Car & Driver: 2008 BMW M3 Sedan -- Short Take Road Test

xdrive_ submitted on 02/22/2008 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 8:16 AM
from: www.caranddriver.com

Tags: BMW, M3, sport sedan, RWD

Tag Links:

BMW

sport sedan

RWD

Car & Driver: 2008 BMW M3 Sedan -- Short Take Road Test

What’s a family car? Our opinion may differ from those of other select publications. Four doors: Good. Four doors with 414 horsepower: Great! See? That’s where we lose the Ladies’ Home Journal readers every time.

With the all-new M3, BMW has thoughtfully seen fit to bring us not only the expected carbon-fiber-roofed coupe and soon a convertible, but also a nice, sensible-shoes sedan that, when viewed from a distance—like maybe two hundred yards—resembles a family sedan that even elderly Republican grandparents will find nonthreatening.

But as you draw closer, the M3 sedan becomes a wolf in wolf’s clothing. You see the power bulge in the hood, there to contain the all-new 414-hp 4.0-liter V-8. You see the enormous, drilled brake rotors. You see gills behind the front fenders that actually look as though they belong there. You notice the absence of boy-racer fog lights, replaced by huge air intakes for the brakes and engine.

More Doors, More Performance?
But mostly you notice the flared fenders and nose-low, hunkered-down profile that suggests a nearly audible snarl. Crank the engine, and the snarl becomes entirely audible. Run the M3 through the six close-ratio manual gears, and the snarl becomes an Indian battle whoop as you approach the engine’s stratospheric 8400-rpm limit. Outperforming the last M3 coupe we tested by 0.2 seconds, the sedan galloped to 60 mph in 4.1 seconds, and through the quarter-mile in 12.6 seconds at 113 mph. Despite the claimed 155-mph limiter, our test car crept up to 161 mph.

Then, like any good BMW sedan, the M3 is more than happy to lope along in the pickup line outside the elementary school, even as the more auto-savvy parents shoo their children away from yours.

As you likely know, this is the fourth-generation M3, the first with V-8 power. That V-8 actually weighs 33 pounds less than the 3.2-liter, 333-horse inline six-cylinder it replaces. The V-8 is quite the sophisticate, with a version of BMW’s double-VANOS camshaft control, individual throttle butterflies for each cylinder, and a lightweight forged crankshaft that helps make all that high-rpm work possible.
Read Article

Comments:

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters):
[img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent004.myautospies.com/users/150/Sample-Gallery/sample1.JPG[/img]

xdrive_ - 2/22/2008 9:43:43 AM

+9 Boost

With a 0-60mph of 4.1 secs, do you guys think the M3 sedan will take away from the M5 sedan? Personally, I don't think it will since:
1) The M5 is on the next level of performance cars.
2) If the M5 gets the rumored bi-turbo V10, its performance will crush the M3.

reply to this comment

ThierryHenry14 - 2/22/2008 10:28:12 AM

+9 Boost

Its all about sizing too. As for performance, the old generation (E46) M3 was able to 0-60 as fast as the old generation (E39) M5, but other performance factors such as 0-120 and top speed were much different.

1995e34 - 2/22/2008 10:42:16 AM

+9 Boost

the m3 sedan should steal from the m5 no more than a basic 3 series steals from a basic 5 series.

S4cabriofoxone - 2/22/2008 11:41:59 AMView My AgentSpace

+5 Boost

And imagine this--this specimen doesn't even have the seven-speed DSG!!!

An M3 sedan with DSG could very well be my next car, and not only does it have the best handling, but it will blow the doors off of any other competitor...

enthusiastx11 - 2/22/2008 12:47:37 PM

+7 Boost

kraut:

you're pretty clueless. bmw is one of the top brands in jd powers and consumer reports (your favorite automotive pubs since they're the only ones that love lexus).

LexSucks - 2/22/2008 4:59:29 PM

-5 Boost

The M5 is Ugly and has a plain boring interior. Not to mention the fact that the M5 is a heavy pig and is not a very good track car.

