2009 BMW M3: Well that was quick

How could they be bothered to read the manual they have so many vehicles?! I feel bad for them, it must be awful!

Seriously though most car manuals have a section specifically about break-in and a maintenance guide. It seems Inside Line relies on nothing but idiot lights.

"Seriously though most car manuals have a section specifically about break-in and a maintenance guide. It seems Inside Line relies on nothing but idiot lights."

The ///M cars have a more thorough break-in. I don't know about the E9x M3, but the E30, E36, and E46 also called for changing the gearbox and final drive oil at @1,200 miles.

roadburner: If only I owned an M I might know... maybe someday. However, is this maintenance covered under BMW's included maintenance as well?

Ah. The usual 1,200-mile ///M service. No worries, Chris. :o)

Yes the 1st schedule service for the E9x M3 is @ 1,200 miles to replace all the break in fluids. I carpool in a E90 M3 every other day, that service was just done last month.

carguy622, with the exception of tires and gas, everything is cover on a new BMW.

"I carpool in a E90 M3 every other day, that service was just done last month."

Sounds like my kind of carpool. Where do I sign up?

Was there not enough space on the screen to write ... since: 40 miles instead of 40 mls?
What's with the abbreviations when there is so much room on the screen?

carguy622, Don't feel too bad- I don't own one either...

You guys are great.

If this wasn't covered by BMW's free scheduled maintenance, I think I'd be upset having to pay the dealer what ostensibly would be a ridiculous amount of money (the "Hey, he owns an M-Series, he can afford it" mentality)to change the fluids after such a short period of ownership.

+1 On the comment by keith68 regarding the seemingly unnecessary use of abbreviations.

What? The IL staff doesn't have the BMW manual memorized by now? Maybe a few more Beemers and they'll have it down pat.

Make sure that they fill it up all the way when the put the new oil in!

My father owns an E92 M3, and about 1000 or so miles after the first change, the car was asking for a quart of 10w-60. Turns out, they only put in about half as much new oil as the car would take.

"Sounds like my kind of carpool. Where do I sign up?"

dscain, yeah I got lucky there!

lostandfound08,

Bimmer= BMW car
Beemer= BMW motorcycle

I always recommend replacing the oil after the first 20 miles, whether it's a beemer or not.

It's in the service manual. How can you not acquire a a near-70k, high performance machine without reading everything maintenance related?!

So you revved the engine to hell and back without completing the break-in service...I'll keep in mind to avoid your M3 when it hits the used car market in a year.

Page 108 of the owner's manual details break in:

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Owner/dgh.aspx

@ roadburner

Sorry, I don't have "Bimmers" raining down around me all the time.

sherief, none of them own the car, it is just a company car that they get to abuse for free. So none of them care. The truth is, the car won't die before they are done with it even if they don't do any maintenance on it. It is the next owner that will suffer. Is like buying a rental car, actually worse, normal rental car don't get abuse that hard.

"Sorry, I don't have "Bimmers" raining down around me all the time."

Glad to be of help!

- "If this wasn't covered by BMW's free scheduled maintenance, I think I'd be upset having to pay the dealer what ostensibly would be a ridiculous amount of money (the "Hey, he owns an M-Series, he can afford it" mentality)to change the fluids after such a short period of ownership."

Well it is covered as they cover everything on all BMW's for 4yr/50k so I don't understand why you'd complain. I'm pretty sure that BMW is well aware that a 1200 mile service, when the car is under warranty for 50k is on them. Duh.

BTW, Chris, the reason you probably didn't see the service indicated prior to your track use is that BMW inspections are not directly tied to just miles. They take into count how the vehicle is driven as well.

So say you start your car and it says, 8,000 to inspection, then track it hard for an hour, when you restart it it'll probably say someting like 7,300 to inspection.

This may not apply to the 1200mi. initial service (as your not suppose to exceed a certain RPM!!) but it does apply to all oil changes and inspection I, II, etc.

"It's in the service manual. How can you not acquire a a near-70k, high performance machine without reading everything maintenance related?!"

Free car. $67k doesn't mean much when you drive it for free. Might as well be a rental. OK, bad analogy because rentals cost money but you get my drift.

Nothing like a new car that needs service after a whopping 1200 miles on the odo.

1487 ought to stick to the Focus blog.

Its amazing that people like msh are so sensitive. Why does the M3 need such an early service when numerous other (if not most) powerful V8 powered cars do not? 1200miles is very early.

BTW, when have you seen me in the Focus blog?

