[Multimodal]

New review of the G8x published in Road & Track today. It didn't seem to break any new ground - their core narrative was that the G8x has controversial styling and they're capable but clinical (so, effectively, they're German). My impression is that where it seems BMW made the F8x a bit of a handful at launch and later refined it through tuning updates and the ZCP Competition Package, the launch version of the G8x may have been a bit too far in the other direction and the LCI next year may aim to make them a bit more fun.


The BMW M3 and M4 Are Absurdly Quick and Capable, But Not Quite Fun
There’s no shortage of performance in BMW’s new M cars. But performance isn’t the only thing that matters.

BMW M cars have to embody a certain duality. In addition to being great road cars, they also have to be competent on track. The very best M cars can soak up hundreds of highway miles, hop right on to a racetrack, perform brilliantly without so much as a tire pressure check, then hop back on that highway for a relaxed drive home. The M3 and M4, BMW’s newest entries into the M car legacy, certainly seem up to the task, with tons of chassis improvements and a 503-hp twin-turbo straight-six under the hood. But being quick on track doesn’t make a car, as the Road & Track staff found out during a recent outing to Lime Rock Park.

Writers and editors who took some laps in the M3 Competition and M4 walked away with mixed feelings. Some echoed the internet’s disdain for the strange double-coffin front grille. Others praised the cars’ deeply impressive front-end grip and twin-turbo straight-six engine. But no one truly fell in love.

Unsurprisingly, looks dominated the conversation. BMW’s newest kidney-grille variation, which made its on-road debut with the 2021 4-Series, is a love-it-or-hate-it affair. Associate editor Mack Hogan falls in the latter camp.

“While I’d have no trouble recommending one as a do-it-all car,” he said, “I can’t personally get over how heinously ugly they are.”

The grille wasn’t the only thing people talked about. Looking past the front end, the M3’s and M4’s styling split opinions amongst testers. The M3, with its flared fenders and extra pillar, won out.

“I think you’d be a fool to get the M4 over the M3,” Hogan said. “The M3 is not only more practical, it’s the better-looking one. And even if it wasn’t, it’s not like the difference is big enough to overcome how heinous they both look.”

“The proportions on the M3 are nicer,” senior writer Chris Perkins added.

Deputy editor Bob Sorokanich was one of the few people who preferred the two-door’s styling over the four-door’s appeal.

“There’s something heartbreakingly goofy about the four-door we had, with the ‘look at me I’m a race car’ front seats in a body that’s just about identical to the sedan my accountant drives,” he said.

It’s true; the M3 we had on hand was a Competition model optioned with the $3800 M carbon bucket seats which, for some people, had a bit too much bolstering in the thigh areas, making them awkward to crawl in and out of compared to our base M4 tester.

Perkins felt the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. “The optional carbon bucket seats let you sit very low, which gives you a good sense of what’s going on underneath you,” he said.

“The bucket seats are excellent, supportive and comfortable,” said editor-at-large Travis Okulski. “But the bolsters are aggressive and make it hard to get in or out. The center piece is horrible and should be banished; it’s always rubbing your legs.”

The team praised the cars more highly after spending some time on Lime Rock’s 1.53-mile road course. With just six right turns and a left, it seems like a simple track on paper. But with high curbing and severe elevation changes, it was the perfect place to suss the two out at the limit.

Hogan, Perkins, and digital editor Aaron Brown all complemented the car’s immense front-end grip. “Between their trick electric adaptive M dampers, Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires, and everything in between, I felt like my innards were being thrashed around every corner,” Brown said.

“I went into the day fully expecting to hate them,” Hogan said. “But the M3 quickly impressed me. The powerband stretches to the horizon, the brakes could stop a planet, and the car feels so eager.”

He wasn’t the only one. Many were quick to discover the M3’s and M4’s balance, their willingness to make the driver smile. “Eager to slide and controllable,” says Okulski. “Great grip from the rear under power, and predictable when it does go away.”

The steering, in typical BMW fashion, is devoid of any real feel. It is, however, one of the most direct and accurate racks put into an M car in recent memory. “Absurdly quick and incredibly precise,” says Hogan. “The steering is accurate, but totally numb,” Perkins added.

Our test cars shared the same S58 engine in different states of tune. The M3, being a Competition model with the ZF eight-speed automatic, made 503 horsepower and 479 lb-ft of torque. The M4, a base car with the six-speed manual, made 473 horsepower and 406 lb-ft of torque. The engine was gushing with power in both trims, delivering a fat, meaty torque curve throughout the rev range; no driver was left wanting for more.

“The engine is a monster, but it feels like any other modern BMW turbo six, albeit with more power and a slug of torque,” Perkins said.

