Fifth Ring

Lets face it, 4,000 lbs has become the new baseline for any sedan, and you're lucky to find a European sedan that is 200 lbs under that baseline. Seems like that's the minimum weight if you're going to have the usual complement of power accessories, luxury and safety. With that baseline, you're pretty much giving up on "nimbleness." Like a lot of cars, the M3 has evolved up-market to the point that the virtues of the original M3 now need to be handed off to a lower-market car. That's why the 1 series (and perhaps an M1) will be headed here.

I wonder when one of the upstart car makers (Hyundai, Chery, Suzuki) is going to step into the void and create a lower-priced, light weight, driver-involving car. It would take the virtues of the Lotus Elise and build them into a higher-volume car. It would:

> Weight 3,000 lbs or less.
> Have a light and strong 4 cylinder engine (150-200HP).
> 5 speed manual transmission (sorry 6 is overkill).
> 50/50 weight distribution.
> Summer, extreme performance tires on light wheels.
> Free flowing but tasteful exhaust.
> Rear wheel drive.
> 2+2 seating (rear seating removable.
> FULLY adjustable suspension (camber/toe) + coilovers.
> Brakes good enough to make aftermarket irrelevant.
> Great seats with 5 point capability.
> Cost $20,000 with a/c.

It would NOT have:
> Power windows
> Power seats
> Plastic, snap on engine cladding!
> Navigation.
> Leather.

Then they would support it by developing an aftermarket for upgrades (roll cages, etc.), and promote a race series.

360_iti

But "mt" and "twisties" are the only trump cards they have. Take those out of the equation and they have nothing to talk about.

DarthCY

Not getting defensive, just sick of M3 fanboys talk about the twisties. Not suggesting you are just an M3 fanboy, but that talk gets old. I dusted a stock E36 M3 at the autocross with my modded T5 Volvo. Mostly because I was a better driver and I had about 100+ more lb/ft of torqe to pull me through the straights. Ask a new C5 Vette how much torque helps. It dusts the 911 and Ferarri pretty good around the track due to massive tires and huge amounts of thrust. For anything other than pure autocrossing or track days no torque = no fun IMHO.

360_iti

A friend of mine just provided me with this link:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...20&postcount=1

patrick_y

Your wish will be granted. Expect something from Hyundai in the next few years. It'll be slightly heavier than your specs, probably have a V6, and it might not have an adjustable suspension. Oh, and it'll cost a bit more than $20k, but after discount, it won't be far. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.

Seems like what you need is an RX-8 with a Mercedes-Benz logo on it.

Quicktwinturbo

Rx7 + LS motor FTW....

Rx7(FD) 3 rotors > LS motor...


RX8 + 4 rotors, game ova

14cue

i'll have this instead thank you very much:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCKWDp-53YY

Carl Lassiter

Motorsport need to sort out their act on braking. Single piston calipers for christs sake. The M3 CSL faded at the track for that reason, the M5/M6 cannot be tracked for the same reason and complain at heavy road use. Now the same problem again. The RS4 has huge 8-piston stoppers, the same power and AWD so I know what car I'd pick were I to remain in the compact sedan sector.

While the E90 M3 will make its owners very happy, the fact is it's another example of a diluted product. Motorsport will have to release a grossly overpriced CSL edition to give purists what they desire in the same way to get a full flovored AMG you have to shell out for the 030 option. (that being said, AMG are becoming more and more focused with each incarnation, though specific power output is still low)

Scoop55

FrankW

I think until they're both ready and on the track setting lap times. The C63 looks better on paper and in pictures. The E92 M3 has a different appeal still. I like the E92 interior than the W204. Both looks more boy racer than they need to be tho.

in the end I'd take a used E63 over those two any day. Depreciation FTW!

ash-c32

So youre telling me a C5 will dust something like a EVO IX?

Improviz

An EVO IX turned the same lap time as a C5 at H-heim; the C5 has better acceleration as speeds increase...

