Close

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 93
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,797
    Rep Points
    31,559.9
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
    The official BMW M4 weight of 1500kg or 3306lb is DIN. Which supposedly includes all fluids and 90% fuel.
    No: http://www.bimmerboost.com/content.p...BMW-M4-DTM-car

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,618
    Rep Points
    1,904.6
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    20



    Reputation: Yes | No
    I have read that.

    Lets just say they have contradicted themselves many times. BMW does have official documents that they stated DIN weight (EU DIN weight includes all fluids and 90% fuel.) Matter of fact the official press release for the car stated 1497kg DIN (3300lb).

    Basically their weight games have caught up to them. Many read into them a while back.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,797
    Rep Points
    31,559.9
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
    I have read that.

    Lets just say they have contradicted themselves many times. BMW does have official documents that they stated DIN weight (EU DIN weight includes all fluids and 90% fuel.) Matter of fact the official press release for the car stated 1497kg DIN (3300lb).

    Basically their weight games have caught up to them. Many read into them a while back.
    You are definitely right about the contradictions.

    It was that DTM press release where it all finally became clear to me how much they were fudging the numbers. Not a single other site picked up on it... shocking.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Jersey City
    Posts
    3,857
    Rep Points
    3,642.6
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    37


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Well this is very disappointing. I'm sure the new m3/m4 will be a good car but don't turn your e9x m3 in yet. Maybe the m2 will be the platform to buy after all.
    Click here to enlarge
    ESS 6XX kit

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Tallahassee
    Posts
    1,482
    Rep Points
    0.1
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
    don't turn your e9x m3 in yet.
    Shhh don't say that, I need prices to fall Click here to enlarge

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    917.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Wow, that's a disappointment! So the first press vehicles will magically have 450+ bhp (easy to up the boost a bit on a turbo car) to display an improvement in performance figures over the E9x generation.
    E92 335i SB / Black Leather / 6AT / Navi Prof / Sunroof / Active Steering
    Mods: Performance Seats / Performance Exhaust / RB Turbos / M3 CF Roof / Brembo GT BBK 355/345 / Rollcage / M3 Mirrors / Forge FMIC / QUAIFE LSD / Ohlins R&T / M3 Suspension Parts / Vorshlag Camberplates / Megan Toe Links / LeatherZ Gauges / Extended M3 DCT Paddles / ER Sports OC / AR OC / Aux Radiator / AR catted DP / COBB Pro-Tune
    Next: GTS Wing

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    804
    Rep Points
    641.4
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I was surprised by this. Also, comparing to a DCT eh...compare as close a spec as possible - DCT adds substantial weight.

    I'm pretty sure I've seen e92's w 6-speeds weigh pretty close to that (3500s). Definitely not the weight reduction I was expecting. I think we will have to wait for the next gen, which I presume will have a CFRP chassis for a real reduction. Problem is, yes they focused on weight, they also focused on making the car larger. I think I can also speak for Gordon Murray when I say that they made it pointlessly wider as well. A number of cars are beginning to look stupid-wide to me.

    This is why Ferrari uses Aluminum chassis for their cars. Even at that, the 458 Italia weighs almost 3300 lbs. Main reason I'm looking for a 430 Scuderia which weighs 2950lbs and is much more fun to drive.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    804
    Rep Points
    641.4
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Wow, that's a disappointment! So the first press vehicles will magically have 450+ bhp (easy to up the boost a bit on a turbo car) to display an improvement in performance figures over the E9x generation.
    BMW would not be the first to do this, but I've yet to see anyone accuse them of it. It is apparently standard operating procedure for Ferrari - more or less. See Chris Harris rant/accusations which got him banned from testing Ferrari's : )

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    804
    Rep Points
    641.4
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by E90Company Click here to enlarge
    Shhh don't say that, I need prices to fall Click here to enlarge
    You looking?

    They definitely will. Regardless of whether it is, or is not a better car, many people will upgrade to simply have the latest and greatest. With the number of e9x M's produced, and the increased production of M4/M3 (I presume), you should be able to get an awesome bargain. Good luck; they are amazing cars that stack up to anything out there IMHO.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    "How many pounds lighter is the new 6-speed F80 M3 than the E9X M3 it replaces in reality? Zero."

    Utterly ridiculous. I don't understand what BMW is doing - did they think, oh, no one will notice - we'll just add some more torque. WTF? This is absurd - this is all I have been hearing - focusing on handling/weight/balance/steering - while they claim they put it on an pretty hard diet. Whomever is running the show at the M division needs to be replaced ASAP - this is utterly ridiculous. I don't understand it one bit.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,797
    Rep Points
    31,559.9
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    All they needed to do was make it the weight they said they would.

    3300 pounds with that hp and torque is fine. We don't need huge output if the thing is well balanced and lean.

    Is it lighter? I'm sure if you get the carbon ceramics the E9X did not have available as an option you will likely get a slightly lighter M4 than you would get E92 M3. That isn't what we all thought though. The chassis itself is supposed to be much lighter. WTF?

