Just_me

Zero to 60 mph: 4.1 sec

Zero to 100 mph: 9.8 sec

Zero to 150 mph: 24.9 sec

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Merc1

Link doesn't work. I tried to post this earlier.

M

Just_me

Really? working fine for me here is the review.
-----------------





2008 BMW M3 sedan - Short Take Road Test

Four doors, no waiting.

BY STEVEN COLE SMITH
February 2008

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.

Smooth-Shifting Six Speed, With a Dual-Clutch Seven-Speed on the Way

Although a seven-speed dual-clutch automated manual is en route, the M3’s six-speed Getrag-built manual is, as always, smooth-shifting, with clutch action that shows none of the annoying hair-trigger engagement we’ve seen on so many previous manual-equipped BMWs. Yes, the clutch is firm, but not to the point where rush-hour traffic will leave your left leg aching.

With the optional MDrive, any number of adjustments can be made to the onboard electronic safety nannies and even the steering feel. Of course iDrive remains, but we’ve beaten that dead horse enough already: at least it has been marginalized to the point where it’s just a mild annoyance, instead of a genuine frustration.

The cockpit is snug but roomy enough; instruments and controls are typical BMW, and the fat, red-and-blue-laced steering wheel feels right. The front buckets are firm but adjustable enough that anyone should be able to find the sweet spot. Rear seat space, with two adults, is tight but livable. Trunk space should be more than adequate.

The Template for All Other Performance Sedans

On the road, the M3 remains the template by which other European performance sedans must be judged. Brakes are progressive and linear, handling is superb, and the ride, which no one will confuse with a Buick’s, is not that bad, even on very rough roads. Tire noise, from the fat, optional 19-inch Michelins, can be loud on porous pavement, unobjectionable everywhere else—particularly on the skidpad where the M3 achieved 0.95 g. After all, look at the weight balance: 3680 pounds total, with 1840 pounds at the front, 1840 at the rear. You don’t have to be a mathematician to suspect that’s pretty good. And it stops, too: from 70 mph, it took just 161 feet.

We got some laps in the M3 at the Mazda Raceway at Laguna Seca, and launching the car through the track’s legendary corkscrew demonstrates just how composed it is. It longs for track days at your local circuit, where even moderately ham-fisted, ham-footed drivers will feel like heroes. There’s little need to completely defeat the stability control—just keep the front wheels pointed in a relatively straight line, and all the power you want is available.

And while the M3 isn’t cheap—never has been, never will be—the as-tested price of our loaded car, $64,450, certainly isn’t outrageous for what you get.

And what do you get? A family sedan. And sooo much more.

PRICE AS TESTED: $64,450 (base price: $55,875)

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection

Displacement: 244 cu in, 3999cc

Power (SAE net): 414 bhp @ 8300 rpm

Torque (SAE net): 295 lb-ft @ 3900 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:

Wheelbase: 108.7 in Length: 180.4 in Width: 71.5 in Height: 57.0 in

Curb weight: 3680 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:

Zero to 60 mph: 4.1 sec

Zero to 100 mph: 9.8 sec

Zero to 150 mph: 24.9 sec

Street start, 5–60 mph: 5.4 sec

Standing ¼-mile: 12.6 sec @ 113 mph

Top speed (governor limited): 161 mph

Braking, 70–0 mph: 161 ft

Roadholding, 328-ft-dia skidpad: 0.95 g

dr Dunkel

Damn.... that is one fast 0-60. How the hell did they do that?

1,669 kgs seems about right.

PC Valkyrie

I'm loving the peformance numbers on this car (acceleration and awesome handling).

The only "negative" thing is 5-60mph time of 5.4 seconds. That's a whole 1.3 seconds slower than launching the car (0-60 took 4.1 seconds).

That's the MAJOR advantage you get with low end torque.....the C63 has a 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds, and a 5-60mph time of 4.1 seconds.....only a 0.2 second difference. Much more usable and accessible power on the streets where you rarely launch at high revs from standing start.

dr Dunkel

Looking at the 0-60 and the 5-60 numbers isolated it seems likely that the 0-60 should have been 5,1 instead of 4,1.

There is no reason in the world why 5-60 should be slower than 0-60 if the optimal gear would have been used.

Sunny

No, 5-60 is almost always slower than 0-60. Cause the engine will be almost idling at 5MPH even in 1st gear (probably some where around 1000rpm). Where for a 0-60 tests, you rev the engine to 3000+ and drop the clutch (I won't be surprised if a magazine that gets fantastic 0-60 number revs it even to 5k+). Also the diff between 0-60 and 5-60 would be bigger for a car with a high reving NA engine like the M3 than say a car with a turbo engine with lot of low down torque like 335.

dr Dunkel

I was to do a 5-60 in a the fastest possible manner I would have done the exact same thing as in a 0-60. But that is maybe not the point of the test.

Sunny

What is the fastest way to do 5-60 besides mashing the gas in 1st gear while dawdling long at 5mph?

dr Dunkel

Engaging the clutch and revving the engine (rolling free at 5 mpg), thereby increasing the power when releasing the clutch.

But as I said, that is not the point of the test. The point is merely to show the characteristics of the engine.