S4cabriofoxone - 2/24/2008 2:28:54 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

I think the M5 is a fantastic sedan. I'll be driving both.

teuton - 2/22/2008 9:44:14 AM

-4 Boost

I would like a test drive of this baby! Having said that, the rear looks like it was penned by a boy-racer!

reply to this comment

djrickp - 2/22/2008 10:03:17 AM

+6 Boost

I owned a 97 M3 Sedan and loved it. So much so that I desired an E46 M3 Sedan but that wasn't available. I've grown older now and find the E90 M3 sedan too small of a car for my tastes.

reply to this comment

LexSucks - 2/22/2008 4:13:12 PM

+2 Boost

Have you seen it in person? or is it the interior room that's too small for you? I've seen the 4door E90 M3 in person and it looks more substantial than the standard E90.

JRobUSC - 2/22/2008 10:04:54 AM

+6 Boost

Now that is pretty impressive. And one of the mags, guess it was R&T, got the same acceleration times for the coupe and 0.98g's on the skidpad. Either way this is pretty awesome. Those acceleration and skidpad figures put the M3 (sedan and coupe) on par with the 911 Carrera 4S and GT3, and the M-DCT is expected to lop as much as 0.2 seconds off those times. Could the new M3 really pull off 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, a 12.4 second 1/4 mile, and 0.98g's on the skidpad? Wow. That would make the M3 (the sedan especially) pretty amazing.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 2/22/2008 11:44:26 AMView My AgentSpace

+5 Boost

'and the M-DCT is expected to lop as much as 0.2 seconds off those times."

I think BMW is being very conservative with that.

My A3 wouldn't be nearly as fast as it is if it weren't for the DSG.

The fact that this car will have a seven-speed only widens the gap. Expect anywhere from 3.7-3.9 for that model, on a good day. That's just INSANE.

JRobUSC - 2/22/2008 11:51:34 AM

+4 Boost

I know, I am seriously excited. I can't think of another sedan that offers that level of all-around performance (and that includes the M5, RS6, all the AMG's, etc.). What a car!

S4cabriofoxone - 2/23/2008 1:30:09 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

I agree. And at the price! Mine would be $66K (the M-DKG will be $1,200)! That's only a few thousand more than I paid for the S4.

BMW4me4ever - 2/22/2008 10:20:59 AMView My AgentSpace

+7 Boost

seeing the M3 sedan in person, was incredible. It is much sharper in person. Actually, I think the sedan looked better than the coupe. great review ...

reply to this comment

LexSucks - 2/22/2008 4:18:02 PM

+1 Boost

I agree! I live near BMW NA and I they had a few E90 M3's out there. The E90 M3 is about the only car that I like these days (and even it isn't perfect).

paste this link into your browser:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114846

There's a nice video of the M3 complete with engine revving:-) It's the sweetest sounding V8 this side of a Ferrari.

MattB - 2/22/2008 10:27:45 AM

+2 Boost

"You notice the absence of boy-racer fog lights"

Since when are fog lights a "boy racer" feature? I'd be unhappy if I paid $60k+ for a car and didn't get fosglights. They're a useful feature.

reply to this comment

xdrive_ - 2/22/2008 10:30:27 AM

+2 Boost

Have you driven a BMW with foglights? On my 3 (w/xenons), there is really almost no visible difference when the fog lights are on (no matter what the weather conditions). I never use them and would not miss them.

TheBoss - 2/22/2008 11:07:30 AM

-13 Boost

Don't worry, it's typical C/D hypocracy.

Powerdome, Gills, Ugly chrome rims, Huge air intake for the brake and engine on a family sedan are not boy-racer, but fog lights are. Didn't BMW invented foglights and boyracer looking sedans? Aren't those the stuff that put BMW on the map and why C/D and other car mags love BMW so much for? I guess this is what happens when one gets old and uncool. Won't be long before the tiny trunk spoiler is considered a Ricer wing.

Ona side note: Is the engineering really that bad that M3 needs all that gills, dome, extra large intakes? Who would need brakes that big on the street? SUVs and huge trucks don't even have brakes that big, yet they work fine. No matter how big the brakes are, if not properly maintained or driver don't pay attention, it don't do jack. So it's safe to conclude that M3s are designed for idiots.

