BMW M3 Sedan/Saloon Debut

[YSSMAN]

We've been waiting a long time for BMW to snap out of its haze and bring us a four-door version of the venerable M3 coupe. That time has officially come. And it turns out the leaked photo from earlier today was probably from BMW itself, as even though it wasn't included in the official batch of images released tonight, it's the same car you're looking at here.

On the outside, the M3 sedan gets plenty of work done to its front and rear fascias, leaving everything between the A-pillar and C-pillar intact from the base 3-Series sedan (sorry, no carbon fiber roof for the sedan). The front end is a complete carryover from the M3 coupe, with wide fenders, a dramatic front clip, bulging hood and vented quarter panels. Out back, a small lip spoiler sits atop the trunk, while M-specific quad pipes let Bimmer cognoscenti know that they're behind something special.

Naturally, the M3 sedan benefits from BMW's new 414 (SAE) HP 4.0L V8, allowing the 3,531-pound four-door to reach 60 MPH in 4.9 seconds and on to an electronically limited top speed of 155 MPH. In a move that should make family-oriented speed freaks burst into tears, BMW will only be offering a six-speed manual version at launch. Although, according to previous reports, BMW's dual-clutch M-DCT gearbox should be available at a later date. The chassis, suspension and interior also benefit from a host of upgrades, all available to read about in the press release after the jump and view in our gallery below. Look for the M3 sedan to debut in Los Angeles next month.

I nearly like this better than the Coupe, if only for the extra practicality of the extra doors. The previous M3 sedan was cut from the US-market too soon I'm afraid, but having it back should be a welcome addition to the BMW lineup. My usual question is pretty normal; How will it effect performance overall?

My guess is that this won't have a hard time sticking it to the IS-F, C63, RS4, and probably the CTS-V...

 

[Omnis]

Those speakers on the door = barf. I'll still take a coupe, please. The sedan design does nothing for me, especially with-- again-- those tail lights.

 

[Alex.]

Ewwww

Coupe for me please, aswell.

 

[forza2.0]

looks rubbish for an M IMO. Those speakers in the doors look like cheap aftermarket kit!

 

[Roo]

Good. Now make it an estate.

 

[Philly]

My guess is that this won't have a hard time sticking it to the IS-F, C63, RS4, and definitely the CTS-V...

^^^ Fixed 'em, although I would say that the RS4 and C63 will be tough battles.

Can I be a little different and say that while I don't think it is a great as the coupe, I don't really mind it? True, it is the 3-series which could be helped in a few areas but the M version is only better.

As YSS said, how is performance? That will really be the biggest factor for how good this car is.

 

[Joey D]

I still don't like the hood hump, it looks a bit out of place.

 

[livemusic]

I don't like the tail lights.

 

[Kent]

I don't think the performance of this car (on an engine/0-60mph level) will really dictate much of the standing it takes within the market.
What I mean by that is...
I believe this car will have a great engine, very good handling (even if it is off of the coupe's standard), and excellent overall appeal (although the pressence of an automatic may affect that appeal). Because of those three factors this new sedan M3 could lag behind compared to the competition yet still be valued more highly (not necessarily in cost).

Maybe I'm a sucker for sedans but I see nothing bad about this car. 👍
Compared to other cars it might not be what I would buy (given a choice) but I can still see this car would be awesome.

All that said... I'm still a RS4, IS-F, CTS-V, C63 Fan!

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

My guess is that this won't have a hard time sticking it to the IS-F, C63, RS4, and probably the CTS-V...

Will the IS-F have a boatload of electronic aids?

I just read about the Japanese ones being limited to 110mph, so I'm not sure what Lexus is trying to do there.

 

[Danny]

Anyone else feeling...underwhelmed?

 

[Philly]

Will the IS-F have a boatload of electronic aids?

Apparently the IS F will have the ability to turn traction control off. So I guess that means you will be able to work the gas and the brake. I'm working on a way that you will also be able to use the steering wheel if you really wanted to.

Anyway, the IS isn't really much of a threat being down 50 hp to the C63 and down 20 to the BMW and Audi. Apparently Lexus is claiming that this car isn't even designed to compete with the German three.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Apparently the IS F will have the ability to turn traction control off. So I guess that means you will be able to work the gas and the brake. I'm working on a way that you will also be able to use the steering wheel if you really wanted to.