EVO IX test:
Test in sport auto 05/2007
Gewicht 1490 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,0 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,7 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,4 s
0 - 250 km/h - s
400 m, stehender Start - s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 265 km/h
100 - 0 km/h (kalt) 37,2 m
100 - 0 km/h (warm) 35,6 m
Nordschleife -
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.15,8 min
max. Querbeschleunigung 1,25 g
Slalom 18 m 66,5 km/h
Slalom 36 m - km/h

C5 Supertest:
Supertest in sport auto 9/2003
Gewicht 1452 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,2 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 17,9 s
400 m, stehender Start - s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 274 km/h
100 - 0 km/h (kalt) 35,5 m
100 - 0 km/h (warm) 36,4 m
Nordschleife 8.18 min
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.15,9 min
Querbeschleunigung 1,2 g
Slalom 18 m 65,5 km/h
Slalom 36 m 121 km/h

ash-c32

so not dusted then

chiphomme

Are you people serious? Until AMG lightens their cars and puts something other than a slushbox in them they'll be chasing M's.
BTW, C&D has the new M3 @ 4.4 to 60 and 12.9@111 in the quarter.
(faster than their test on the RS4). And they believe the numbers will be better once final production car is available.

ItalianStallion

I'm just happy that my deposit on the new M3 is fully refundable.

Now, from the rumors I've been hearing, BMW is being gay and the new CSL will be the amazing performer while the M3 is more of a gt (not by much but it will be a little more civilized than the E46). Also, the new DSG is coming out about 6-12 months after the release of the E92. The DSG will probably be considerably faster than a 6 speed manual.

I still love the look of the new M3 but a 335xi with tune sounds very convincing...especially since the money saved will be pretty substantial. Oh well...

Improviz

The last C55 tied the E46 M3 around the ring as tested by Sport Auto, and it had a slushbox. Further, publications have already reviewed the new M3 and found it to be lacking, while other publications have reviewed the new C63 and found it to be amazing. And with the 63 motors trapping at 115 in the 4,200 pound E55s, I doubt the C63 will be trapping at 112 weighing several hundred pounds less.

And it is funny, yet again, to see the "twisties" argument resurrected, as if the only reason one would purchase a $60,000+ sports coupe was its performance in the twisties; if this were true, then I'd be curious to know why you purchased an M6, given that a C6 Z06 would destroy it on any track for far less money, and which, btw, weighs in at about 700+ lbs less (I point this out because you seem to be quite concerned about vehicle weight).

chiphomme

I'm not of the "twisties" argument group and I certainly hope the new C63 is great but I don't see the Mercedes being the better car. It's heavier and has an automatic tranny. Note: this is coming from someone trading an M6 for a CLK63 Black.

I have owned an E46 M3 and I think its the most remarkable car I have driven. It was almost perfect. No it's not going to be as fast as a Z06 or 997 Turbo but it's infinitely more usable and BMW build quality is second to none.
Having said that I am a little leery of the new engine because its based on the M5/M6 V10, which just exploded in my car.
But we shall see.
BTW, I wouldn't buy a Vette because of quality and impracticality issues. Besides don't you have to like mullets to drive one?

360_iti

1. Fixed.
2. I agree that C63 is capable in trapping the same way as E63. Based on the information that we have at this moment, although C63 is rumored to have 57 less hp than E63, the power to weight ratio of the two models are the same at 3.6 kg/hp.
(source: Mercedes AMG website, E63 = 4.868 kg/kw and C63 press release)

Improviz

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think BMW's build quality is second to none if your engine just grenaded, as was also a common problem with the early-build E46 M3's, but to each his own!

Also, I thought the E36 M3 handled better (more neutral, less understeer) and didn't have as punishing of a ride, but this is imnsho...

Well, there are people on here who have had both E55/63 and M5/M6 who have gotten C6s and seem to be quite happy with them, and afaik they don't like mullets...and anyway, wouldn't a grenading engine qualify as a quality issue?

Seriously, though: if the E63 comes in a few hundred pounds heavier, so what? An M6 is heavier than a Camry and still is a heckuvalot more fun to drive, so I don't think that alone is going to be a huge issue....and wrt the slushbox, yes, it's not as involving as a standard, but otoh it's better for a commute unless you drive through canyons or mountain roads on your way to work (in which case I'd have probably opted for a manual too!!).

chiphomme

I stand by my comment on BMW quality. I have had 4 Bimmers over the last few years and thats the first real issue I've had (granted its a big one). I have had one Mercedes, a CLS55, and the thing was a quality nightmare. I dumped it after 9 months and got the M6.
On top of that BMW service blows Mercedes out of the water. Though this motor problem is causing me to give a Mercedes a try one more time.

