By Justin Berkowitz
July 12, 2007 -
I'm not particularly enamored by BMW's new M3, and not just because a replacement wheel would clear out my life-savings. On paper, it's just not that impressive. It costs $60 large (when all's said and done), tips the scales at 3600 lbs. and summons those braggadocios 420 horses by stretching to a Honda-like 8300 rpm. Where's the torque? The new M3 stumps-up the same grunt as BMW's new 2.0-liter four-cylinder turbodiesel (295 ft.-lbs.). While the RS4 and C63 AMG present viable alternatives for twist-lovers, the twin-turbo straight six-powered 335i lurking in the background looks like the real deal killer. The 335i's got less horsepower than the new M3, but it's far more usable at the same exact fighting weight. The 335i will also save you some $15k– and that's before the inevitable M3 dealer markups. A test drive should tell the tale. But before you weigh-in here (and criticize me for my empirical ignorance), check out the M-fur flying over at pistonheads.com.
Subscribe to Newsletter37 Responses to “ Is the New BMW M3 a Born Loser? ”
Pages: « 4 3 2 [1] Show All Reverse Order
Pages: « 4 3 2 [1] Show All Reverse Order
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Digg
del.icio.us
Blinklist
Furl
Netscape
Google
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Windows Live
POWERED
July 12th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Moan, moan, moan…
…and all from specs and internet chatter.
Drive it then decide!
July 12th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
The 335i is the performance bargain of the BMW range and thank you for saying it.
The M3 is getting dissected in the New York Times as well. Lots of chatter about whether it is too soft a car for the M3 badge.
B Moore - Autosavant.net
July 12th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
The first time I saw the torque specs for the car I was depressed. Then I saw the price and was even more depressed.
BMW is becoming the Ultimate Lease Machine.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I’m disappointed by the torque numbers on the M3, it’s the same as Volvo squeezed out of their 2.5L I5 turbo back in 2004, and since it’s a turbo the torque is far more usable (just like the 335i as a matter of fact).
July 12th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Seems like AMG, V and others depreciate like rocks but not M3’s. That may change some with the 335, 135 and new M3 but 2004 M3’s run about 40k or tad under.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
People are used to paying a premium for an M version BMW - AMG version M-B - RS version Audi - V version Cadillac - R version Jaguar and so on.
A regular V8 with torque would be in M-B territory which is not unique, or different.
The upside is that they depreciate like rocks, and are exceptional value for a money when “lightly used”.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I’m with you…. why go to a V8 that offers no more torque than the twin turbo I6?
I too am looking forward to the 135… If they really want to appeal to the enthusiasts, BMW should be developing a light weight version of the 135… if they could shave it down to 2900 lbs or so, then they would have a SCREAMER!
July 12th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Seems the internet is abuzz with M3 junkies proclaiming that the new model is “too soft.”
Top Gear’s guy disses his brethren and pronounces the new M3 juuuuuusssst right.
But I’m with Justin. If you’ve got a high-revving engine, stick it in something REALLY light. Otherwise, I’d rather have a “proper” V8.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Just wait until the 135 comes out 3,250lbs and the same engine in the 335. M what?
July 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
And who wants to bet it’ll burn oil like its V-10 cousin?