Archive for The Motor Forum talking cars since 2006
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> New Cars and Concepts
Matt

M3 GTS

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/04/bmw-m3-gts-unveiled/

Quote:
The eye-catching orange paintjob is a throwback to extreme Bimmers of yore. But after you look past the timely Halloween color scheme, you'll notice a set of exclusive 19-inch competition alloys – coated with 225/35 rubber up front and 285/30 in the rear – protruding out of the bulging bodywork, housing six-piston calipers up front and four in the rear and mounted to yellow springs and an adjustable suspension. You can hardly miss the giant front splitter and rear wing protruding from either end, and the interior's been stripped down with contoured racing buckets, an emergency cut-off switch and a fire extinguisher taking the place of the air-con, nav and radio, along with mounting points for a roll cage and six-point harnesses and a Macrolon rear windscreen to replace the stock glass, helping the M3 GTS tip the scales at just 1490 kg (3285 lbs), some 419 lbs less than the stock M3 coupe's 3704-lb curb weight.

First deliveries are scheduled to begin in Germany next May, carrying a sticker price of 115,000 euros (about $170k) before taxes. Official engine specs haven't been released, but we're still looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 450 horsepower from an enlarged 4.4-liter V8, driving through the Bavarian automaker's 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox. That's about all Munich has given us so far, but we've got a gallery of photos and a video after the jump for your viewing pleasure.


Not liking the rear spoiler or front splitter, but the weight drop is a step in the right direction.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

Yes: colour, wheels, weight loss, power gain
No: wing, paddle-only, price ()
franki68

like the power increase,dislike the way of reducing weight (no air con /stereo ...please I know its a track car,but some people will drive it on the road,you wouldn't like getting stuck in a traffic jam on a hot summers day ) ,don't mind the flappy paddle gearbox,purely because the manual gearchange on  the normal m3 is shit.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

I would guess as with the CSL, you can have the aircon as an option.
Eff One

That weighs about what the standard car should.
Mark

Eff One wrote:
That weighs about what the standard car should.


I don't think it's too bad for a thumping V8 considering a plasticky Lotus Evora and a two seat Porsche Boxster weigh over 1350 kg's.

Drop the carbon fibre shit at each end, the colour, the mirrors (again) and the price = yum yum
TimR

It weighs 80kg more than an Alfa GT 3.2 which has 2 less cylinders, aircon, cd/radio, well stuffed seats and non-lightweight alloys (to name but a few things that add weight) yet is roughly the same size.

I think 1490kg is piss poor for a 'lightweight' version and reflects really badly on the normal one.
Mark

TimR wrote:
It weighs 80kg more than an Alfa GT 3.2 which has 2 less cylinders, aircon, cd/radio, well stuffed seats and non-lightweight alloys (to name but a few things that add weight) yet is roughly the same size.

I think 1490kg is piss poor for a 'lightweight' version and reflects really badly on the normal one.


If the M3 (standard or otherwise) had performance problems (due to it's weight or otherwise), I'd agree with you. But, I've never really read anything to do with the cars' weight that exposes any weakness*. The two M3's (one was the CC) that I've driven never felt heavy on the road. Cars are getting too heavy in general though, I do agree.


*Brakes have been highlighted but M division are known for this on many models.
TimR

Mark wrote:
TimR wrote:
It weighs 80kg more than an Alfa GT 3.2 which has 2 less cylinders, aircon, cd/radio, well stuffed seats and non-lightweight alloys (to name but a few things that add weight) yet is roughly the same size.

I think 1490kg is piss poor for a 'lightweight' version and reflects really badly on the normal one.


If the M3 (standard or otherwise) had performance problems (due to it's weight or otherwise), I'd agree with you. But, I've never really read anything to do with the cars' weight that exposes any weakness*. The two M3's (one was the CC) that I've driven never felt heavy on the road. Cars are getting too heavy in general though, I do agree.


*Brakes have been highlighted but M division are known for this on many models.


Imagine how much quicker it would be if it weighed a sensible amount though.

I really can't see any justification in a standard M3 weighing 1680kg when cheaper coupes of a similar size weigh 200 - 250kg less.
It can't all be the fault of modern safety stuff - my Alfa GT had at least 6 airbags, etc.

Surely a company with the engineering reputation of BMW should be leading the way with lighter cars, rather than it being Ford/Mazda?