BMW4me4ever - 2/22/2008 11:22:08 AMView My AgentSpace

+5 Boost

The boss ... aparently you are not too concerned about stopping. In regards to your brake questioning of why they are so large. Let me explain something about the ' M ' Division by BMW. These cars are designed specifically for enthusiasts who like to take their car to a race track or some other type of driving event. 90% of the people who buy this car, are performance enthusiasts. Braking, acceleration, handling, drving characteristics, Feel, weight transfer are very important. Between you and me, I would never in a million years go to a track with a M3 which is set up with the brakes of a Cadillac Escalade. I would be dead by the first corner, especially when I am trying to slow down from 100+ mph. But, like you said brakes dont really matter and it is about paying attention. who are you crapping?

Maybe the M3 is not for you. For myself, I love the M3 and am attending the M Driving School in April.

1970toyotamarc - 2/22/2008 11:24:03 AM

-4 Boost

When a Lexus or other Japanese sedan adds on powe domes, fog lights, gills, scoops, flared fenders, etc, it's "riced out," but these are aggressive, unique styling on a BMW.

Gotta love C&D.

(Basically I'm just echoing what you said, but there will soon be 100 posts talking about how great those features are by the same fanboys who derided Lexus for its use of similar ones. Might as well get the opposing opinion out there now.)

BMW4me4ever - 2/22/2008 11:30:45 AMView My AgentSpace

+4 Boost

1970 ... what features in regards to styling on the M3 are not either part of the heritage or funcitonal? M3 trim on the side ( gills as you called it ) has been on every M3 since its arrival. It is part of the heritage of the M Division and found on every M Car.

What exterior features for the Lexus IS-F are not part of heritage or funtional? Stacked exhausts, comes to my mind. These are not functional & the styling of them is in poor taste to say the least. Side skirt with the wheel flair. not too functional in regards to dissipating heat from engine or the brakes. The side flares and a look that lexus wanted to make, but instead in backfired.

MattB - 2/22/2008 11:38:46 AM

+2 Boost

I've driven quite a few cars equipped with both xenon headlights and halogen foglights and the foglights are definately noticeable and could concievably be of benefit in certain situations. Such conditions may rarely occur, but when they do foglights are great to have. The E46 M3 and E39 M5 both had foglights so it's not like M cars have always gone without them. There may not be a huge benefit to having them, but there's no reason not to have them.

S4cabriofoxone - 2/22/2008 11:50:51 AMView My AgentSpace

+4 Boost

"When a Lexus or other Japanese sedan adds on powe domes, fog lights, gills, scoops, flared fenders, etc, it's "riced out,""

As simply as I can put it: because the M3 isn't, and the IS-F is.

If you put an IS-F next to an M3, it would just look distasteful and inexpensive, which is funny because it's actually more money than the M3 sedan.

The M3's bodykit is a perfect evolution of the classic M kit. I have seen both cars in person at the auto show, and I was definitely more impressed by the M3's looks, although I'm definitely used to the IS-F. But back to the M3, it has the signature quad exhausts, the three-tiered M front bumper grille, the subtle side skirts, the aero mirrors, the stunning wheels. The only thing new is the power dome, although I hasten to add that there was a power dome on the E46, just one not as prominent.

The overall effect is dramatic without being overwhelming. You know it's something special. It looks expensive, it looks elegant, it looks athletic. At the same time, it's a Q-ship and the average buyer wouldn't know it if it pulled up next to them. It's classic M3, and I love it.

JRobUSC - 2/22/2008 11:53:50 AM

+6 Boost

plus on the M3 the quad exhaust tips are actually, you know, PART OF THE EXHAUST.

raikkonen - 2/22/2008 1:33:19 PM

+2 Boost

BMW4me4ever,

You are actually wrong and should get your facts straight before posting inaccurate info. The M3 did not have those side gill treatments ever since it arrived. The e30 M3 did not have gills, and neither did the e36 M3. FWIW, only the current generation M5 has those side gills of the M5 history.

I don't care either way, I could take it or leave it, but don't make up garbage about how those gills are part of 'heritage' or are functional in some way. It's just a design element, plain and simple.

JRobUSC - 2/22/2008 2:00:02 PM

+3 Boost

raikkonen, you're both wrong, though you're more right than he is. The E46 M3 had gills on the side too, and so did the Z3 M Roadster and Coupe. So M's have had them since 1998. But the M division started in 1972, so they went 26 years before starting to use them and they've gradually started making their way onto all the M's since then.

