# Who wants to see the NEW M3?



## shaun132 (Jul 25, 2004)




----------



## BlackChrome (Nov 16, 2003)

:repost: and nice photoshop...


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

Wasn't that in autocar last year?

That's far too manly of a design... not prissy enough for Bangle.


----------



## RCK (Jan 29, 2003)

Very old pic . Too lazy to search for the original post...anyone want to do the honors?


----------



## jetstream23 (Mar 9, 2004)

And give me 4 doors please !


----------



## Seneca (Feb 13, 2003)

*M3*

This is definitely an old pic, but its nice to look at again. The problem is that most of the computer generated pictures of the upcoming BMW's look better than the real cars when they get here. Maybe BMW should fire Bangle and just hire the guys that created this design.


----------



## Desertnate (Mar 11, 2002)

A small version of that pic appeared in Road and Track a couple of months ago labled as an M4  

I REALLY like the looks of that car, but as many have said I highly doubt BMW at this stage in its existance would produce a car that looks that good.


----------



## Ajax (Feb 1, 2002)

Desertnate said:


> A small version of that pic appeared in Road and Track a couple of months ago labled as an M4
> 
> I REALLY like the looks of that car, but as many have said I highly doubt BMW at this stage in its existance would produce a car that looks that good.


Seems like the front end has WAY too much going on compared to the new 5 and 7. Too many lines, creases, etc. Looks like the body kit you would see on a Civic or something like that.


----------



## Desertnate (Mar 11, 2002)

AJAX said:


> Seems like the front end has WAY too much going on compared to the new 5 and 7. Too many lines, creases, etc. Looks like the body kit you would see on a Civic or something like that.


Sad part about all those creases in the pic is the only part P-shopped in that pic are the gills, power dome on the hood, and the facia below the front bumper. The rest of the creases are all part of the new design.

In that pic, I think it give the car an edgy super agressive look. I like it.


----------



## Fifty_Cent (Sep 17, 2003)

shaun132 said:


>


WoWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.
:thumbup:


----------



## Ajax (Feb 1, 2002)

Desertnate said:


> Sad part about all those creases in the pic is the only part P-shopped in that pic are the gills, power dome on the hood, and the facia below the front bumper.


That's where about half of the creases are......


----------



## x3man (Sep 26, 2004)

jetstream23 said:


> And give me 4 doors please !


There will be a sedan. Anyone have a picture?


----------



## Ajax (Feb 1, 2002)

shaun132 said:


>


Can you imagine trying to Stongard this thing?


----------



## Desertnate (Mar 11, 2002)

x3man said:


> There will be a sedan. Anyone have a picture?


There will? That is news.

There are no real E90 M3 pics anywhere at this point. Even this one is only a guess.


----------



## ///Mottey (Nov 8, 2004)

Desertnate said:


> There will? That is news.
> 
> There are no real E90 M3 pics anywhere at this point. Even this one is only a guess.


Yes there will diffenetely be a sedan version, and there are several spy pictures out of one testing at the Ring.

That design kind of scares me, but hell, it finally has looks to match the performance; say good-bye to the sleeper image.


----------



## bavarian19 (May 11, 2003)

///Mottey said:


> Yes there will diffenetely be a sedan version, and there are several spy pictures out of one testing at the Ring.
> 
> That design kind of scares me, but hell, it finally has looks to match the performance; say good-bye to the sleeper image.


Ive never seen these pics... any links?


----------



## flashinthepan (Jul 25, 2003)

shaun132 said:


>


"If" it looks like this AND has better Peformance, I may take a test. I will be surprised if in fact this sporty of a design makes it past Bangle without getting chopped up and ruined, but who knows ?


----------



## Fifty_Cent (Sep 17, 2003)

flashinthepan said:


> "If" it looks like this AND has better Peformance, I may take a test. I will be surprised if in fact this sporty of a design makes it past Bangle without getting chopped up and ruined, but who knows ?


I am guessing this will e close to the real thing. Also 4 door M3 news are awsome, well, at least for areas where the law allows you to buy a car with this big capacity.


----------



## RandyB (Mar 4, 2003)

*Looks good!*

That's probably pretty close. It looks just like the E90 pics of the real thing, and has the current M5 fascia treatment. I wonder when it will be shown for the first time?


----------



## PABS (Apr 3, 2003)

No 4 doors please.....it defeats the whole purpose. That's what the M5 is for.


----------



## ///Mottey (Nov 8, 2004)

bavarian19 said:


> Ive never seen these pics... any links?


No not that I know of, I have just seen and heard about it in magzines


----------



## atomicdoc (Jan 12, 2005)

great forum and my first post !!! the site i go to with lots of future bahn burners is www.autobild.de great site but unfortunately just in deutsch but the pics say it all....i'll keep reading and learnign from this great site !!!


----------



## Riuster (May 21, 2003)

that is not the new M3.....the NEW M3 is bangled up...you ll see....isnt the new 3 series supposed to be released today...

I did it again..I HIJACKED THIS THREAD!!!! :rofl:


----------



## dawgbone (Nov 19, 2004)

I just got the latest Road&Track, and in their Sneak Preview page, they picture this exact picture..They're calling it the new M4....I know it's nothing solid, but it might rule out the PhotoShop idea...Anyways, according to them, it'll be equipt with a 380hp 4.4 V8...hhhmmmm....


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

dawgbone said:


> I just got the latest Road&Track, and in their Sneak Preview page, they picture this exact picture..They're calling it the new M4....I know it's nothing solid, but it might rule out the PhotoShop idea...Anyways, according to them, it'll be equipt with a 380hp 4.4 V8...hhhmmmm....


... and weigh 3600-3700lbs.


----------



## dawgbone (Nov 19, 2004)

My curiosity is..380hp out of a 4.4 v8??? What happened to the 400hp 4.0 that the previous M5 and Z8 had... More displacment, less horses???


----------



## RandyB (Mar 4, 2003)

dawgbone said:


> My curiosity is..380hp out of a 4.4 v8??? What happened to the 400hp 4.0 that the previous M5 and Z8 had... More displacment, less horses???


If they can get 500hp out of a 5 liter(M5) then I would think they could get 400hp out of a 4 liter. I'm on board if it has 400hp and looks like that pic, and I can get Electric Red and a 6-speed manual.


----------



## dawgbone (Nov 19, 2004)

RandyB said:


> If they can get 500hp out of a 5 liter(M5) then I would think they could get 400hp out of a 4 liter. I'm on board if it has 400hp and looks like that pic, and I can get Electric Red and a 6-speed manual.


I don't think it would be in the M family, if they weren't getting 100hp per liter


----------



## roger482 (Jan 1, 2005)

If that is how it ends up looking I for one will definatly be buying it. Rumor here in the UK is that the new M3 will out power the forthcoming Audi RS4.


----------



## Ajax (Feb 1, 2002)

dawgbone said:


> My curiosity is..380hp out of a 4.4 v8??? What happened to the 400hp 4.0 that the previous M5 and Z8 had... More displacment, less horses???





RandyB said:


> If they can get 500hp out of a 5 liter(M5) then I would think they could get 400hp out of a 4 liter. I'm on board if it has 400hp and looks like that pic, and I can get Electric Red and a 6-speed manual.


It's probably just a bit of corporate disinformation. Most likely it will be much closer to, if not over 400hp.


----------



## ///M Blitz (Oct 27, 2004)

dawgbone said:


> My curiosity is..380hp out of a 4.4 v8??? What happened to the 400hp 4.0 that the previous M5 and Z8 had... More displacment, less horses???


The S62 motor in the M5 and Z8 was officially 5.0L (actually 4,941cc), not 4.0L.


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

dawgbone said:


> I don't think it would be in the M family, if they weren't getting 100hp per liter


What's the big deal with horsepower per liter? Wouldn't it be more interesting to know how much area is under the torque curve compared to how much the car weighs?


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

SoloII///M said:


> What's the big deal with horsepower per liter? Wouldn't it be more interesting to know how much area is under the torque curve compared to how much the car weighs?


 Only if you want to look at it objectively (says the guy driving a car making 183 HP/L ).


----------



## TeamM3 (Dec 24, 2002)

·clyde· said:


> Only if you want to look at it objectively (says the guy driving a car making 183 HP/L ).


except you have a 2 stroke engine, so the effective equivalent is only 91.4 hp/L

I notice you weren't bragging about your TQ output


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

TeamM3 said:


> except you have a 2 stroke engine, so the effective equivalent is only 91.4 hp/L


That only helps illustrate the point of how meaningless hp/l is.



> I notice you weren't bragging about your TQ output


Oh yeah? Well jsut ask me about my fuel input, why doncha?


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

TeamM3 said:


> except you have a 2 stroke engine, so the effective equivalent is only 91.4 hp/L
> 
> I notice you weren't bragging about your TQ output


Depends on how you define two stroke. 

If you look at each chamber individually, there are still four distinct events per power cycle. Looks like a four cycle.

But it has piston ports like a 2 stroke.. the piston is just.. triangular. :dunno:

Then again, a rotary has one power stroke per crank revolution per chamber so that sounds like a 2-stroke again.... :bawling:


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

·clyde· said:


> Oh yeah? Well jsut (sic) ask me about my fuel input, why doncha?


If you get bored with the lack of torque and poor fuel economy we can trade cars for a week :eeps: .


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

SoloII///M said:


> If you get bored with the lack of torque and poor fuel economy we can trade cars for a week :eeps: .


 Lack of torque isn't boring...it just gives me a goal.


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

SoloII///M said:


> What's the big deal with horsepower per liter? Wouldn't it be more interesting to know how much area is under the torque curve compared to how much the car weighs?


Bingo! :thumbup:

The Hondas make some impressive HP per liter numbers but their design makes little torque at the low end. What good is that? Good mpg I guess. They're super well engineered, but not as fun as a torquey engine.

My wife loves her Subaru with a 2.5L turbo. 235 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm but only 210 hp max. I doubt that she'd want the reverse. Then she wouldn't be able to tease me that her SUV is quicker than my 330i. :stickpoke


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

iateyourcheese said:


> Bingo! :thumbup:
> 
> The Hondas make some impressive HP per liter numbers but their design makes little torque at the low end. What good is that? Good mpg I guess. They're super well engineered, but not as fun as a torquey engine.
> 
> My wife loves her Subaru with a 2.5L turbo. 235 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm but only 210 hp max. I doubt that she'd want the reverse. Then she wouldn't be able to tease me that her SUV is quicker than my 330i. :stickpoke


 :rofl:

I just think people tend to get caught up in the technology and lose sight of the goal, which is a fast, reliable, economical car. None of these things are limited to 100hp/L engines. Just look at the Corvette... :eeps:


----------