We were overjoyed to hear BMW would be making the standard transmission a six-speed manual, though the one we used in the M4 was less engaging than expected, seemingly on purpose.

“There's a ton of low- and mid-range torque, the clutch pedal is extremely light, and by default the car automatically rev-matches your downshifts,” says Sorokanich. “The net result is, you don't really feel like you need to work the car. It's perfectly happy in just about any gear. That's a disappointment, albeit a very, very mild one; the whole reason you order a manual is to be more involved with the car.”

He wasn’t the only one who didn’t fall in love with the M4’s unsettlingly light clutch pedal and decidedly un-special shifter. Perkins, Brown, and Hogan all noted their relative indifference towards the stick. “This is still a modern, computerized car and three pedals doesn’t change its core personality,” Hogan says.

Those things being said, most staffers said they’d still option the manual if given a choice. “It is that little bit more engaging and I like the ratio spread better,” Perkins says of the stick. “On track eight closely spaced gears feel like a bit much to manage.” Others, like Okulski, had nothing good to say about it. “The manual gearbox is a letdown,” he says. “It’s rubbery, tough to shift quickly.”

Another knock against the M3 and M4: The price. Our testers came with a ton of options; the M3 Competition priced at $99,595 and the M4 at $97,545. “They’re on top of the list of cars that make your brain automatically go into ‘for that money’ mode,” notes contributing editor John Krewson. Most staffers agreed, wondering whether the price justified the experience. Others noted just how close one could likely get the monthly payments to those of a new Porsche 911. Avoiding the $8150 carbon-ceramic brakes and $4700 carbon exterior package found on both of our test cars is a good way to make things easier to swallow. Though if you do plan on using the car for regular track work, you may want those brakes; “there’s fantastic initial bite and they’re easy to modulate,” says Okulski.

Looks aside, the M3 and M4 are spectacularly capable machines. The duality that makes M cars great is alive and well here, as evidenced by our hours-long track session that left them begging for more as the sun set. But as quick as they are on track, no one was fiending for more laps towards the end of the day.

“Overall, I like them both, but love neither,” says Hogan. “They’re stupid-fast, highly competent performance cars,” Brown adds. “But after the initial new car excitement wears off, they feel sterile.”

He was right. Both cars had no trouble delivering mega performances for each and every driver. The limits are easy and approachable, while the lap times were impressively low. But that extra nugget of intangible satisfaction you get with M’s very best is still missing.

“It’s easy to drive fast. And it is extremely fast,” says Okulski. “But I’m not sure it’s fun. It feels like too big of a car to really be agile and playful.”

https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews...-drive-review/

[Penguino]

Good read. A lot of praise in many areas for something they claim they hate.

[dialogical]

It's all just so tiring.

No, the M3 isn't a pure sports car. Yes, other cars feel more "engaging". No, none of those cars comfortably seat 4 adults. Yes, it's the best in its class. Yes, if you want a stick it's the only option.

I just want my luxury 4 seater super saloon to be "agile and playful." Lovely, great, thanks. Let me know when you re-enter reality.

It's the same stuff that drives me wild with all the folks that got banned from the G8x forums and now spend all their free time bitching about the car. You have to compare it to its peers, and compared to its peers, it's stellar.

You have to question someone's understanding of the typical consumer if they leave a track session with a 500hp, manual transmission, sports sedan and declare themselves "bored".

[02M3ForMe]

Fun is subjective.

They had consistently high praise for practically all of the objective stuff. Drive one yourself and decide whether these cars are “fun”.

[dialogical]

Originally Posted by 02M3ForMe

Fun is subjective.

They had consistently high praise for practically all of the objective stuff. Drive one yourself and decide whether these cars are "fun".

Exactly!

I don't need you to tell me what you think is "fun", Mr. Magazine Reviewer.

I need you to compare and contrast the other cars in the segment.

Something like "the steering is a touch less engaging than an Alfa, but way better than the Mercedes. The dynamics are better than the Mercedes, but the Mercedes interior is still nicer. For spirited driving the M3 and the Alfa are about tied, but the Mercedes is a much better cruiser."

Those are just examples, but it's so much better than a bunch of empty statements that lack all context.

[Multimodal]

I'm also frustrated by the price complaints. Almost every reviewer says these are now $100K cars and therefore Porsche 911 competitors. They start at $70K pretty well equipped in base configuration - the same price, inflation adjusted, they have been for 15 years - and you have to put a psychotic amount of options on it to reach $100K. A 911 starts at $103K and equipping them comparably to a base M3 will cost you $114K. (Add another $15K if you want a 911S.) That's $44K or 63% more expensive - not really comparable.

