slowvo;163401 wrote:
regardless of what i think of the car, mrcmk is fucking retarded

Who is this mrcmk? If it is me that you are referring to, you may address me as MisterCMK.

Tad218;163110 wrote:
i like the current style more
Me too!

Mmmm high reving V8, delicious.

Edit: I can totally see what you are saying about losing their heritage. I think the STi limited is for pussies and granpas. It should've been lighter and more powerful, not just "toned down" in looks and heavy. I guess that's why the aftermarket exists so we can make the cars into what we think they should be.

This was the two winning points for me. Even though some of you don't like that.

MisterCMK;163206 wrote:
eh, it still doesn't have a whole lot of torque. Torque is what makes a car fun to drive and what puts you back in your seat. Thats what I love about my 302. I start making power at 2,000rpm so its fun as hell from stop light to stop light.

I don't think that's true at all. What makes a car fun to drive is a combination of the drivers preferences and the "total package".

The Honda S2000 is fantastic to drive and is utterly torqueless. But there is something about the F20C that begs you to just wind it out to 9k rpm every time. If you're not looking to light up tires and stop light race... if you want to just hear and feel the engine scream... that car is amazing.

Sport bikes are also pretty torque-constrained but i hear they're quite the rush as well

Again - your 302 (hopefully) has more torque than any modern F1 car. But i know which one I'd rather drive, and if you're honest and/or not a dumbass, you'll agree with me -- we'd both rather drive a 750hp, 275 ft/lb F1 car that has a 19000 rpm redline and linear torque/hp rise over its entire range, because the "package" on an F1 car is unlike anything else in the universe.

As I am fond of pointing out.. there are lots of streetable engines in town putting down 2-3000 lb/ft of torque.. just stop by the Butler dealership. Of course, none of those engines or the vehicles they sit in are any fun at all on the street (well, not in a speed/acceleration way... of course everyone likes driving heavy equipment for the novelty of it)

I won't rehash any stupid analogies about what hp is and what torque is. I'll close by saying that evalating a car based on its paper numbers is foolhardy and is the stuff of bench racing. You learn about what a car is really like by driving it, and this is a place where BMW never disappoints, even if I do lament that the cars get heavier and softer every year.

Just my .02

MisterCMK;163197 wrote:
So what? It just means you have to spool the piss outta that thing to make power

I don't think that's accurate. Note that the torque is nearly constant across several thousand RPM. The M engines are horsepower/top end biased on purpose because many customers find those engines are more fun to drive than stump pullers.

It's still a 4 liter V8. 300 ft/lbs of torque everywhere isn't bad, and horsepower that builds linearly with revs all the way to the redline is pretty cool.

F1 cars only make around 250-275 ft/lbs of torque.

torbs;163109 wrote:
stock V8 that revs over 8k:icon_salut:

So what? It just means you have to spool the piss outta that thing to make power

leftlanenews.com wrote:
The M3's V8 powerplant has two more cylinders than its predecessor, delivering 420 hp from 4.0 litters and maximum torque of 295 lb-ft at 3,900 rpm. In keeping with BMW's high-revving "M" tradition, maximum engine speed is 8,300 rpm.

Meh, no power down low and a severe lack of torque. blah

thrash;163107 wrote:
A lot of current BMW fans aren't thrilled with the styling on this one. The front and rear valences are kind of.. .meh.

I'm sure it will be fast but it doesn't look like it all fits together.

Anyone that hasn't owes it to themself to get a ride/drive in one of the original M3s.. the E30 back from 1988-1991 (in the US).

Couldn't agree more. I can't believe they ruined the lines like that....

That is so ugly! The 335i is wayyyy better looking. What the hell is with the crazy front end. Ew!

Sweet-WRX-Lovin;163121 wrote:
Bout time it gets the motor it has always deserved. Always have like the M3s.

The original one had a 193hp 2.3L 4 cylinder. It competed in stage rally, DTM, and pretty much every other kind of motorsport you can think of, but it was the winningest touring car of all time back int the late 80s. The biggest factory engine to go into the E30 M3 was the 2.5L Evo III configuration good for 250+hp in street trim and >300 in race trim.

Each generation of BMW has given up a little "character", "rawness", etc. They've ultimately gotten heavier, quiter, faster, more luxurious, and more expensive.

The M3 "needs" a V8 for emissions, packaging, and horsepower-war reasons, but I'm kind of sad to see another BMW lose the inline 6 cylinder heritage that made BMW so famous in the 70s and 80s. There's certainly historical success for them with I4 (their corporate headquarters building is a 4-cylinder building owing to their 4 cyl heritage) and V8 engines as well, but the I6 something BMW did better and more often than anybody else IMO.

The M3 has grown into something pretty different than the original as the 3 series platform has continued to get bigger and heavier. The euro-only (for now) 1 series is probably the spiritual successor to the 2002 and 3 series of old, and there is some talk of bringing the 135i over (that has the 3 liter twin turbo from the 335i). That will really be the new "fun BMW" if they let it happen... moreso than the M3 i think.

torbs;163109 wrote:
stock V8 that revs over 8k:icon_salut:

Bout time it gets the motor it has always deserved. Always have like the M3s.

Tad218;163110 wrote:
i like the current style more

Me to, but im sure the new style will grow on me though.

I'm sure it will be fast but it doesn't look like it all fits together.

Anyone that hasn't owes it to themself to get a ride/drive in one of the original M3s.. the E30 back from 1988-1991 (in the US).