV,etc for an MSRP of $46575 and still not feel like you're in a completely stripped car. You can order pretty much any option individually too--you don't HAVE to get the premium package to get leather, or a sunroof or the NAV etc. These days, that $46000 is awfully close to an all-options 330ci.

Amen!

[blackdawg]

affordability versus a club racer's car.

affordability: well, i don't think the demographic is all that price sensitive in the M arena. so i could care less if i could get a stripper for $46k or $75k. the point being, there is a certain car i would like to have and it's not available.

let's add up how much it would cost to make that $46k a club racing (a palatable club racing car) car. $5000 for better brakes (front AND rear). $3200 for lighter wheels (those 18" cast alloys are heavy). $2500 for a slightly stiffer suspension. $1600 for racing seats. rip out the rear seats $0. $1800 for a custom radiator and better oil cooler plumbing.

that's only $60k. but you lose all of the factory warranties. ouch.

and if BMW charged $80k, does that mean no one would buy one? ha! of course people would buy them. what this cost really doesn't factor is how much it would cost to bring the car down to the CSL weight (i.e. 3000 pounds). personally? i'm happy we have an e46m3 in the US, but it's a true GT and i want a more focused car. there's not point in complaining anymore. so, i ordered a 996 C4S. with the 996 turbo brakes and cooling and AWD, it's only 3200 pounds. less HP but faster to 100km/h and 160km/hr. more importantly, faster on the track. okay. point made.

as far viability: of course we udnerstand they need to make a profit. we all want them to remain an indy company and thrive. and they surely do. that's what the z3 and X5 are for. pure money making machines. with all of the money they're pouring into F1, the viability/fiscal prowess argument really looks weak, however.

[Wingboot]

If I had the money I would get a C4S as well. I’m sure you’ll be happy with that one :thumb:
http://mail.roadfly.org/wingboot/911_4s2+tiny.jpg