"Its[sic] amazing that people like msh are so sensitive."

Pot, meet kettle.

"Why does the M3 need such an early service when numerous other (if not most) powerful V8 powered cars do not? 1200miles[sic] is very early."

The engineers at BMW Motorsport require changing out all of the lubricants because they want to insure that any early break-in metals are removed from the sump, gearbox, and final drive. Overkill? Maybe, but BMW picks up the tab AND provides a loaner, so it's no big deal to ///M car owners. It appears that the early service requirement only bothers the people who don't own them...

roadburner:

As much as people talk about how they want reliability because they dont have time to visit a dealer I don't see a 1200 mile service as a good thing. I knew I could count on you to explain how BMW is actually doing owners a favor by having a 1200 mile service. Anytime you got to the dealer its an unconvenience, even if you get a loaner. It does indeed sound like overkill. Unless you own a GTR. I just want to know why this is unnecessary on other performance cars.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the service has more to due with the design of the engine more than anything else. Engines that rev very high with extremely tight tolerences and large compression experience greater stress over there life span than a more conventional design. Therefore I think it's safe to infer than "dirty" oil would inflict greater damage in this type of engine compared to one with more relaxed tolerences and lower redline. Makes sense to me however I'd still take a CTS-V for the same money.

"Makes sense to me however I'd still take a CTS-V for the same money."

The CTS-V is a fantastic car- no question. It all depends on your personal preference. Me, I think I'd pick up a CPO Alpina B7. That car just blew me away.

"So say you start your car and it says, 8,000 to inspection, then track it hard for an hour, when you restart it it'll probably say something like 7,300 to inspection."

Exactly. When I had the B7 at Motorsport Ranch the OBC advised me that my 90 minutes of track time took 800 miles off the life of the oil.

"Unless you own a GTR. I just want to know why this is unnecessary on other performance cars."

Show me another 8400rpm, 100+ hp/L V8 motor that doesn't require a rigid maintenance schedule...

Like it or not, the M3's motor is a fairly exotic piece of machinery.

Go read a book on automotive engineering. Or stick to driving a honduh.

1487 - Your statements are so obscenely ignorant sometimes.

"Why does the M3 need such an early service when numerous other (if not most) powerful V8 powered cars do not? 1200miles is very early."

Because this engine is much more likely to be driven on road courses than those other ones? Because BMW cares about this engine's longevity more? Because engines are built differently and it's wise to do it in this one?

If you talk to tribologists about this stuff, you'll see they recommend changing out these fluids around 500-1500 miles. BMW has been doing this 1200 mile service for a very long time.

If you feel 1200 miles is just sooo inconvenient, than I guess I could say that your 5,000-7,500 mile oil changes are soooo inconvenient compared to my 15,000 mile oil change runs.

I'll have to go back to the GT-R break-in service thread. I wonder if you complained about it then? Or are you just biased against BMW.

Joe

"BMW has been doing this 1200 mile service for a very long time."

My 1995 3er called for a change of the final drive oil at the first Oil Service; I still change it every 30K just to be on the safe side.

Here is what you wrote in the GT-R thread (which was amazingly easy to find):

"Looks like this car is going to cost a lot to maintain. I wonder how often Nissan wants you to bring it in for service. Never heard of a car that needs service after 1k miles. Do Ferraris need to be serviced so soon?"

So I guess you didn't object to it when you had never heard of it, and when it was the GT-R, and when you equated it to a Ferrari's needs.

But now that it's BMW, this service is just ridiculous....

Sounds about right.

Joe

"Sounds about right."

Precisely.

"Show me another 8400rpm, 100+ hp/L V8 motor that doesn't require a rigid maintenance schedule...

Like it or not, the M3's motor is a fairly exotic piece of machinery.

Go read a book on automotive engineering. Or stick to driving a honduh."

You must be new if you think I am driving a Honda or have any desire to do so. There is a reason why there arent many 8400rpm V8s and this is one of them. Lack of useful torque is another. Exotic doesn't mean superior- it just means rare and expensive to produce. If such an engine needs extreme care to do its job safely and efficiently than I applaud other manufacturers for sticking with more conventional V8s.

"Lack of useful torque is another"

Huh? What to quantify that a bit?

"Because this engine is much more likely to be driven on road courses than those other ones? Because BMW cares about this engine's longevity more? Because engines are built differently and it's wise to do it in this one?"

Joe as usual you go overboard in your haste to put me in my place.