As far as a vette is concerned, its really a red herring. I have no desire to own one. My M6 (and formerly my CLS55) pushed the edge of midlife crisis car for me. A vette (or 911) are too over the top. I want more of a GT car, a fast daily driver that I can travel distance in (though I'm not too sure about CLK63 Black I've ordered).

ItalianStallion

From just my 2 years of experience with Mercedes, the CLK500, E350, and SL55 are all nightmares. My CLK has been in the shop for probably 1/4 of my time since I've owned it, the E350 seems to just have a never ending list of electronic issues, and the SL55 was so bad we had to lemon it.


This new M3 is going to have much more competition than what th E46 had. When the E46 came out you had the S4 and the C55. The S4 was all wheel drive and was slow as hell so nobody really cared much about it. The C55, although a competitor, was still marketed towards a different crowd. The 911 wasn't in this competion because it was a lot more money and nobody seemed to compare them. The Cayman S wasn't even out.

Now Audi has the RS4 (which in a recent review was able to beat the all new M3). Imagine the RS5? Mercedes has the C63 which is much more sport oriented and has the goodies to beat the M3 at its own game. Lexus has the IS-F which I doubt can compete with its German rivals but it will be priced much less and may provide a better bang for your buck than the M3. With the M3 reaching $70,000 you also have the C6 Z06 which has performance that few can rival. Even the newly updated regular C6 will be no joke. Nissan has the new "Skyline" GT-R which will give you an even higher level of performance than a 911 Turbo and will come in at around a loaded M3 or C63 price. Porsche's C2 is in the same price bracket as the new M3 so now that is a competitor. And lets not forget the Cayman S.

The M3 was a great car and was unmatched as an all around package. But now the competition really stepped up and exceeded all expectations and it doesn't look to me like the M3 will regain its crown.

Improviz

No, it is a huge one. An engine blowing in a $90,000+ performance automobile? A disgrace. And this is not a new problem with BMWs, it is a recurring one: the first US 540is had engine issues. The E46 M3 had engine issues, with the folks at roadfly finally getting so tired of having it blamed on *them* that they started a separate site just to document the issue--at which point BMW finally stepped up and did the right thing.

Well, I'll take electronic issues over a blown engine any day of the week, but ymmv. We have a BMW (wife's) and Benz, and her car has had far more issues than mine. All four window regulators had to be replaced (one of them twice). The sunroof has come off track. The speaker broke. Within one week of purchase, the check engine, temperature, and brake lights came on and the car had to be in the shop for several days.

A friend of mine bought a 745i, let it go because of quality issues, got an S500 and loves it.

No, it is not a red herring, it is a valid point that is completely germaine to the discussion. Since BMWs tend to lap a bit faster than AMGs (although as mentioned with the M3/C55, by no means always), we are constatntly subjected to a barrage of how "superior" the BMWs are to Mercedes simply by virtue of this fact.

This begs a question: if track numbers are paramount, then why would one spend $90,000 to purchase an automobile that would be killed by a $70,000 automobile?

Either going around a track fast is your priority, or it isn't. If it is one's priority, and one buys an M6, then that person is a fool, because a C6 Z06 will absolutely annhilate it. If it isn't one's priority, then one should accept the fact that an M6 is just as much of a compromise car as is any AMG, and stop touting small divergances in track numbers as though it is the be-all, end-all of reasons to buy a German car when there are far superior track cars for less money.

Or, if you just have to spend money and get a German GT, then there is the GT3, which again will kill an M6 around a track--particularly a short track, where the M6's much higher curb weight (which seems to bother you on Mercedes, but not on BMWs) will have it left for dead by the GT2, which is in the same price category as the M6.

Either way, the track/twisties argument is, prima facie, a bogus argument. They are but one consideration given to the purchase of these cars and may be given more weight, but are obviously far from *the* consideration being given in either the case of an AMG *or* an M-car.

chiphomme

Whatever. I said from the beginning the twisties (aka track) argument wasn't mine. Hence, the Z06, is a red herring. It's loud and impractical. And I have no idea why you think a 997 GT3 would be a good Grand Tourer? Did the "GT3" part throw you? It's a freakin track car (ie harsh as hell). My whole point in joining this thread was to point out what a great vehicle the M3 is and was. It's the most balanced car (ie it does almost everything well) I have ever owned. If you're interested in one dimensional cars, like 911s or corvettes, good for you.
The C63 is trying to compete in the M3 space. I believe it will be as fast as the M3 but don't think it will be as good because of the weight and tranny.
That said, I hope its great. Nothing better than choices.
As far as BMW quality compared to Mercedes is concerned I completely disagree. Mercedes quality has been poor for over a decade. My one foray into the brand was awful. And my multiple experiences with BMW have been good. The blown V10 is an aberation and the I-6 motor problem on the E46 M3 was, for the most part, proactively dealt with.