[dialogical]

Originally Posted by Mr. Maboomba

I'm also frustrated by the price complaints. Almost every reviewer says these are now $100K cars and therefore Porsche 911 competitors. They start at $70K pretty well equipped in base configuration - the same price, inflation adjusted, they have been for 15 years - and you have to put a psychotic amount of options on it to reach $100K. A 911 starts at $103K and equipping them comparably to a base M3 will cost you $114K. (Add another $15K if you want a 911S.) That's $44K or 63% more expensive - not really comparable.

The G80 will obliterate a base 911. Hell, a corvette will obliterate a base 911. The true competitor is the 911 S.

Then you're in a fun world where you're comparing a dual-purpose 4 door sedan to a "pure" sports car worth twice its price. Just makes no sense.

I wonder if people ever do these things to a 911 S.

"A fully optioned 911 S costs $180k, and that's only $50k away from a McLaren, so we're stacking them up against each other."

[Multimodal]

Originally Posted by dialogical

I wonder if people ever do these things to a 911 S.

"A fully optioned 911 S costs $180k, and that's only $50k away from a McLaren, so we're stacking them up against each other."

To be fair, they do: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/pors...e-911-turbo-s/

[dialogical]

Originally Posted by Mr. Maboomba

To be fair, they do: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/pors...e-911-turbo-s/

That's a Turbo S - significantly higher price point than the non-Turbo. But, either way, point taken.

Just as ridiculous here as it is with the G80 - although here at least we have 2 cars trying to do the same thing.

[Transfer]

I have a hell of a lot of fun in my X3MC. I can't imagine I won't have even more fun in a G80.

[snarkeygolbin]

Originally Posted by 02M3ForMe

Fun is subjective.

They had consistently high praise for practically all of the objective stuff. Drive one yourself and decide whether these cars are “fun”.

Agree with this, for me its the most fun car I have driven...

But thats the beauty of everything in life its all subjective.

[Asindhidude]

I literally cross shopped an M3 versus a Cayman T, and actually thought those prices were comparable- with similar options (mostly on the Porsche, premium package, and that's basically all, to match base features on the BMW) they're within 2k of each other.

Needless to say the M3 is a far better buy in that sense.

[barryc365]

I really don't get the 911 comparisons, totally different cars but I suspect it comes from a time when most M3's had two doors and a lot of M3 owners aspired to 'graduate' to a Porsche 911 one day.

Comparing the new M3 to the Panamera might be a better comparison, I need 4 doors so a 911 was never on the cards. The M4 is not even comparable to the 911 in terms of price or practicality or even the vehicle class it sits in. M4 is more of a GT style car and would be comparable to something in its price point like a Ford Mustang GT500, and the M3 comparable to Audi RS5 Sport Back, C63 AMG etc

[bri1042]

The Panamera (198" long) is more of a 5-Series or M5 (195.5") competitor due to it's size, I think. Both of them are truly huge. Might be the overall issue. The 911 is shorter than a Honda Civic (182.7"). Size-wise, the proper comparison is M2 (176") to 911 (178"), not M3 or M4.

The current M3 (189.1") and M4 sit at a size that doesn't map well to anything other than an RS5 (188.3"), Mustang (188.5"), or a Camaro (188.3") that I can think of.

The C63, the RS5, and the two similar-sized American muscle cars are really the only appropriate comparisons. Add in a need for four doors, and it's only the C63 and the RS4/5 (depending on if you live somewhere that sells both the Sportback 5 and the 4).

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by barryc365

I really don't get the 911 comparisons, totally different cars but I suspect it comes from a time when most M3's had two doors and a lot of M3 owners aspired to 'graduate' to a Porsche 911 one day.

Comparing the new M3 to the Panamera might be a better comparison, I need 4 doors so a 911 was never on the cards. The M4 is not even comparable to the 911 in terms of price or practicality or even the vehicle class it sits in. M4 is more of a GT style car and would be comparable to something in its price point like a Ford Mustang GT500, and the M3 comparable to Audi RS5 Sport Back, C63 AMG etc

The comparison stems from the fact that the M3(4) and 911 have been competing each other in GT racing on tracks around the world for decades. Further, a very strong appeal of the the M3(4) is that they have always offered near 911 levels of driving engagement with more practicality and far less cost, so they were very appealing alternatives. While the M3(4) have always been closer to their MB/Audi segment counterparts in size, they’ve been closer the 911 in driving spirit. Every generation of M3(4) have been pegged against the 911. This is nothing new.

[barryc365]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

The comparison stems from the fact that the M3(4) and 911 have been competing each other in GT racing on tracks around the world for decades. Further, a very strong appeal of the the M3(4) is that they have always offered near 911 levels of driving engagement with more practicality and far less cost, so they were very appealing alternatives. While the M3(4) have always been closer to their MB/Audi segment counterparts in size, they've been closer the 911 in driving spirit. Every generation of M3(4) have been pegged against the 911. This is nothing new.

