He didn't say he needed 4 doors, and said he didn't have kids yet.
Just pointing out how ridiculous this ///M obsession about them being such different 'drivers cars' is. At the end of the day it's still based on a 3 series
BMW and M Power Owners
- Thread starter panthro
- Start date
Just pointing out how ridiculous this ///M obsession about them being such different 'drivers cars' is. At the end of the day it's still based on a 3 series
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
It shares a surprisingly low number of parts though. All the important bits are specific to the M cars. It isn't like a Focus ST where it is just bolt ons that can be shared across the range. Continuing the analogy, it's a bit like what the MK1 Focus RS was to the MK1 Focus.
Why stop at Porsche? Why not a Ferrari, or Lambo... or a space shuttle? Logically speaking, right? 
Talk about strange arguments. 37-40k and creature comforts... that doesn't say Porsche to anyone. If you want a Porsche, you don't look at 3 series bimmers.
Talk about strange arguments. 37-40k and creature comforts... that doesn't say Porsche to anyone. If you want a Porsche, you don't look at 3 series bimmers.
So to tidy up!
Yes 4 doors are a requirement hence the M3 and not the M4. I need a decent load capacity and the M3/340 both having split rear seats means the boot space can be expanded as large as required.
I'd love to be looking at a Cayman, Mustang etc but I just don't see them working out in terms of load space (suppose you could argue the mustang rear seats collapse but that isn't saying much)
Yes 4 doors are a requirement hence the M3 and not the M4. I need a decent load capacity and the M3/340 both having split rear seats means the boot space can be expanded as large as required.
I'd love to be looking at a Cayman, Mustang etc but I just don't see them working out in terms of load space (suppose you could argue the mustang rear seats collapse but that isn't saying much)
Odd thing to say, Cayman's are extremely capable on track.
New 740d as a courtesy car today while my F01 LCI 730d was at the dealer.
A very impressive car, but wind noise, road noise and suspension/ride quality felt very similar to mine - surprisingly so. It felt more dynamic when pressing on but that's not really why you buy a 7. Spec on this one just tipped over £100k.
Rear wheel steering was a surprise, really makes it a lot easier to manoeuvre (not that it's often an issue). The self-driving stuff is motorway only unless you want a head on collision!
Absolutely no discounts on new ones or anything of the sort, so you'd stand to lose 40 odd grand in 6 months.
A very impressive car, but wind noise, road noise and suspension/ride quality felt very similar to mine - surprisingly so. It felt more dynamic when pressing on but that's not really why you buy a 7. Spec on this one just tipped over £100k.
Rear wheel steering was a surprise, really makes it a lot easier to manoeuvre (not that it's often an issue). The self-driving stuff is motorway only unless you want a head on collision!
Absolutely no discounts on new ones or anything of the sort, so you'd stand to lose 40 odd grand in 6 months.
Who buys these new!? I’ve always wondered
Who buys these new!? I’ve always wondered
Historically I've seen fairly new 7 Series models with £25k+ off list price, I can't see many people ordering new ones without some kind of incentive; they more or less advised against it...!
What's not practical about a four door family saloon with rear sun blinds?
Consumables are quite a bit dearer, discs especially fronts @ £200 each, though not often changed. Tyres aren't any more expensive than other cars, if timed well with offers around £180-200 a corner. Spark plug's require changing a bit more frequently as part of a larger service. An Oil Service will set you back around £200.
It's all relative to what you're coming from though too of course. You can check main dealer servicing costs easily enough by entering a reg in to a local dealer to book a service.
I don't feel that the M carries a massive increase over a larger engined petrol 3 series but it would be notable.
Recently changed from E92 335i to F80 M3, there's definitely a lot more theatre and the car park look back is more rewarding
. The more sensible decision would have been the M340i but in all likelihood if not another M that's where I'll end up next.
Last edited:
so are M340i as well I expect…….
I meant that you would on,y really notice the difference with the 911 on the track. On U.K. roads both the 911 and the cayman which costs half the price are both very capable cars.
A lot of people actually choose the Cayman for track over 911's, not only due to price but the ability of the car.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 3,839
- Location
- Nottingham
After having the front and rear bumper's resprayed 3 weeks ago and front splitter added.. Thanks MR ASDA Delivery driver!!
I went from F21 M135i to F80 M3 and have driven both extensively on the road (both >60k miles around the UK and Europe) and enough time on track in both to believe I can confidently call the differences between an "M Lite" (I hate the term - there's nothing "M" about them!) and a full-fat M car.
On the road, unless you're REALLY pressing on there's not a lot between them. Both are exceptionally good at overtaking, both feel rear driven with uncorrupted steering (maybe this differs with the newer generation of xdrive models), both are comfortable for long journeys but the normal car probably more so than the M car - they are much softer. However at very high speeds (>120mph) on the autobahn there's a very noticeable difference between the cars. The normal car begins to feel very floaty and disconnected from the road, especially at the back end. It's easily unsettled by bumps and uneven road surface. At these speeds the M3 feels, if anything, even better like it wants you to go faster. It really hunkers down and feels absolutely solid, even at >150mph and inspires confidence in the platform. Missing an LSD is very apparent if accelerating hard out of a bend or junction. The power and torque of the engine easily overwhelms the rear tyres. The LSD in the M is excellent giving substantial traction improvement in these moments and a much more planted feel to the car. Again, maybe the LSD in the newer M340i addresses this. Finally, we have the front end, and this is for me possibly the biggest difference between them. On the road the M3 feels like the front end will grip FOREVER - it feels abolutely solid and it will go wherever you point it. This is very much not the case with the M Lite which is very biased toward understeer. This difference becomes even more pronounced on track.