Improviz

Sorry, but simply trying to falsely dismiss a valid argument simply because it proves you to be wrong with a "red herring" lable won't cut it. YOU injected performance into the argument when you entered the thread. You wrote:
OK, so if this wasn't a "twisties" argument, where exactly will they be "chasing" them, chip? In the parking lot? So yes, it does beg the question as to why one would buy an M6 if performance numbers were paramount in the purchasing decision.

Exactly how is an M6 any more "practical" than a Z06? It gets worse fuel mileage, has a rough-shifting SMG that's a pain on the street, has a smaller trunk, and I guess you can fit two amputees in the puny back seat, but two adults would suffer mightily back there if they could fit at all....

And "practical" is getting into subjective-land again: you were talking numbers in your original argument.

Oh, yes, sure, that was clearly your point when you wrote that the AMGs would be chasing M's. Give me a break, dude...you're changing your argument after the fact. Again: you wrote:
That was all about performance, all about numbers, nothing about "balance" or "what a great overall car" the M3 was.

And the GT3 is certainly a competitor to the M6. Both are basically 2+2s, whose back seats fit kits only, both are ultra-high-performance, expensive cars aimed at the same target market. Further, it has the added bonus of having a *real* manual transmission, not a semi-auto SMG which does not have the same, pure driving experience as a true manual.

"As good" is subjective. Numbers are not. We'll see when the numbers come out.

Totally false. The page at roadfly with the documented M3 engine failures was set up in response to BMW's lack of action to customer complaints and after they had denied claims and blamed customers for what turned out to be a genuine problem with the engines themselves. Only after that site was set up by frustrated, angry M3 owners and the press got ahold of it was action taken. This is *reactive*, and in no way, shape, or form can be called "proactive".

As to Mercedes quality: why is it that your problems in the Benz are brand-wide, but the problems in the M cars are "abberations"?? This to me indicates a rather substantial bias. I would submit that a blown engine, which again is an issue going back to the first-gen 540is, through the E46 M3s, and now into the M5/M6's (yours is by no means the only case) is indicative of a *severe* lack of QC in the development of these engines.

Further, you cannot simply dismiss my nor my friends' personal experience while holding up your own as ironclad. I own both a Benz and a BMW, and the reliability of the Benz has, while not perfect, been stellar in comparison, and my friend's experience w/the 745i vs S500 was the same. So trying to portray BMW as some sort of German Lexus isn't going to cut it. BMW has their issues, and the reliability data clearly show this.

chiphomme

First off I quoted straight line speed to show the car does have better performance numbers than people were ripping on it for.

Secondly, don't get hung up on the word "chasing". I meant it in every respect (from quality to performance)

Thirdly, I said I wasn't of the "twisties" argument group doesn't mean it's not a valid argument. It's just I don't care about how it performs around a track. I drive exclusively on public roads. So quit trying to tell me what I meant.
Even in normal public driving conditions my Ms are alot better handling than my heavy CLS55 (or any AMG Mercedes I've driven).


As far as the invented argument about pitting a Z06 against an M6. I don't quite get your point. They're two totally different cars(same with your silly GT3 point). You can't seriously believe a Z06 is as practical and driveable as a daily driver as an M6?
If so, go test drive the two. The Chevy is louder, harsher, and of poorer quality. If my sole purpose was to go as fast as I can on a semi limited budget I would consider it (or the new Evo).


And on Mercedes quality. You have to be kidding me? Mercedes has been fighting quality problems for over a decade. Until recently, JD Power had them consistently near the bottom of the heap in overall quality. In fact, the only reason I'm giving them another try is that the quality seems to have improved (though my CLS55 experience doesn't help that cause).

And I'm not trying to portray BMW as perfect in quality. Why would I have brought up a blown motor on a $105,000 car if that were the case. BMW certainly has issues but from my experience ,and all I have read, they do a better job than Mercedes.

BTW, have you driven SMG? I have never understood the "real" manual tranny argument. It is a "real" manual. So do you dismiss Ferraris with paddles too?