[ScullyD]

Originally Posted by Hit_Apex

Lots of nonsense here. I do think the fact that the CSL is compared to a benchmark (GT3) that is in a different league is a positive. There is nothing performance wise in the CSL that you couldn't match dumping less dollars in a base M4. From an investment standpoint there is a decent probability this car will hold its value, at the very least not depreciate as much as the base model. It's not a dollar per unit of performance proposition. There is a large market of BMW enthusiasts who (dare I say) have no interest in Porsche (or Ferrari, or Lamborghini, etc). Time will tell, but in this market smart money is looking for inflation resistant assets such as collectible art, cars etc.

Recent BMWs are characterized by how they feel and drive and not just by the numbers. The M5 CS just happened to do both (drive great and put down insane numbers), which is why it sold so well.

BMW spent a lot of time developing this car (we saw CSL test mules on the Nurburgring before the G82 was even announced). They also made this car even more limited than other special edition cars. As Johnny Liberman said once said about the M2 CS "There's a 100,000 km of testing by really good German engineers that have gone into this car. You can't just replicate that by putting on some Ohlins."

That's why this car costs what it costs and that won't just be characterized in 0-60 times or lap times. You'll need to drive the car.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by ScullyD

Recent BMWs are characterized by how they feel and drive and not just by the numbers. The M5 CS just happened to do both (drive great and put down insane numbers), which is why it sold so well.

BMW spent a lot of time developing this car (we saw CSL test mules on the Nurburgring before the G82 was even announced). They also made this car even more limited than other special edition cars. As Johnny Liberman said once said about the M2 CS "There's a 100,000 km of testing by really good German engineers that have gone into this car. You can't just replicate that by putting on some Ohlins."

That's why this car costs what it costs and that won't just be characterized in 0-60 times or lap times. You'll need to drive the car.

True, I really look forward to reviews from the honest and level headed buyers on this forum. Everyone else from YouTube to Top gear has an agenda whether that is more clicks, subscribers, access to manufacturers and cars, invites to events, sponsors, ad money or all of the above since I doubt I’ll get my hands on one within the next 10 years unless BMW plan to allow drives at events or at the M school.

[T_N_C]

I can't consider these a true CSL, nothing radical and not even truly "lightweight"

I understand they are starting with a heavier base but the whole point of CSL is for pure driving pleasure and they could of innovated something else and new to make it even more lightweight and show off what they're really capable of.

And rear seat delete? CSL always had rear seats….sigh….

Only 50kgs lighter, I was able to reduce close to 100kgs from my E63 M6 (which I consider it the true spiritual successor of the E9)

How I think of BMW Nomenclatures :

CSL - Lightweight pure driving pleasure

GTS - Let's go to track

CS - Beast mode

But other than that I do like it and think its an awesome car. Just not liking that they called it a CSL.

[Higgs Boson]

It's so cute when people talk about what the CSL is or "always has been" because there have been 2 CSL in the last 106 years.

Maybe what CSL means is still being defined.

Personally, I don't GAF what the last two CSL were, I see what this one is and I am stoked to be getting one.

[ScullyD]

Originally Posted by T_N_C

I can't consider these a true CSL, nothing radical and not even truly "lightweight"

I understand they are starting with a heavier base but the whole point of CSL is for pure driving pleasure and they could of innovated something else and new to make it even more lightweight and show off what they're really capable of.

And rear seat delete? CSL always had rear seats….sigh….

Only 50kgs lighter, I was able to reduce close to 100kgs from my E63 M6 (which I consider it the true spiritual successor of the E9)

How I think of BMW Nomenclatures :

CSL - Lightweight pure driving pleasure

GTS - Let's go to track

CS - Beast mode

But other than that I do like it and think its an awesome car. Just not liking that they called it a CSL.

How is CS "beast mode"? There was an M2 CS that was all about handling and an M3/M4 CS that were the same.

Or are you just referring to the M5 CS and it's 0-60 and drag times when you say that?

[JennyPenny]

I think, to save 100kgs for an M4 is amazing.

I mean, people keep comparing to older cars, but those cars will most definitely fail today's Euro NCAP or other crash testing requirements.

Cars are heavier today due to crash safety and particulate filters.

If you want to compare weights, it should be against their direct rivals, say C63 or Alfa Gulia or the RS4.

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by JennyPenny

I think, to save 100kgs for an M4 is amazing.

I mean, people keep comparing to older cars, but those cars will most definitely fail today's Euro NCAP or other crash testing requirements.


Cars are heavier today due to crash safety and particulate filters.

If you want to compare weights, it should be against their direct rivals, say C63 or Alfa Gulia or the RS4.