Maybe they will have a special key that will allow you to turn by yourself, but it will only work under 35mph and with less than 10 degrees of input.

Anyway, the IS isn't really much of a threat being down 50 hp to the C63 and down 20 to the BMW and Audi. Apparently Lexus is claiming that this car isn't even designed to compete with the German three.

I could see that. It might prove to be a good alternative if it's significantly cheaper.

 

[Philly]

I could see that. It might prove to be a good alternative if it's significantly cheaper.

That might make it a CTS-V competitor (in a way) if it is in the same price range. The IS F being the one lacking in the power and performance area and the CTS-V taking up the spot with similar performance but lacking the overall build quality.

 

[Tornado]

My guess is that this won't have a hard time sticking it to the IS-F, C63, RS4, and probably the CTS-V...

Considering the far superior looking M3 Coupe gets itself wrecked by half of them, I'm thinking that this will be only competition for the IS-F.

 

[YSSMAN]

Considering the far superior looking M3 Coupe gets itself wrecked by half of them, I'm thinking that this will be only competition for the IS-F.

Power deficits are a problem, particularly when the CTS-V should be packing between 500-550 BHP, not to mention that the C63 would be in the same neighborhood. The advantage the M3 obviously has over all of them is weight, and probably the more "clever" sport-oriented engineering.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming fight, as it should be an interesting one.

Its still going to be a long while before the CTS-V shows up officially (I believe its spring 2008?), and the IS-F is God-knows-when here in the US.

Still, a good fight nonetheless...

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Er... the C63 won't be nearing the 500hp mark.
I'm waiting to see how well the coupe does in Evo's track test. I know the new M3 has been a slight disappointment so far, but I really want to like it, and numbers can be deceiving. They love the M5, and yet the Q'porte beats it around the track, and I'd hardly consider them rivals. So this power deficit doesn't automatically spell defeat.

I don't like this though. It's underwhelming... that first picture doesn't jump out at me as a top-of-the-line model. That and the taillights are still crap.

(EDIT) Reading over at Car, Im left to wonder exactly how big of a deal the carbon roof is on the coupe. The weight difference between the two cars is only 25kg, which seems awfully small when taking everything into consideration.

 

[forza2.0]

Power deficits are a problem, particularly when the CTS-V should be packing between 500-550 BHP, not to mention that the C63 would be in the same neighborhood. The advantage the M3 obviously has over all of them is weight, and probably the more "clever" sport-oriented engineering.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming fight, as it should be an interesting one.

Its still going to be a long while before the CTS-V shows up officially (I believe its spring 2008?), and the IS-F is God-knows-when here in the US.

Still, a good fight nonetheless...

The M3 is a big heavy mother. She only weighs something like 30kgs less than the current RS4

 

[Onikaze]

Silly 4 doors is never a bad thing.

I really like the wheels too.

 

[Tommi]

I think ill keep my RS4 thankyou very much

 

[a6m5]

I think it looks fantastic!

Good. Now make it an estate.

I don't want to get greedy, but that would be something....

I don't like the tail lights.

They've really grown on me. It seems to happen a lot with the 3's for me.

 

[TheCracker]

Er... the C63 won't be nearing the 500hp mark.
I'm waiting to see how well the coupe does in Evo's track test. I know the new M3 has been a slight disappointment so far, but I really want to like it, and numbers can be deceiving. They love the M5, and yet the Q'porte beats it around the track, and I'd hardly consider them rivals. So this power deficit doesn't automatically spell defeat.

Evo already has the new M3 as the better car on the road than either the RS4 or the new C63, in indirect tests.

 

[Pupik]

Those speakers on the door = barf.

Ah, but the sound won't get blocked out by one's leg. You either have to mount the speakers higher, or you have to put them near the floor.

I'm glad there's a 4-door M3. Have you ever tried to put a kid's seat in the back of a 2-door car? It's easier if you remove your head first.

 

[Joey D]

I actually like the idea of speakers up high. Pupik is right in saying that you won't have the sound blocked and assuming BMW put a Harmon Kardon sound system in the thing it will sound all the better without interference.

 

[Philly]

I actually like the idea of speakers up high. Pupik is right in saying that you won't have the sound blocked and assuming BMW put a Harmon Kardon sound system in the thing it will sound all the better without interference.

Who needs speakers anyway? Cars have engines and exhaust pipes for a reason.