1. This level of service on the GTR is ridiculous as well. I and others made that sentiment known previously. The GTR defenders said it's "exotic" and thus acceptable. That's BS.
2. Your assumptions about BWM engineers caring more about their product than other engineers is laughable. All modern engines are designed to last well past 100k miles with minimal servicing or repair. I have no idea how an engineer is supposed to know in advance which sporty cars are likely to be raced and which are not but my guess is they want all thier engines to be robust. The bottom line is a low production, pricey, high revvind V8 like the one in this car is more delicate than a lower revving alternative that could perform just as well. To suggest that any engine that doesn't require this level of servicing is engineered to lower standards is absurd.
3. A lot car companies have been doing a lot of things for a long time. That doesn't make it right or wrong. In an era of 10k mile oil change intervals and 100k tuneups, frequent service visits for required engine maintenance seems anachronistic. Period.
4. Since you and others are experts in engineering you should know it takes engineering prowess to create engines that can produce prodiguous amounts of power reliably with minimal maitenance. Arguing that increased maintenance needs are a sign of superior engineering is counterintuitive.

"Lack of useful torque is another"

I've driven two new M3's. One with a six-speed and one with M DCT, and I sure wasn't left wanting for torque. I should also note that this was mere days after driving several torque-monster 6.3 AMG's. Could it match their mid-range punch? No, but the M3's V8 is very tractable in stop and go driving.

You don't drive a Honda? Sorry, maybe it was a Corolla or Camry..

Clearly, some just appreciate the engineering more, and are willing to put forth the extra effort and cost to maintain them.

"Huh? What to quantify that a bit?"

How can I be more clear? Small displacement motors make less torque and they produce that torque at high rpms. I know you and the rest will beat me down to the ground as the resident racers and engineers of the forum but I will simply point out that BMW (and they do no wrong) is abandoning high revving, purpose built V8s for turbo V8s with lower redlines. Why? More torque at usable levels, lower costs due to economies of scale and a more refined (and quieter) driving experience. MB never got on board with the small displacement, high winding engines with AMG models and now BMW is using their philosophy. I remember when people would claim BMW was superior because it got power without forced induction. My how times have changed and now BMW is embracing turbos.

"You don't drive a Honda? Sorry, maybe it was a Corolla or Camry..."

You're getting warmer...

sheriff:

Read my earlier post. More maintenance doesn't mean superior engineering, it just means more maitenance. Have you heard of the engineering term KISS? Simplicity is a great thing for many reasons. Durability and low maitenance are one benefit of the KISS philosophy.

295 lb-ft of torque is a lot compared to cheaper vehicles. It's not a lot for a V8 and the C63 has consistently been faster than the M3 in almost every comparison test in 0-60 and 5-60 times. You can use low end torque far more often than you can exploit an 8400rpm redline. Unfortunately, you seem to be one of those who assumes that any engine with a redline lower than 7000rpm is "low tech". That's not the case at all. NVH levels, cost and torque output are all reasons to keep redlines in the 6500-7000rpm range which is where most cars fall these days. BMW has created some engines with impressive specific outputs but at the end of the day they don't get the job done any faster (or more efficiently) than lower cost, larger displacement motors.

"You're getting warmer..."

its about time you got back to bashing the kind of car I drive. But if you have no other recourse please indulge. MOney cant buy class and hiding behing the brand of car you drive wont make you any less wrong. But I'm sure you'll continue to try. Carry on....

"It's not a lot for a V8 and the C63 has consistently been faster than the M3 in almost every comparison test in 0-60 and 5-60 times."

Just to chime in:

The C63 has not seen to be faster on a track though, and that's where it really counts. Well, that's where I think it really counts anyways.

"My how times have changed and now BMW is embracing turbos."

Yes, starting in 1973(E10/M10), then 1979(E23/M102), 1983(BT52/modified M10), and 1984(E28/M21)to the present...

"its[sic] about time you got back to bashing the kind of car I drive. But if you have no other recourse please indulge. MOney[sic] cant buy class and hiding behing[sic] the brand of car you drive wont[sic] make you any less wrong. But I'm sure you'll continue to try. Carry on..."

Well, well, well...
NOW look who's becoming "a little testy".
I'm so very sorry; I didn't realize that comparing your car to a Toyota would be considered "bashing".
Lighten up, Francis.

"The C63 has not seen to be faster on a track though, and that's where it really counts. Well, that's where I think it really counts anyways."

we are only talking engines. The C63 chassis is not M3 worthy which is no surprise. Put the 6.2L V8 in the M3 and you would have one hell of a car.