    Is the S55 even lighter than the S65? I'd love to see someone weigh both. WITH the IC, turbos, and piping.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    917.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I put my hopes in an upcoming M2. Light, nimble, good handling. Basically what the M3 used to stand for. Sadly BMW won't put the S55 into that car or it would spank the M4's ass.
    E92 335i SB / Black Leather / 6AT / Navi Prof / Sunroof / Active Steering
    Mods: Performance Seats / Performance Exhaust / RB Turbos / M3 CF Roof / Brembo GT BBK 355/345 / Rollcage / M3 Mirrors / Forge FMIC / QUAIFE LSD / Ohlins R&T / M3 Suspension Parts / Vorshlag Camberplates / Megan Toe Links / LeatherZ Gauges / Extended M3 DCT Paddles / ER Sports OC / AR OC / Aux Radiator / AR catted DP / COBB Pro-Tune
    Next: GTS Wing

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,797
    Rep Points
    31,559.9
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    I put my hopes in an upcoming M2. Light, nimble, good handling. Basically what the M3 used to stand for. Sadly BMW won't put the S55 into that car or it would spank the M4's ass.
    I'd argue it doesn't need the S55 and may be better balanced and lighter with a four-cylinder...

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Points
    1,314.7
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    If the 2015 Mustang GT350 with track pack ends up doing well (Ford literally copied the E9X suspension for the new Mustang), this is gonna be a hard sell. BMW should have kept the S65 and added more displacement plus DI. Could have hit 500hp easily.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,797
    Rep Points
    31,559.9
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sered Click here to enlarge
    (Ford literally copied the E9X suspension for the new Mustang)
    Why do you say that?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sered Click here to enlarge
    BMW should have kept the S65 and added more displacement plus DI. Could have hit 500hp easily.
    Or give it the S85, stroked it to 5.7 liters, rev it to 9000, and give everyone who says they have gone soft a middle finger. Instead they decided to refill their Viagra prescription and watch their i3 charge.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Points
    1,314.7
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Why do you say that?
    Ah! you're in for a treat. I found this some time ago after searching a bit when the IRS pics of the 2015 got revealed.

    http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/show...hool-1594.html

    Tell me that doesn't look like the rear subframe of an E9X Click here to enlarge The front is similar to the E9X front too according to some of the Ford press releases about their suspension development. This is going to be a beast of a car.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,797
    Rep Points
    31,559.9
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sered Click here to enlarge
    Ah! you're in for a treat. I found this some time ago after searching a bit when the IRS pics of the 2015 got revealed.

    http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/show...hool-1594.html

    Tell me that doesn't look like the rear subframe of an E9X Click here to enlarge The front is similar to the E9X front too according to some of the Ford press releases about their suspension development. This is going to be a beast of a car.
    Are there some major similarities? Yes. Did they copy it exactly? I don't know about that. However, they would be fools not to look at the M3's rear end. The E9X improved on the E46 so damn much in that department.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,618
    Rep Points
    1,904.6
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    20



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Just read the 28 lbs of weight savings comes from new lithium battery.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,797
    Rep Points
    31,559.9
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
    Just read the 28 lbs of weight savings comes from new lithium battery.
    Interesting. So where is the weight savings in the actual chassis? They are saving weight with lithium batteries and carbon ceramics? Um...

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,618
    Rep Points
    1,904.6
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    20



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Interesting. So where is the weight savings in the actual chassis? They are saving weight with lithium batteries and carbon ceramics? Um...
    Exactly.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    Reputation: Yes | No
    That's pretty cool - I am glad they ended up using a Lithium Ion battery - that's cool. Since the battery is usually at the extreme ends of the car, weight removed from these areas is important - and 30 lbs is a decent amount. I can feel the difference in my M3 when it's filled with luggage, and am assuming a heavy battery farther back in a single corner even makes more difference.

    That's cool - but the total number is BS, and again - heads need to roll. Click here to enlarge

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Interesting. So where is the weight savings in the actual chassis? They are saving weight with lithium batteries and carbon ceramics? Um...
    The more and more I think about this, the more it bothers me... You are right - it's ridiculous to claim a weight savings - when a large proportion of the "weight savings" is coming from a $8,000 ceramic brake option - and another coming from $#@! that is just bolted to the car. I mean, for the first part (brakes) - 99% of the people ordering the car are likely not tracking it/won't purchase the carbon brakes (curious what the actual % will be), so it's not even relevant. For the second part (battery), it's cool and all - but you can replace this yourself. Yes, it's "new technology" in regards to putting it on a production car, but it would be equivalent to if the old M3 had a spare tire, and they removed it - and said "look at all the weight we shaved off".

    I was expecting a lot more out of this car. Yes, we knew the engine wasn't going to be an S65/S54 - or anything like this, but when they said they were focusing on weight/handling/etc. - and we see this - it really makes me question how much engineering went into this car.

    It hurts me to say, but I almost want the car to suck at everything at this point - purely so the people responsible for this crap can get what's coming to them. You want to pull this $#@!, then go work for Hyundai.

    BMW is losing it, they really are - and I hope they start to realize this very quickly, and get back to the roots of what made these cars shine.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,797
    Rep Points
    31,559.9
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    BMW lost it. The pride is gone. It's over.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    761
    Rep Points
    380.2
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Ahhh SHEIT not again, BMW!! Bsing us all over

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    46
    Rep Points
    121.4
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    BMW lost it. The pride is gone. It's over.
    They build the car that weight on purpose. Without any real ground effects that would make the car look silly, manufacturers have to compensate with adding the weight to the car that can do 180mph down the road.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •