So you rather believe what Scott, divex who I'm not even sure been to a roadcourse, think than guys at Sport Auto, who has been testing cars on the Ring for ages?? Show me any tests/reviews where CSL has been compare against any other cars that aren't cost more.

+1. It'll never end if we keep comparing how X car can be faster/brakes better/turn quicker than Y car with less than money. It's like a ricers talk. Why is it hard to understand that each cars is build to meet a specific purposes; I don't understand. Sure, Porsche Gayman can stop better at the track. But, does it have a room for 4? No. It's easier to add better brakes in an M3 than add 4 seats in a Gayman. It is a lot tougher to design award winning engines (http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/) than fitting a big brakes. Nothing in this world is perfect and we all know that already. Cars are merely a different strokes for different folks.

Here look what I've done to my M3 brakes when I started doing roadcourses 4 years back.


But, instead of complaining about brakes on M3, I just learned to drive without using much brakes. BMWs are such a balanced cars in the first place, who the hell chooses to brake a lot?? I tend to think big brakes on a cars who drives on the road more than on the track are either pussies (use too much brakes. Brakes all the damn time) or pretty boys who wants to look good. That changed when I bought a GT3. I don't know about AWD ones with all sorts of PASM, PSM and electronic nannies, but rear wheel drive Porsches are different story because of its engine hanging in the rear so driver has to use brakes/throttle so rotate/settle the car. Meaning Porsches and BMWs are apple and oranges. You can't just say "Oh, this car has this brakes so that car better has it too". Just thnik about it with all the prices/practicalities/coolness aside. BTW, that's how I destroy 911s on the track because M3s are perfectly balanced that you don't even need to slow down much. While Porsche drivers are struggling to stay on the tarmac with all the steering and balancings, I was gone like a wind. Depending on where it is, I got caught up again at the end of straights by some tho. Bottom line is, yes, brakes on BMWs and M cars especially should be improved by now (single pistons? C-mon! This is 2008! They've been doing it since 1988!) but I wouldn't weight it much on my buying decision (if I were to buy one). I also think that new M3 will outsold new RS4, C63 or Lexus with this new pricing. I will not even surprised if I see more of E92 M3s more than Gaymans (since you guys are comparing it to M3).

 

csl time IS an anomaly.

and i see you sold your m3 and now have a gt3...at least you have the better car now.

 

Ask him what he just bought though...lol

 

what did he buy, an rs4?

 

have you ever thought that the guys in the Porsches are a little more wary of crashing a 100K+ car compared to one that costs about half the price? 99% of the people out there dont have the skills to drive fast on the track, and dont want to wreck their car.
rear engined cars and mid engined cars are more nervous at the limit, but they are far more rewarding too when you learn to drive them. walter rohl could take a GT3/RS and romp on pretty anyone in any car that should compete with it based on power/weight ratio.
theres a reason why Porsches are king of the 'ring'.
heres a fact for you, BMW has NEVER had a US spec car that could brake 8 mins on the ring, while Porsche has 7 (the most of ANY car manufacturer!).
the new m3, even on cup tires only ran 8:05, take the cup tires away, its no better than ~8:12.

 

I agree. That's why I got the 996 GT3 after the BMW. Was just reading this thread actually. https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...d.php?t=109821

I never wrote about what kind of times new M3 will do or do not do on the ring. I didn't even know its time of ~8:12 or whatever until you mentioned it above. So, apparently the new M3 IS faster than the old M3s despite having more weight and weak brakes. Now it even confuses me why the heck are you guys flaming that car.

 

Datax, you know and I know that the reason why the M3 can destroy 911's easily on the track is because it takes way less skills to drive the M3 fast.

Like you said, BMW's are very very well balanced car and in my observations, really make the drivers look like Michael Schmacher when they are so not.

Hell, I got passed all the time in the 996 Turbo by E46 M3's when I first got it. But then, I passed those same people in my E30.

The difference is, at the end of the two day track event, my Turbo was still in one piece, with tons of brakes and no boile dfluid.

You know what happened to my stocker E30 after two days? I boiled the fluids and I vaporized a new set of brakes that were properly bedded. All this so I could pass those same people that passed me in my Turbo.

However, once you have mastered the 911 way of driving, you are unstoppable, as you have undoubetedly found out.

This is why I am disappointed with the E90 M3. It doesn't need to be 3600 pounds with no brakes.

Oh, and the 4 person carry doesn't hold a candle considering that mot got their E46 M3 with sunroof, effectively made rear seats no useable. Mine was ordered without it, and it was barely tolerable when I had people back there.

 

debating if i should the m3 now...

 

Lies...I've fit 4 people very comfortably in mine (and god forbid I have a sunroof)...

 

I suppose it depends on how tall you are.

Without the sunroof, with my helmet on, I had less than an inch of clearance. The one time I had to shuttle people, the guy behind me essentially had to sit sideways, with his head down.

 

Are you talking about 4 people with ****ing helmets on????

 

No, any normal sized guy will have problems fitting in the back of a sunroofed E46 M3. And that is without helmet.

The E46 M3 coupe is tiny in the headroom department, to say that it fits 4 people is well, I guess it depends on how tall those four people are.

I know the two guys that sat in the back that one time after a day of Vegas Speedway were not too happy, having to sit sideways and keeping their heads down, in my no sunroof E46 M3. And yes, after here means we were done and not wearing our helmets.

So, unless you are carrying two 5'3" small girls, it is not going to be a comfy ride. So, if it falls in the "it can be done" instead of "it is," then I would rather take a car that is ligher, faster, and can stop.

 

I disagree but whatever...

 

after really liking my e46 m3 im dissapointed in mostly the way the e92 m3 looks, its not a very attractive car, save for the power house amuse one that prob has well over 10K worth of work done to it.
the new m3 is in fact faster than the e46 m3, but the weight is horrible...my brochure states 3704 lbs! the weight of the vert, over 4100 lbs! and the price, just like the rs4 is overpriced by about 8-10K.
the m3 ran 8:05 at the ring on cup tires, without those cup tires youre looking at maybe 8:10 best time.
anyway, im sure your GT3 is SICK i wont argue over that cars amazing capabilities, as its easily one of THE BEST cars to ever come out of the factory!

 

Here's the unladend weight of the E92 M3. It's about 76 lbs more than and E46 M3 at 3,478 lbs.
As for the price, which would you pick, and M3 or S5?

http://www.m3post.com/goodiesforyou/mdctinfo.PDF