"Yes, starting in 1973(E10/M10), then 1979(E23/M102), 1983(BT52/modified M10), and 1984(E28/M21)to the present..."

Until the twin turbo I6 came out BMW hadn't been using forced induction for many years. They certainly hadn't since I've been paying attention to cars. I don't have a problem with turbos but I've read comments from BMW fans that disparaged supercharged engines from MB in the past. Specific output is great to brag about but unless high hp/L leads to more performance or less fuel consumption there is little reason for that bragging.

1487 - BMW is embracing more turbos for a number of reasons, but to avoid high rpms is not one of them. To wit, the current 3.0 liter twin turbo still revs to a 7000 rpm redline....BMW's inline sixes never did have a problem with NVH, a fact you must've missed somewhere....

The biggest reason is the fuel economy realities of the marketplace, and the fact that they can keep the engine smaller and still keep on top of the horsepower race.

Regarding your statement on torque, you defined a 4.0 liter V8 as follows: "There is a reason why there arent many 8400rpm V8s and this is one of them. Lack of useful torque is another."

My reply was "What to quantify that a bit?"

To which you responded, "How can I be more clear? Small displacement motors make less torque and they produce that torque at high rpms."

Note your own dissonance. You switched from "This engine doesn't produce useful torque" to "Small displacement motors make less torque and produce that torque at a higher RPM"

You switched arguments there. That is why I asked you to quantify. Because apparently, the advances made to the BMW v8 which give it a broad, flat torque curve from very low RPMs means to you that it has "Lack of useful torque"

FYI, here's a dyno: http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/attachments/e90-m3-sedan-e92-m3-coupe-e93-m3-convertible-e46-m3-e36-m3-z4-m-z4-m-coupe/54101d1198260015-my-stock-e92-m3-dyno-test-result-m3-dyno-chart.jpg

Note the mid-west flat torque curve.

Yeah, no useful torque there.

If you think it takes more "engineering" to make a low displacement high revving super high compression V8 than any conventionally designed V8 of equal power (and greater torque) then you simply lack knowledge of "engineering." They are simply different approaches. People see high RPM and automatically think "better" but as with anything, there are trade-offs to any particular design.

There are four main ways to increase power: increase RPM, maximize airflow, pressurize the manifold or increase displacement. It's obvious that the M3 (and M5) chose the first two methods and that is fine. But to insinuate that they are somehow "engineered" in a superior fashion is simply stupid and shows a lack of knowledge. What's more difficult: making small lightweight piston travel faster or making larger heavy piston travel faster? Is it harder to

The most unique feature of this engine are the individual throttle plates for each cylinder. This is a novel approach but is it a superior design to what other's have done? Not at all. For example, Audi's 4.2L V8 has virtually the same output but uses Direct Injection to maximize the efficiency of each power pulse. Both engines are short on torque though and while this may not be a problem in cars less than 4000lbs you cannot use this engine in a heavier car and get adequate performance. BMW's own 3L turbo six easily out torques the M3's V8 and that my friends, is the compromise of the design. No one said the V8 isn't tractable, but these are hard facts.

AMG's 6.2L V8 is vastly more versatile and can be used in their whole produce range which to me is better because they maximized the potential of their product. The same goes for GM's smallblock. They can put this engine in sports car, truck or sedan and get the necessary power with simple yet effective solutions. The LSA and LS9 have patented superchargers and integrated intercoolers to get ridiculous power and class beating torque. I assure you that they are "engineered" to the same standard as the M3's V8. Optimizing airflow in a two valve fixed timing engine is no easy task- do the research. The 7L LS7 was sucessfully tested to run at 8000rpm (due to ultra lightweight titanium rods and low mass pistons) but they couldn't make any more power at the engine speed because they couldn't cram enough air into the combustion chambers (a compromise of the 2 valve cylinder arrangement).

Personally, I'm always a fan of displacement. AMG's V8 and GM's LS7 both rev to 7000 rpm while putting out all the torque anyone could want. To me, that sounds like the better approach. What's more important, revs or horsepower? If I can have equal the HP of a small screamer with more torque to boot while only sacrificing 1000 rpm in redline, I think I'd have the best of both worlds.

Joe, the M3 only makes 295 lbs-ft. Any way you slice it, that's not a lot. Is it useable, sure. However, many regular V6s are approaching that figure. The Lexus and Cadillac V6s produce 277 and 273 lbs-ft feet respectively so 295 is really not impressive. In regular driving, BMW's own 3L turbo is likely more responsive (and doesn't need a finnicky 1200 mile fluid swap). I'll take a 335i Coupe and save the cash, thanx.