JRobUSC - 2/22/2008 2:27:12 PM

+2 Boost

though if you want to get really technical, BMW has used those side vents on various non-M vehicles as far back as at least the mid-50's when the 507 was in production. So you COULD say it's part of their heritage. So you're both right and wrong at the same time. Sweet.

TheBoss - 2/22/2008 2:53:11 PM

-3 Boost

BMW4me4ever

I'll meet you at the track either in a 4banger Elise or GT-R, either way, I'm very confident I'll beat you around the track easily while enjoying superior handling, dynamics, and all those other subtle tactile feedbacks BMW talk alot about but don't actually deliver. I'll get all those nuances loud and clear.

BMW4me4ever - 2/22/2008 3:24:21 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

You are right. Ever since the E46 came out BMW has been using the side trim as part of their M3 badging. On the prior M3's this was not the case. I have yet to hear by anyone that it is tacky or looks appauling unlike the body kit of the Lexus IS-F. difference is the Lexus went overkill, where the BMW is subtle.

raikkonen - 2/25/2008 11:13:43 AM

+1 Boost

JRobUSC, actually I'm not wrong.

I was merely commenting on the M3's design history (as was BMW4me4ever), not the entire M-line. I added the M5 as a sidenote.

The Z3-M and M-coupe are (IMO) not REAL M cars (despite the marketing). So I guess that makes BMW wrong too ;-)

ThierryHenry14 - 2/22/2008 10:29:56 AM

+4 Boost

Great car. Definitely raises the bench mark for Compact Sport Sedans....

reply to this comment

07G35J - 2/22/2008 11:00:01 AM

+4 Boost

That car looks AWESOME! Can't wait to see it on the road.

reply to this comment

TheBoss - 2/22/2008 11:12:29 AM

-12 Boost

The butt still looks econocar. Rims are nasty. Interior is almost as econocar looking as M6. Save your money for the GT-R or GT-R sedan.

reply to this comment

BMW4me4ever - 2/22/2008 11:24:32 AMView My AgentSpace

+4 Boost

The boss. did you see the brake sizes on the GTR? Just a minute ago you were ripping on the BMW for having large brakes, but now you praise the GTR for what you would buy. huh? kind of contradictory dont you think?

S4cabriofoxone - 2/22/2008 11:52:23 AMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

And what's that about the M6? The M6's interior is beautifully crafted and puts the Merc SL's to shame.

JRobUSC - 2/22/2008 11:57:43 AM

+5 Boost

M6 has an econocar interior? Uh... what? I take it you've never sat in one. You should do that before you post. That interior is as rich as anything in the class.

EL34 - 2/22/2008 1:33:10 PM

+6 Boost

The GT-R is a cartoon from Pokemon.

Get that kid toy pout of here!

TheBoss - 2/22/2008 2:41:22 PM

-8 Boost

GT-R is a REAL high performance track machine, M3 is a luxury car for hot chicks and Ricers to putt around in. This is why big brake is a waste. Any real enthusiasts who wants to track a car would even consider M3. The car is not equiped for the track but over killed for the street, wouldn't take much to warp the brakes on the M3 in it's heavy stock weight. Why not get an Exige/Elise for less money and superior handling no BMW can match? But if it's gotta be a BMW, then wait for CSL. M3 has gotten fatter and softer with each generation. Which is why the CSL was created.

TheBoss - 2/22/2008 2:47:38 PM

-7 Boost

Looks and quality of material are two different things. M6/M3 interior look econocar, but material wise, they are top notch. They have to be to justify the ridiculous price.

BMW4me4ever - 2/22/2008 3:22:09 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

who can actually fit in the Lotus? Not me. Lotus elise is a great track car, but we are not comparing the lotus to the BMW. You brought up the GTR. Why would you buy a GTR vs a Lotus? The GTR has no appeal other than its performance, but you are okay with someone paying upwards of $70k for a car that is hideous to look at. You comment on the interior of the BMW, yet the GTR pales in comparison. The GTR is very fast, handles very well on a track & I am sure is a blast to drive, but since I also want to drive it on the street it isnt that pratical. Now this is if you can get your hands on one for less the $20k over MSRP> My friend has one on order in Chicago and they are wanting $20k over list. For $100k, I will be happy to meet you at the track in my M3.

