Just_me pointed out not too long ago, "why did the M3 need a V8,
to stay with the competition?" as we can see so far the numbers of this engine just don`t stack up.
BMW required a V8 because they said the inline-6 was already at its limit in terms of what they could extract out of it reliably. I think there is a sense of sour-grapes from BMW fans/Just_me (no offence), who wish to believe that power is everything, and the winner will have more power. Everyone knows there would be an eventual limit to when the power wars would have to stop, simply because an everyday person could not handle that power, and so couldn't the environment. I guess the M3 has started this trend.
I also feel that some people on this board really need to get it together... somehow they are making it seem like the world has turned upside down, and heaven has turned to hell. That somehow AMG and turned to M and vice versa. And in the end, its all because of expectations of the reviewers and ourselves. When you have an too high expectations, the only way your expectations can go is down, and that is the case of the M3. In the case of the C63, the expectation wasn't that high, considering the C55 (relatively). Hence the only way is up.
Does that make the C63 better than the M3 in terms of driveability etc? Despite the overreaction of several Merc fans that want to believe, of course not. It simply means that the two cars characters have come closer together, only a true comparative test can prove which is better.
So am I disappointed with the M3? I don't know, I've never driven it. But based on reviews I wouldn't say I'm disappointed as such - I'm more interested in the way they've changed their approach. Everybody knows that daily-drivability and on-the-edge-drivability, in general, are mutually exclusive at a certain price point. I think M had finally come to a cross-roads in terms of combining these two forms of drivability, to satisfy all customers. I've heard/read several times over that the E46 M3 wasn't very good in terms of its daily-drivability, such as "the raspy engine-noise can be somewhat tiring over long distances". Given that the M3 is now a somewhat high-selling vehicle to everyone not just enthusiasts, I suspect BMW couldn't simply ignore this. But they couldn't ignore the enthusiasts, which comprise a large portion of their fan base. So they decided to fork off and produce two cars to satisfy both customers - the M3 and the M3 CSL.
That's the thing that has surprised me most about these reviews, the fact that the M3 CSL is so highly advertised. I haven't read one review which hasn't commented on the CSL version. So I suspect that the M3 CSL will come soon, and it won't be a limited edition version like the previous, I also don't expect it to be overly expensive compared to the M3, primarily because I think it'll be mass-produced also.
I think BMW
may have done a wise thing here considering their circumstances. Everybody expected the on-the-edge-drivability, the performance and the supposedly daily-drivability of the Porsche Turbo/Audi R8, to be combined in the character of the M3. But
maybe it quite simply can't be done for the price of an M3. So if you can't combine both, why not do two? Let the driver decide which they want?
Truth be told still, if I were to win the lottery, I would buy the M3 over the CSL version. Because I still think the M3 will be a better drive than the C63 and RS4, but I would still have everyday requirements for the car. But I guess we'll see in the first comparative test. In the mean time, I need to win the lottery.