Funny you say that, this video below popped up on my recommendations today, which alluded to this fact and how the EU is ahead of this curve when it comes to safety testing standards, in comparison to the US' outdated procedures..

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by JennyPenny

I think, to save 100kgs for an M4 is amazing.

I mean, people keep comparing to older cars, but those cars will most definitely fail today's Euro NCAP or other crash testing requirements.

Cars are heavier today due to crash safety and particulate filters.

If you want to compare weights, it should be against their direct rivals, say C63 or Alfa Gulia or the RS4.

The first sensible comment

Bravo, and welcome to our mad corner of the world

[scoobystas]

Originally Posted by ScullyD

Yeah, I personally hate HUDs and think it should have been deleted from the M5 CS as well. I don't know why these aren't removed on these special performance models. It's not like they need to manufacture a new dash, you can order a base M4 without a HUD.

I had an m3cs which lacked the elbow rest and comfort access but…came with the power rear sunshade…🤦🏻*♂️

[ScullyD]

Originally Posted by MadBimmeRad

The first sensible comment

Bravo, and welcome to our mad corner of the world

I think the more time i spend with the CSL, the more it becomes clear that BMW M did the absolute best they could have done with the car. The 3.0 CSL with carbon body panels and a manual still weighs 3580 lbs.

In the UK (as opposed to the US) you can get an M4 CSL without the ultimate road pack which deletes CA, HUD, Wireless Charging, Folding mirrors, drive assist and rear camera. I guess we'd need someone to weigh two cars with or without that specced to see how much weight it truly saved to delete it.

That leaves the only criticism being lightweight door cards (i.e., should they have provided those). And then the question of "should this have been a GTS instead". If it was a GTS, with a wing and half cage, it would have weighed more obviously, and it wouldn't have been as usable on road. Lack of road usability is one that caused GTS's to sit around lots and depreciate severely. So BMW made the call to go road/track all-rounder while focusing on stripping out as much weight as possible.

I think the call to use the CSL badge, was ultimately, that it was the last chance to do a CSL. Most likely its going to be impossible to keep the next M3/M4 or M5 under 4500lbs.

As far as whether a CSL should have a totally different high-revving NA engine or a DCT (which is clouding reviews), is just totally unrealistic. BMW should have never stopping making a new DCT, but the DCT from M was far from perfect. As far as an NA engine, you just never would have made the power necessary to make the M3/M4 feel fast and alive because the CLAR architecture weighs too much. BMW could have decided to leave the 2/3/4 series on its own chassis architecture, but the cars probably would not have been profitable at that point.

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by ScullyD

I think the more time i spend with the CSL, the more it becomes clear that BMW M did the absolute best they could have done with the car. The 3.0 CSL with carbon body panels and a manual still weighs 3580 lbs.

In the UK (as opposed to the US) you can get an M4 CSL without the ultimate road pack which deletes CA, HUD, Wireless Charging, Folding mirrors, drive assist and rear camera. I guess we'd need someone to weigh two cars with or without that specced to see how much weight it truly saved to delete it.

That leaves the only criticism being lightweight door cards (i.e., should they have provided those). And then the question of "should this have been a GTS instead". If it was a GTS, with a wing and half cage, it would have weighed more obviously, and it wouldn't have been as usable on road. The second problem is one that caused GTS's to sit around lots and depreciate severely. So BMW made the call to go road/track all-rounder while focusing on stripping out as much weight as possible.

I think the call to use the CSL badge, was ultimately, that it was the last chance to do a CSL. Most likely its going to be impossible to keep the next M3/M4 or M5 under 4500lbs.

Such an absurd concept it is to add 1000 pounds to electrify a car which still uses electricity made by gas turbines

Soon, the M4 will weigh as much as a Mack truck

[ScullyD]

Originally Posted by MadBimmeRad

Such an absurd concept it is to add 1000 pounds to electrify a car which still uses electricity made by gas turbines

Soon, the M4 will weigh as much as a Mack truck

I think at some point, we'll look back on the G82 CSL as something really special. People forget the e46 CSL finished 8th in ECoTY and was called a confused and pointless car. I suspect the G82 CSL will have the same takeway for this year's ECotY, and in 5-10 years time, will be viewed somewhat similarly as the e46 is viewed now relative to EVs that weigh 1000+ pounds more.

[PLF69]

Originally Posted by ScullyD

I think at some point, we'll look back on the G82 CSL as something really special. People forget the e46 CSL finished 8th in ECoTY and was called a confused and pointless car. I suspect the G82 CSL will have the same takeway for this year's ECotY, and in 5-10 years time, will be viewed somewhat similarly as the e46 is viewed now relative to EVs that weigh 1000+ pounds more.