TheBoss - 2/22/2008 4:01:35 PM

-7 Boost

If we compare GT-R to M3, M3 is simply no match. It'll be like racing a corolla against a Twin turbo Supra. GT-R outperforms all stock BMW ever made. With exception to top speed, it easily matches if not out perform practically every Porsche, Lamborghini, Lotus, Toyota, Mazda, Acura, etc etc. There is but only 1-2 two stock vehicle that can match or out perform GT-R.

GT-R interior has leather lined dash.

I won't meet you at the track because I already know I'll win.

LexSucks - 2/22/2008 4:57:26 PM

-5 Boost

I never agree with TheBoss but he does have a point about the BMW M6's interior. The E60 5 series interior is awful as well. BMW did make improvements to the E60's interior materials, but its the interior design itself that's the major problem.

S4cabriofoxone - 2/23/2008 1:34:17 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

"If we compare GT-R to M3, M3 is simply no match."

You'd be surprised.

Wait for the M-DKG to drop in the M3 coupe. Expect mid-to-high 3 sec 0-60 times.

indoctrin8ed - 2/26/2008 7:41:30 PM

+1 Boost

The GT-R is around $100k. Not a comparable car to the M3. Until the E92 M3 CSL debuts, comparing these two cars is moot.

MunichRob - 2/22/2008 8:44:02 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

You guys are crazy if you think by any stretch of the imagination the interior of the M6 is economy car looking! What economy car looks like that? I'd love to know so I can save $30-40 grand next time I'm shopping for my car.

reply to this comment

M35MT - 2/22/2008 12:27:19 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

8400 RPM in a V8 is flippin' nuts...imagine what that baby sounds like just before redline.

reply to this comment

enthusiastx11 - 2/22/2008 12:48:35 PM

+3 Boost

stunning car.
even better in person.
and wow does that V8 sound amazing as it winds up to 8400rpm!!

reply to this comment

LexSucks - 2/22/2008 4:19:08 PM

+3 Boost

Hear it REV!!
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114846

EL34 - 2/22/2008 1:31:55 PM

0 Boost

The BMW M3 is a much better looking car than the IS-F crap.

reply to this comment

TheBoss - 2/22/2008 2:57:39 PM

-4 Boost

I agree with you there, but GT-R is much meaner and better looking than M3 and IS-F.

BMW4me4ever - 2/22/2008 4:49:20 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

GTR is not a good looking car. You and a few of friends may agree, but to most the GTR is ugly. fast yes, good looking not in this lifetime.

Htay7500 - 2/22/2008 3:50:23 PM

+7 Boost

have you ever driven a BMW? and don't use the silly things that your daddy says, it doesn't work unless you've actually tried it.

reply to this comment

LexSucks - 2/22/2008 5:16:53 PM

+6 Boost

If that were true Josh then nobody would purchase BMWs.

FWIW I think Lexus are cars for old geezers. Every time I see an ES350 on the road there's a old geezer behind the wheel. LOL!

The average Lexus customer's age is like 62 year-old. I'm sorry but vehicles that appeal to 60 year-olds aren't the best cars in the world.

reply to this comment

bulldogz - 2/23/2008 7:53:46 AM

-6 Boost

Yeah LexSucks, and if it wasn't true BMW wouldn't suddenly be offering 4 yrs. of free maintenance. You act like "BMW unreliable" is an old wive's tale. I've had 3, and it's not, 2 were downright nightmares to own and both were made this decade btw.

reply to this comment

JRobUSC - 2/23/2008 9:20:58 AM

+7 Boost

I think it's hilarious than Bulldog had three "terrible" BMW's, yet continued to buy them. That either means you're stupid, too picky, or exaggerating. Also, BMW isn't "suddenly" offering free maintenance. They've offered it for years. In fact, it says a lot to me that a manufacturer willing to stand behind their car, and CONTINUE to stand behind behind it when other companies who USED to offer the same maintenance programs (hello Audi, Mercedes, and Jaguar) no longer do. They dropped their programs, BMW continued theirs. And you want to use that against them? That's absolutely asinine.