And if I really wanted an M3 sedan, I would probably take one of these:

 

[///M-Spec]

I believe this car will have a great engine, very good handling (even if it is off of the coupe's standard), and excellent overall appeal (although the pressence of an automatic may affect that appeal).

If the E36 M3 Sedan vs. Coupe sets any precedent, the new ones should perform pretty much identical.

Theoretically, the Coupe has a lower center of gravity, while the Sedan could have a stiffer body due to smaller door openings (provided the M people used the same chassis stiffening parts they did on the Coupe). In the real world, though, there will be no substantial difference, just like there was with the E36 cars.

--------

As for the weight issue, this can sometimes be confusing, because manufactures may publish weights that are dry or wet, DIN or US SAE curb. It is further compounded by plain misinformation being spread on various internet websites who do not double check their numbers or are vague about whether a dry weight is being quoted or something else.

The DIN weight of the M3 Coupe is published at 1655 kg or 3,648 lbs. DIN weight is measured with the car fully wet, a 90% tank of gas and 75kg. for driver. Still... that's heavy. Interestingly, US curb weight is typically measured with the car fully wet, a full tank of gas and WITHOUT a driver. But despite this, BMW usually publishes DIN weight as US curb weight.

Here is a series of published weights for the E92 M3 and it's main competitors in US friendly curb weight format. I have, wherever I possible, included the source.


M3 Coupe:
3,648 lbs. (1,655kg)(Source: BMW North America)
"250 lbs. more than previous M3" (Car and Driver: 9/2007)

RS4:
3,957 lbs. (Audi of America)
3,952 lbs. (Car and Driver 8/2007; Car and Driver 6/2006)
3,957 lbs. (Automobile Magazine)

C63: "Roughly 3800 lbs" (Car and Driver 9/2007)
"3800 lbs." (Automobile)


It is understandably difficult to find RELIABLE curb weight figures for the IS F and new CTS-V. I have seen an article that puts the IS F at "1690 kg" but the same article gives the wrong weight for the M3 (1580 kg).


M

 

[TheCracker]

It is understandably difficult to find RELIABLE curb weight figures for the IS F and new CTS-V. I have seen an article that puts the IS F at "1690 kg" but the same article gives the wrong weight for the M3 (1580 kg).

Evo magazine in the past 6 months or so has started publishing actual weights of cars tested, i presume from a set of digital corner scales they've purchased. Different manufacture's official weights differ wildly from what the scales say. The options fitted to various test cars probably accounts for a fair bit of the difference - but it's a real eye opener to see how much artistic licence these manufactures claim.

 

[///M-Spec]

Evo magazine in the past 6 months or so has started publishing actual weights of cars tested, i presume from a set of digital corner scales they've purchased. Different manufacture's official weights differ wildly from what the scales say. The options fitted to various test cars probably accounts for a fair bit of the difference - but it's a real eye opener to see how much artistic licence these manufactures claim.

I love Evo magazine. Car and Driver also puts their test cars on their own scales and uses them for their full road tests. On press launches, where a scale is not available, they will publish the manf. quoted weight and indicate this.

However, one problem with this approach is magazines often cannot pick what features are on the test cars. So comparing two cars can get tricky. You could be looking at a loaded to the gills Car A versus a stripper Car B on the same page and think there's a bigger difference than there actually is if the cars are equipped the same way.

Still, I like it when magazines go with their own weight. So long as they are consistent as possible from car to car, its the most accurate way.


M

 

[TheCracker]

However, one problem with this approach is magazines often cannot pick what features are on the test cars. So comparing two cars can get tricky. You could be looking at a loaded to the gills Car A versus a stripper Car B on the same page and think there's a bigger difference than there actually is if the cars are equipped the same way.

As long as they also print which options were included on the test car you should get a pretty good idea of how far the truth has been stretched.

 

[Onikaze]

I guess I just don't see how people seriously cross compare the RS4 to the M3.

FWD turned AWD, beautiful engine, relatively Nose heavy.

RWD, beautiful engine, balanced beautifully.

I don't think if I had the money, that I'd really have any sort of a tough decision between the RS4 and the M3, nor the Merc, because while it's RWD, Mercedes aren't known for playing to the driver.

It's like people comparing Imprezas to Mustangs.

Just because they are at a similar price point and have about the same horsepower doesn't mean it's actually logical to assume people would seriously cross shop the two, as they are literally apples and oranges.