I think the G82 CSL will fair better right now and in time than the E46 CSL, modern cars are just better in many ways, the E46 CSL will always have its own intengible emotion it creates when driven but will remain a 2003 era car and the G82 CSL has the emotional drive + all modern features and advancements. It's just normal evolution.

I hope this electrifying non-sense doesn't last too long, but I have to admit that most M3/4 buyers could greatly benefit from having a small electric engine and battery set on board for when they are commuting, I ain't delusional and know I am in the minority taking my brand new Ms to the track and not using them as dailys. If the majority wins they win ruin it for ppl like me and we will have to switch to other brands because every 100lbs added brings the comusmmables up proportionally and there is a reason you rarely see panameras or M5s too often on track.

[gnx]

Originally Posted by ScullyD

I think the more time i spend with the CSL, the more it becomes clear that BMW M did the absolute best they could have done with the car. The 3.0 CSL with carbon body panels and a manual still weighs 3580 lbs...

This is so true. Sport Auto weighed the M4 CSL at 1612 kg. Autobild at 1607 kg. Autozeitung at 1618 kg.

A double clutch f87 comp with the big brakes weighs 1630 kg.

More figures: Sport Auto 5/2016 f82 M4 supertest 1615 kg. Same publication sometime in 2017 f82M4 CS 1609 kg.

6/2021 comparison test Alfa QV vs. M3 Comp with carbon brakes and seats 1701 kg vs. 1717 kg.

An early 2013 issue had the e92M3 with a DCT measured at 1640 kg.

People complain ALOT about weight gain but the delta is not that significant.

[HudsonHornett]

Originally Posted by gnx

This is so true. Sport Auto weighed the M4 CSL at 1612 kg. Autobild at 1607 kg. Autozeitung at 1618 kg.

A double clutch f87 comp with the big brakes weighs 1630 kg.

More figures: Sport Auto 5/2016 f82 M4 supertest 1615 kg. Same publication sometime in 2017 f82M4 CS 1609 kg.

6/2021 comparison test Alfa QV vs. M3 Comp with carbon brakes and seats 1701 kg vs. 1717 kg.

An early 2013 issue had the e92M3 with a DCT measured at 1640 kg.

People complain ALOT about weight gain but the delta is not that significant.

Totally agree - to me, it's somewhat obvious that BMW made the car deliver far more than 550hp and lighter than the claimed 1625kg - which is why it's so damn quick - they just wanted the moral high ground and underplayed their numbers.

[Gunnerforlife]

Originally Posted by ScullyD

I think the more time i spend with the CSL, the more it becomes clear that BMW M did the absolute best they could have done with the car. The 3.0 CSL with carbon body panels and a manual still weighs 3580 lbs.

In the UK (as opposed to the US) you can get an M4 CSL without the ultimate road pack which deletes CA, HUD, Wireless Charging, Folding mirrors, drive assist and rear camera. I guess we'd need someone to weigh two cars with or without that specced to see how much weight it truly saved to delete it.

That leaves the only criticism being lightweight door cards (i.e., should they have provided those). And then the question of "should this have been a GTS instead". If it was a GTS, with a wing and half cage, it would have weighed more obviously, and it wouldn't have been as usable on road. Lack of road usability is one that caused GTS's to sit around lots and depreciate severely. So BMW made the call to go road/track all-rounder while focusing on stripping out as much weight as possible.

I think the call to use the CSL badge, was ultimately, that it was the last chance to do a CSL. Most likely its going to be impossible to keep the next M3/M4 or M5 under 4500lbs.

As far as whether a CSL should have a totally different high-revving NA engine or a DCT (which is clouding reviews), is just totally unrealistic. BMW should have never stopping making a new DCT, but the DCT from M was far from perfect. As far as an NA engine, you just never would have made the power necessary to make the M3/M4 feel fast and alive because the CLAR architecture weighs too much. BMW could have decided to leave the 2/3/4 series on its own chassis architecture, but the cars probably would not have been profitable at that point.

I completely agree. When more people get to drive the CSL, the perception of the car will just get better and better. The car is an animal. It can be a precise tool but also can be brutal. Not a lot of cars can do both. The more you drive it the more you get it and I can't wait to unleash it on the track. The one weakness for me is the downshifts which has something lacking. Like you said BMW M division should've never stopped making DCTs. Even Corvette now learned their lesson and has a DCT.

I think the criticism has mainly been from UK journalists who sometimes like to get philosophical and get too involved in the past and traditions. While, it's good to try and hold car manufacturers accountable to keep cars from going in a completely wrong direction. We also have to be realistic. All car manufacturers are pouring all their money into EVs, and BMW is not a sports car manufacturer like Porsche. Look at the MK8 GTI as an example. It's a serious downgrade over the 7.5.