I think that's wishful thinking from M3 owners to have them in the same bracket.

On M3 forums you often see people selling cars and buying 911's, I don't think you see guys saying I'm selling my 911 in favor of an M4 too often

When I think of M3's racing back in the day they were competing in touring cars vs Mercedes etc not Porsche

[heavyD^2]

Funny thing is that C&D (same as R&T) are massive Porsche fanboys (can't fault them for that either) and Porsches are more clinical in their effectiveness than any AMG or M-car. Motortrend acknowledges this preferring the M2 CS over the Cayman GT4;

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/bmw/...arison-review/

[dialogical]

Originally Posted by barryc365

I think that's wishful thinking from M3 owners to have them in the same bracket.

On M3 forums you often see people selling cars and buying 911's, I don't think you see guys saying I'm selling my 911 in favor of an M4 too often

When I think of M3's racing back in the day they were competing in touring cars vs Mercedes etc not Porsche

I don't think it's a profound statement to say the $150k car doesn't compete with the $85k car.

These comparisons are given validity by the magazines that produce those comparisons.

[Murf]

Porsche > EVERYTHING. Got it.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by barryc365

I think that's wishful thinking from M3 owners to have them in the same bracket.

On M3 forums you often see people selling cars and buying 911's, I don't think you see guys saying I'm selling my 911 in favor of an M4 too often

When I think of M3's racing back in the day they were competing in touring cars vs Mercedes etc not Porsche

I’ve been following GT racing for many years and have fond memories of M3GTR and 911GTR battling for championships.

They are not in the same “bracket” nor same segment, but they are cross shopped. I’ve considered the 911 as an alternative to my 2008 M3 and 2015 M4 when I made my purchase. But the price gap and loss of practicality were not worth the slight difference in driving dynamics. With the G8X, I decided to jump ship and go for the 911.

[KevinGS]

Fun and boring is all a matter of perspective.

Case in point, I think the latest 911 Carreras are fairly sterile, and dare I say, kind of "blah". Highly capable, and fun when really pushing it, but around town and even on some challenging back roads...not all that much "fun" to me.

And I am definitely one of those people who cross-shopped all the coupes (2-seat and 4-seat). I have an SUV to handle all my hauling and passenger transport needs. So I only considered 2-door coupes for this recent car purchase.

I investigated everything for about $100k or less, new and used...and I settled on the G82. I test drove and investigated a bevy of cars: RS5, C8, all Porsches (new and used), M2 CS, AMG C63S coupe, Mustang GT350, and more. All sedans like the Alfa, and the Caddy Blackwings, and the M5, never considered. Don't need or want 4 doors.

And again, the one that fits me and interests me the most is the radically-designed M4, with a controversial face, strong design elements like those running board, shiny side skirts (can't believe BMW bean counters even OK'd those things) and that aggressive rear diffuser with 4 large tailpipes. What an interesting design indeed, certain to cause all kinds of hoopla once the public saw it. And they knew they were going to hear it from their beloved past M enthusiasts. And on top of that, oh by the way, we're dropping the DCT.

For me, I decided I wanted the latest technology, a comfortable interior, and a raucous nature when I wanted it. I wanted something I could track, but could also drive across the country in. And I wanted something..."different".

I'm not going to list all the reasons why each of the cars I investigated didn't quite "move" me or didn't check enough boxes. Focusing in on the 911, and the Cayman/Boxster, I seriously considered all the iterations I could afford. And I either settled on they were too sterile and expensive (the new 911), or not enough of an all-arounder (Cayman GT4 and GTS). At this point, I simply need to get the Porsche I really want: the GT3. So it's worth me saving for the Porsche I want. And in the meantime, I can have some fun in the G82. By the way, I'm keeping my lowered and modded E93 with a full Akra exhaust, so I wasn't getting a 2nd convertible.

I always respect magazine reviews, but of course I always decide for myself what I want, based on my own criteria. Hec, if I would have listened to the masses or the magazines, I would have never bought an E93 either, a car I love so much...so many smiles/mile.

Thus, all of you who are perturbed that they think the car is "boring" and "ugly", and "expensive"...just move on.

"A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows the public opinion."

"Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion."

There will be many who abhor the G8X, and there will be many utterly fascinated by it, and others will truly adore it. The same has held true for my E93.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by dialogical

I don't think it's a profound statement to say the $150k car doesn't compete with the $85k car.

These comparisons are given validity by the magazines that produce those comparisons.

The price gap has shrunk quite significantly though. There was a time that a very well optioned M3/4 still significantly undercut the price of a base 911. That is no longer the case today.