Chavis - You definitely show a great knowledge of the essentials, but I disagree with alot of your conclusions.

First, I'm sure you know that engine output means nothing without gearing. In fact, the true torque result involves multiplying output by the gear and final drive ratio.

The final drive ratio and individual gears are far shorter on the M3, giving it some serious grunt and making it pull hard from low rpms.

Furthermore, you mention Individual Throttle Bodies which have been on every M engine since the e28 5-series, AFAIK. But I don't think they were ever used to increase displacement, but to widen the powerband and give instantaneous response to throttle input.

I agree that you can't use this engine in a truck. But then, it's a race engine. It's not meant for truck duty. Sure, that eliminates economies of scale, but it also means the engine can be more purpose-built.

Joe

"First, I'm sure you know that engine output means nothing without gearing. In fact, the true torque result involves multiplying output by the gear and final drive ratio."

Exactly, and that is why the M3 has the same EPA mileage as the 4300lbs CTS-V despite being down 142 hp, 256 lbs-ft and 2.2L of displacement. Huge torque means relaxed gearing and that approach to delivering power seems more appropriate in real world driving if you ask me. When you say race bred, I say compromise.

"Furthermore, you mention Individual Throttle Bodies which have been on every M engine since the e28 5-series, AFAIK. But I don't think they were ever used to increase displacement, but to widen the powerband and give instantaneous response to throttle input."

The individual throttle plates fit into to the second criteria I listed- increasing airflow. Each cylinder gets optimized amount of air directly at the cylinder instead of a widely variable volume from an intake manifold. This increases volumetric efficiency (a constant problem at high rpm with 2 valve engines). variable intake lift systems basically solve the same problem so again, there are alternatives to this design. Additionally, direct injection could help as well because it would make the most of whatever available air is in the cylinder during ignition.

"I agree that you can't use this engine in a truck. But then, it's a race engine. It's not meant for truck duty. Sure, that eliminates economies of scale, but it also means the engine can be more purpose-built."

I wasn't even talking about a vehicle as excessively heavy as a truck- this engine wouldn't even be competitive in 5 series. Proof is that the M5 needs two more cylinder of essentially the same engine to compete with the cars in it's class. My point is that the 6.2 AMG (and Smallblock) can be used in something small AND something large (like the S, SL and CL class MBs). The supposed advantage of having a "purpose-built race engine" is as fruitless as the holy grail of maximum horsepower per liter. Both lend more value to discussion such as these but matter none in terms of performance or making power. The fact that this engine is supposedly race derived doesn't really move me. I'd rather have a burly exhaust note and lots of torque from a street engine instead of a screamer. In fact, other than bragging rights and that "exotic" sound at 7000+ rpm, I see NO advantage in the naturally aspirated high revving approach to big horsepower.

"In regular driving, BMW's own 3L turbo is likely more responsive (and doesn't need a finicky 1200 mile fluid swap)."

If I do wind up with a new Bimmer(a Le Mans Blue M Sport 135i is oh so tempting) it will still get the 1,200 mile change of lubricants whether BMW calls for it or not.

i change the engine oil on my new cars at 1000km (600miles) and then again at 2000km (1300miles). after that my car gets an oil change every 10000kms (6000miles)

Chavis - I agree with alot of your statements and will move on from this thread since it's on page 2 now.

The advantage I see to the N/A high RPM approach is in my ownership of a 2006 Civic SI. I compare this engine favorably, as it's specs are essentially 1/2 of the M3 engine....1/2 displacement, torque, and power.

In this 2.0 liter application, I can wind it out regularly and not be beating against 100mph unless I push it. It loves to rev.

It still gets 28-30mpg in mixed driving, and 35mpg in PURE highway. It's super low maintenance, compared to a turbocharged alternative.

It's a very small engine, able to be shoehorned into a tiny engine bay, or laid out in different configurations for drivetrain efficiency if needed.

It weighs less...but more than that: Because it produces less torque, all the supporting parts weigh less. The engine cradle and drivetrain don't need to handle all the extra torque, so they are built to a lower specification.

I'm not saying this is the best layout, just that I've found it offers a unique driving experience that some people enjoy.