On track the cars are worlds apart. The high speed stability, the "connectedness" of the chassis to the tarmac, the front end especially and just the sheer traction and controlability of the M car are in a different league to the normal variant. The floatiness of the standard car becomes really noticeable with a sloppy feeling to the chassis, the front end washes out quickly and with the missing LSD you struggle to use the rear drive and torque to steer it - you have to wait ages to get back on the power. The M car by contrast feels sharp and precise, and keeps whispering "more, MORE, MOOOORE!" in your ear.
As I said previously, none of these points make the M lites a bad car. They are great cars, with superb engines that have way more power than you need on the road. But they are not M cars.
To tie this in with the Porsche mentions...the M3 is also not a 911. I recently had the pleasure of several hours on track in a 911 C2S at Porsche Silverstone and I was amazed (given how similar on paper it is to the M3) how good it felt on track. Compared to the M3's bowie knife approach the 911 felt like a scalpel. It was noticeably lighter, nimbler, the brakes felts incredible (standard steel discs...nothing fancy) and the front end was again on a different level. I can see why a lot of people go from an M car to a 911 - it's the next logical step.
But again, a 911 isn't an M3 (and TBH, neither car pretends to do what the other does).
On the road, unless you're REALLY pressing on there's not a lot between them. Both are exceptionally good at overtaking, both feel rear driven with uncorrupted steering (maybe this differs with the newer generation of xdrive models), both are comfortable for long journeys but the normal car probably more so than the M car - they are much softer. However at very high speeds (>120mph) on the autobahn there's a very noticeable difference between the cars. The normal car begins to feel very floaty and disconnected from the road, especially at the back end. It's easily unsettled by bumps and uneven road surface. At these speeds the M3 feels, if anything, even better like it wants you to go faster. It really hunkers down and feels absolutely solid, even at >150mph and inspires confidence in the platform. Missing an LSD is very apparent if accelerating hard out of a bend or junction. The power and torque of the engine easily overwhelms the rear tyres. The LSD in the M is excellent giving substantial traction improvement in these moments and a much more planted feel to the car. Again, maybe the LSD in the newer M340i addresses this. Finally, we have the front end, and this is for me possibly the biggest difference between them. On the road the M3 feels like the front end will grip FOREVER - it feels abolutely solid and it will go wherever you point it. This is very much not the case with the M Lite which is very biased toward understeer. This difference becomes even more pronounced on track.
On track the cars are worlds apart. The high speed stability, the "connectedness" of the chassis to the tarmac, the front end especially and just the sheer traction and controlability of the M car are in a different league to the normal variant. The floatiness of the standard car becomes really noticeable with a sloppy feeling to the chassis, the front end washes out quickly and with the missing LSD you struggle to use the rear drive and torque to steer it - you have to wait ages to get back on the power. The M car by contrast feels sharp and precise, and keeps whispering "more, MORE, MOOOORE!" in your ear.
As I said previously, none of these points make the M lites a bad car. They are great cars, with superb engines that have way more power than you need on the road. But they are not M cars.
To tie this in with the Porsche mentions...the M3 is also not a 911. I recently had the pleasure of several hours on track in a 911 C2S at Porsche Silverstone and I was amazed (given how similar on paper it is to the M3) how good it felt on track. Compared to the M3's bowie knife approach the 911 felt like a scalpel. It was noticeably lighter, nimbler, the brakes felts incredible (standard steel discs...nothing fancy) and the front end was again on a different level. I can see why a lot of people go from an M car to a 911 - it's the next logical step.
But again, a 911 isn't an M3 (and TBH, neither car pretends to do what the other does).
Agree with you @Havana_UK - one big difference for me with the M140 to the M3 is that at 7/10's the M140 starts to fall apart and feel disconnected. The M3 is a hooligan and keeps begging for more.
I think the last time the M3 and 911 were close was E46 v 996. The CSL v GT3 of that era were both magnificent and did what they did exceptionally well, but differently. The steering in that generation of 911 was the best I have ever felt in any car, nothing has come close (CSL was not a patch on it for example) since for me, but you really had to get the weight transfer sorted to make it go quickly. Modern 911's are much easier on that front but are also heavier, bigger and with far far more electronics. My GT3 had ABS, that was it from an electronics standpoint.
BMW brakes have pretty much always been rubbish on track, Porsche's pretty much brilliant but many fixes for the BMW issue and to drive on the limit the BMW I feel is easier. CSL was easier to pedal than a 996 GT3 at the limit, much more benign and with a more balance feel. The 911 needs a technique to get the most from it, the new ones use electronics to remove a big part of that I feel.
M cars are great cars, I loved mine and would have another. It seems the M5 CS is a return to the top step of form but back in the early 2000's the M cars were the same, I loved mine. I think also the E46 and E92 had INCREDIBLE engines that are the absolute pinnacle of NA technology for the time. The E92 engine was so much nicer than the one in my B7 RS4, far more character and it looked like a DFV on a bench too, which is proper ace n cool.
BMW brakes have pretty much always been rubbish on track, Porsche's pretty much brilliant but many fixes for the BMW issue and to drive on the limit the BMW I feel is easier. CSL was easier to pedal than a 996 GT3 at the limit, much more benign and with a more balance feel. The 911 needs a technique to get the most from it, the new ones use electronics to remove a big part of that I feel.
M cars are great cars, I loved mine and would have another. It seems the M5 CS is a return to the top step of form but back in the early 2000's the M cars were the same, I loved mine. I think also the E46 and E92 had INCREDIBLE engines that are the absolute pinnacle of NA technology for the time. The E92 engine was so much nicer than the one in my B7 RS4, far more character and it looked like a DFV on a bench too, which is proper ace n cool.