reply to this comment

BMW4me4ever - 2/23/2008 10:43:28 AMView My AgentSpace

+6 Boost

who buys something and continues to buy something that they " supposedly continue to have issues with " over and over again? Bulldogz that is who. lmao .. I find it rather humorous. PSST news flash ... BMW has offered Full Maintenance since 2003 on all BMW's. BMW first introduce scheduled maint. for 3 years or 36 miles in 1997 on the 3-series ... In 2003, it became Full Maint ( brake pads & rotors, oil services, tune-ups & everything else but tires ) for 4 years or 50k miles whichever came first ... you would know that if you actually have owned any BMW's in the last 11 years ... idiot

reply to this comment

85bmw745i - 2/23/2008 8:02:51 PM

+3 Boost

Funny I had an e46 and drover it to over 130,000 miles and it was completely trouble free. My 86 325es has been trouble free also and I bought it with over 200,000 miles on it and now have well over 300,000 brutal abusive miles on it and the engine is still so smooth you can barely tell its running. I agree lexus has had an advantage in reliability but that gap has closed. the only trouble I have ever had with one of my BMW's was my 85 745i turbo and that was from a faulty rising rate fuel pressure regulator not feeding the required 91psi of fuel pressure when I had the boost from the turbo cranked to 16psi causing a hole to be burned in the head gasket, but that wasn't the cars fault. It was an aftermarket part that failed. the car only runs 6psi of boost in stock trim and I was running 16psi

reply to this comment

LexSucks - 2/24/2008 12:40:47 PM

+1 Boost

My 2001 is reliable as anything. Your experiences do not apply to all experiences. I'm 100% OK with BMW's reliability.

reply to this comment

Htay7500 - 2/22/2008 3:49:05 PM

+1 Boost

looks brilliant in this pic!

reply to this comment

investor27 - 2/22/2008 4:09:47 PM

+2 Boost

Getting to 60 mph below 4 seconds is very, very difficult to do. But if the M3 can pull it off, then I'll be getting one as well. Although I love the look of the M3 coupe, I'll be getting the sedan for it's practicality, more family oriented.

reply to this comment

theoptimisticpessimist - 2/22/2008 6:52:46 PM

+5 Boost

Ahh, can we get an IQ test for Autospies bloggers.

reply to this comment

investor27 - 2/22/2008 6:35:03 PM

+5 Boost

What the hell?

reply to this comment

autopro - 2/22/2008 6:53:33 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

I think he has a rotary brain.

reply to this comment

MunichRob - 2/22/2008 8:45:46 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

lol

reply to this comment

xlr8 - 2/23/2008 2:12:40 AM

+2 Boost

I would by this over the coupe anyday...needs some back room for the ladies lol just playin

reply to this comment

amazinBimmer - 2/24/2008 10:57:40 AM

-1 Boost

where is germanut??

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 2/24/2008 2:30:27 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

What, are you going to melt now because you have nobody to bash?

miracle113 - 2/24/2008 6:12:47 PM

+2 Boost

4.1 sec?
wow, for reals? then the SMG should take it down to mid-high 3s.

what a car.

reply to this comment

Jaybrn - 2/25/2008 3:06:17 AM

+1 Boost

It will be good for BMW if the M-DKG will keep all the chipped 335's in check!

farabira1 - 2/25/2008 10:00:20 PM

+1 Boost

A sedan based on GTR will come to Infiniti, looking forward to it. It should pose a good challenge to the mighty M5. Even the new Pontiac G8 is a great car, and obviously there is the new Cadillac CTS V.

reply to this comment

tattedtwice - 2/26/2008 10:41:37 AM

+1 Boost

Did anyone notice the 5-60 mph street start time? 5.4 secs. Doesn't sound TOO bad, until you look at the 135i review on the next page, and notice that it does the same in 5.5 secs.

This relative lack of low end oomph is why I hope they'll make the move to FI on M models too, in the future.

reply to this comment

indoctrin8ed - 2/26/2008 7:52:46 PM

+1 Boost

Can someone explain why this is 0.2 quicker than the coupe? The coupe is 30 lbs lighter.

4.1 is very impressive, a lot better than that TOOL who drove his OWN M3 (which we would assume he is familiar with) against the GT3 and the GT-R and could only get 5.2 seconds.

reply to this comment

To post a comment for this story, you must first Login.

If you do not have an account, you will need to Register (It's Free!).

	xdrive_ "Those who know, know."
	View My AgentPage