Personally, I look forward to my next car offering 300+ lb/fts of torque :)

Joe

"1487 - BMW is embracing more turbos for a number of reasons, but to avoid high rpms is not one of them. To wit, the current 3.0 liter twin turbo still revs to a 7000 rpm redline....BMW's inline sixes never did have a problem with NVH, a fact you must've missed somewhere...."

Joe,

I didnt miss squat. As usual you presume that you are the smartest guy in the room when that fact has yet to be confirmed. 7000rpm is not much in today's world. Congrats to BMW for making an engine that doesn't rattle the interior at 7000rpm. The VQ redlines at 7500-7600rpm in some applications. GM's DI V6 redlines at 7000rpm and the standard 3.6L in the Malibu redlines at 6900rpm. The LS& redlines at 7000rpm. I could go on. Engines that redline well past 7k are rare and there is a reason for that. Even the VQ has been knocked for being too raucous in its latest, most powerful form. One reason for that is that an engine of that size gets a little loud at 7500rpm.

No small displacement engine can match the low end torque of a larger engine with similar hp- period. Look at the torque peaks on small, high winding engines vs larger engines. The higher the redline on an engine the higher the speeds needed to acheive maximum hp or torque. Turbos would be an exception to that.

"I agree that you can't use this engine in a truck. But then, it's a race engine. It's not meant for truck duty. Sure, that eliminates economies of scale, but it also means the engine can be more purpose-built."

Purpose built means expensive and delicate. That's not a good thing. "race bred" sounds great to the uninitiated but race cars are heavily maintained and would NEVER be able to survive in the real world with the service intervals production cars experience. I heard that NASCAR engines are built to last no more than 800miles before replacement. Everything about a race car is designed to withstand extreme punishment for a relatively short amount of time. I've never heard of a race car with 20k miles on the clock without replacement or overhaul of major wear inducing components.

They just tested the LT M3 sedan and it's barely faster than the 335i with 114 less hp. There is a reason BMW is phasing out these low production, high revving engines. What is there to lose by going to a cheaper twin turbo V8 with abundant low end torque? Since they decided to expand the M lineup to the overweight X5 and X6 they likely had no choice but to go to the turbo V8. The V10 would be unacceptable in the M crossovers.

Joe:

As for the civic Si and its high revving engine I will say this: The Cobalt SS has 63 more hp and over 100 more lb-ft of torque and gets slightly better mileage. The Cobalt SS doesn't weigh much more than the Civic so I don't think the extra weight of the 2L turbo is a huge deal. The Cobalt is faster in 0-60 in real world 5-60 testing by a significant margin. The only thing it can't do is rev to 7000+ rpm like the Si. I don't see where Honda is getting any advantage out of the Si's small NA engine.

Hey 1487, ever consider as well the sheer weight savings involved in the engine. Please refer me to a lighter weighing NA engine that produces 400+ Hp and I'll retrack my next statement....

"You're a tool; Go get a hobby. If you don't appreciate the M3, then stay the F out of the forum and quit ruining everyone elses fun."

There. We've all been thinking it, and now I've said it.

Oh, and when it comes down to true performance, weight is everything. To the far earlier comment about engineers not knowing that some cars will have a higher probability to be tracked versus others... that's ludicrous.

I'm pretty sure that when making an ///M, or an Evo, or any Lotus, etc. that they have a pretty good idea those cars will see a track at somepoint. LOL.

drmiller:

Please dont get your BMW logoed undies in a bunch. I don't have a problem with the M3 so you can relax. German cars often are not the best performance values and that is not news. The M3 delivers a lot of performance but the car is MUCH more expensive than it was two generations ago and now the value of the M3 is questionable. It's base price seems kind of reasonable but optioning this thing up to $70 changes things a bit. As I said, there are no bad $67k cars on the market. All that I asked was why do BMW's high performance engines need this level of maintenance and car when others do not. That's it.

I don't know the mass of the 4L V8. The M3 isn't that light for a compact car so I'm not sure how much the engine is contributing to low mass. If you tell me the weight I can compare it to the weight of the Camaro's V8 and the LS7. I'll let you do that bit of research on the M3 V8.

"I'm pretty sure that when making an ///M, or an Evo, or any Lotus, etc. that they have a pretty good idea those cars will see a track at somepoint. LOL."

The same could be said about any V8 powered sports sedan or coupe. Do you think MB or Cadillac engineers assumed their mega hp sedans wouldn't ever see the track? Don't be ridiculous.

by drmillerM3

"There. We've all been thinking it, and now I've said it."

Yep, we were all thinking it.