EDMUNDS: Finding the Magic in BMW's M Cars

I have to agree with the article, the M cars have become bloated and are not as in touch. I still prefer the "little" Bimmers. The 135i looks like it might be a new fun "little" Bimmer.

— 02chuck (View Profile)

Posted on 10/18/2007 10:37:53 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

no offence, but the e30 M3 was not a factory turbo - the article is either wrong or they tested an after-market modded car.

It started as a 2.3L 16v (215hp) and evolved to a 2.5L (238hp). That was what made it great - turbo hp numbers (for the time) without a blower. It truly was a transcendental auto.

— joby (View Profile)

Posted on 10/19/2007 12:01:57 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

i hate to inform you i know you wanted to be right, but the first M3, was no turbo.....and someone actually boosted that comment...on the m3, changing throughout the years its had to grow up. BMW's in general have look at how the 3 series has evolved yet know one complains about that. or the 5 series, and 7 series. they have all changed, and with those cars changing so have their m variants. it doesnt make them worst cars. look at audi, or even mercedes anyone remember the 190E performance model it was as raw as the m3, well it was close, but raw none the less. or audis high performance offerings, premium companies have moved to luxury over time....

— bmwdrvr (View Profile)

Posted on 10/19/2007 12:22:14 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Thank you! the e30 m3 was never turbo charged. they increased the displacement to 2.5l and the M3 evolution had even more power. The only turbo's BMW ever made before the 335i was the 2002ti in 1976 I believe, and the 745i which was a turbo charged version of the 733i with stronger pistons, rods, re-worked heads that were polished from the factory, extra oil journals and a system that sprayed the pistons with oil to aid in cooling. The rings were also chromium. the car ran 8psi and was the theoretical output of a 4.5litre normally aspirated 4.5l engine, hence the 745i. 1984 saw an increase in displacement from 3.2l to 3.4l when the 733i became the 735i. boost was cut to 6psi with a compression ratio of 8 to 1 but horsepower remained the same ant torque went up. a simple re-programing of the ecu, a modifacation to the stock wastegate, a manual boost controler and a cartech rising rate fuel pressure regulator would net very close to 400hp to the wheels and close to 500lb/ft torque to the rear wheels. I saw a dyno of 399 rear wheel hp and 496 rear wheel lb/ft. mine is well over 300hp to the rear wheels and it is deceptivley fast. I ran a buddy with an 05 745i and actually beat him on the freeway. This was very late on a straightaway that was over a mile long. I know my BMW history lol :-) (OO={|}=OO)

— 85bmw745i (View Profile)

Posted on 10/19/2007 2:20:19 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

Oh yeah the 745i in stock trim was rated at 252hp both pre and post 1984. a super tall 2.93 rear end and turbo lag combined with a heavy car made for some serious turbo lag. however once you got past 2,600 rpm it would just kick you in the seat without warning, like a dr,. jekyl and mister hyde effect. quiet and docile and when the boost came on that smooth inline 6 suddenly woke up with a healthy growl followed by the small of your back being pressed firmly into the seat, and if you had the team 745i upgrade with 400+hp it was downright fast! I smoked mustangs, GTO's, a 3000GT, obliviated Northstar cadillacs, and many other cars that tried to pick on my 22 year old 3.4l inline 6 powered big body sedan. The car gives no hint that it is fast. I beat my sales managers Lancer EVO once on the way to work, 3 times in a row. Well enough of me and my babble mouth. Ask anyone who knows about the old 745i of the 80's though. less than $1,000 will get you almost 400hp to the wheels. Oh yeah Passengers love the water buffalo interior the heated power reclining rear seats, heated seats, rear a/c etc. This old car has some of what even cars today don't have.

— 85bmw745i (View Profile)

Posted on 10/19/2007 2:34:15 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

This article was an eye-opener. I'm sure it's an amazing performer--but I'm disappointed in the new M3. I hope they bring the CSL here.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 10/18/2007 11:38:51 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Little? The 135i is only 90 lbs less than the 335i? That's not much weight savings at all. What was BMW thinking when they decided to make the 135i? Definitely not little (in weight).

— investor27 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/19/2007 12:10:25 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Thats all, 90lbs? I was hoping for a vouple hundred pounds considdering how much smaller it is.

— 85bmw745i (View Profile)

Posted on 10/19/2007 2:24:43 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

probably, if they made a article of the audi S models... no one would really care.

— audiS (View Profile)

Posted on 10/19/2007 2:43:17 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

To me the E39 M5 was the best looking of all the M's cars.

— 528i (View Profile)

Posted on 10/19/2007 3:39:41 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Its obvious, every generation increases in size and weight. Just compare the length and weight of the E92 M3 and the E46 M3, its almost like the new one is a class above in size. And dont forget that new cars have more safety features, which also increase the weight, while at the old times, a paper car would have sold..

Plus, no matter how much better the older ones were, I hate the classic look, I much prefer the rounder looking new ones. Thats why the best looking M car is the BMW M3 E92, followed by the BMW M5 E60, imo.

— M53R (View Profile)

Posted on 10/20/2007 11:20:25 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0