The brake issue is a well known M weakspot.
My M5 has single pot sliding calipers, like my 1992 Mitsubishi Shogun had. The Fiat has 4 pot Brembos.
DradusContact

The orange just stinks of desperation to me.
TimR

DradusContact wrote:
The orange just stinks of desperation to me.


Maybe it makes the car feel better?

I've just had a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice and I don't feel like coughing or need to blow my nose anymore
Mark

TimR wrote:
Mark wrote:
TimR wrote:
It weighs 80kg more than an Alfa GT 3.2 which has 2 less cylinders, aircon, cd/radio, well stuffed seats and non-lightweight alloys (to name but a few things that add weight) yet is roughly the same size.

I think 1490kg is piss poor for a 'lightweight' version and reflects really badly on the normal one.


If the M3 (standard or otherwise) had performance problems (due to it's weight or otherwise), I'd agree with you. But, I've never really read anything to do with the cars' weight that exposes any weakness*. The two M3's (one was the CC) that I've driven never felt heavy on the road. Cars are getting too heavy in general though, I do agree.


*Brakes have been highlighted but M division are known for this on many models.


Imagine how much quicker it would be if it weighed a sensible amount though.

I really can't see any justification in a standard M3 weighing 1680kg when cheaper coupes of a similar size weigh 200 - 250kg less.
It can't all be the fault of modern safety stuff - my Alfa GT had at least 6 airbags, etc.

Surely a company with the engineering reputation of BMW should be leading the way with lighter cars, rather than it being Ford/Mazda?

The brake issue is a well known M weakspot.
My M5 has single pot sliding calipers, like my 1992 Mitsubishi Shogun had. The Fiat has 4 pot Brembos.


I’m sure if it was that easy and the cars would still sell in their numbers without certain elements of luxury & substance, it would simply be done. They could even maybe have kept with the straight 6 from the E46 and pared down the weight?

Wasn’t the RS4 weighing in at around 1650-1700 kg’s 4 years ago?
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

In Autocar, the current M3 as tested was 1625 kg, the RS4 was 1725 kg, the C63 1730 kg, and the IS-F 1720 kg.
Blarno

F-f-f-f-f-fat bastards!
Eff One

Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote:
In Autocar, the current M3 as tested was 1625 kg, the RS4 was 1725 kg, the C63 1730 kg, and the IS-F 1720 kg.


Where do you get those figures from? The website lists the RS4 at 1650kg and the M3 at 1655kg. Perhaps it's the RS4 Avant that weighs 1725kg.

They're all too heavy IMO. Presumably the slushboxes in the Merc and IS add weight, and I can partially forgive the RS4 because it has 4WD and a pretty face.

But the M3 reminds me of the worst of Southampton High Street on a Saturday night - an overweight munter.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

The figures for the M3 and RS4 just stuck in the mind, because they were different from the claimed figures. I think BMW use a different standard for quoting weights, so their cars appear heavier than others, but often turn out not to be.
TimR

Don't the Germans quote weights fully fueled, with oil in the engine, etc whereas the Italians (in particular) quote the weight with no fluids whatsoever in the car?
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

A lot of manufacturers quote "no fluids", which is like quoting your own weight without blood.
Matt

It seems odd that a 135i has better brakes* as standard than the cooking M3.

*On paper.
Martin

The germans (well, BMW) quote weight with all fluids, 90% (I think) tank of fuel, some luggage and a driver.  That probably explains the difference.
Stuntman

BMW quotes car weights including all fluids plus 75kg (being a notional 68kg of driver and 7kg of luggage).

The quoted weight of the M3 coupe is 1655kg, so it's really 1580kg.  The saloon is quoted at 1680kg, so it's really 1605kg.

Most mags miss this point.

Audi doesn't include the 75kg in its quoted weights.  

I wonder whether this M3 GTS weight of 1490kg is therefore really 1415kg - which would make it pretty reasonable considering the car's size - it's 4.6 metres long.  And the weight saving over the standard car mentioned in the article would suggest that the car does actually weigh 1415kg.

After 7000 miles in the M3 saloon I am actually pretty impressed with the brakes, they're fine for road use, and better in my recollection than those on the E46 M3.  My car is pretty darn quick, if not the last word in tactility - so this M3 GTS will be absolutely ballistic.

The price is absurd in relation to the standard M3, but in terms of performance relative to the likes of the GT3 and even the Ferraris and Lambos of this world, it isn't that far away.  The humble origins of the car make the price absurd, rather than its performance envelope.
       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> New Cars and Concepts
Page 1 of 1