Car Trends Magazine

A car has got to be pretty spectacular to win over the curmudgeons here at 1585 Eisenhower Place, especially when familiarity sets in over the course of 40,000 miles. But our Sparkling Graphite Metallic M3 did indeed win us over. For less than $70,000, the M3 bolts from a standstill to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and turns the quarter-mile in 12.7 seconds at 113 mph. It pulls an exceptional 0.96 g on the skidpad, stops in 147 feet from 70 mph, and reaches a governor-restricted 161 mph. On a racetrack or a back road, it’s a beautifully balanced and hugely entertaining machine.

Aside from performance, the M3 is comfortable on the highway and has plenty of space for four adults. It has a full complement of luxury accouterments and yet is very practical—even the trunk is commodious. It has muscular, raked looks and a handsomely dark interior. A bonus is that regular service doesn’t cost a cent, thanks to BMW’s full-maintenance program, which lasts for four years or 50,000 miles. (The gas bill, however, wasn’t cause to rejoice, given this BMW’s 17-mpg thirst.)

When it came to ordering the car, we went with the so-called M double-clutch transmission (M DCT), a $2700 option that replaces the standard six-speed manual with a seven-speed dual-clutch unit, BMW’s first. We were eager to try this setup because dual-clutch transmissions promise the smoothness of an automatic when the driver can’t be bothered to change gears, as well as superfast paddle shifts in manual mode. In the previous M3 (E46), BMW offered a single-clutch, automated manual gearbox that was notable for its harshness in manual mode and its clunkiness as an automatic.

Other options included the $750 Cold-Weather package, a godsend in Michigan winters; the $3250 Technology package that dumps navigation in with electronic adaptive dampers; 19-inch wheels and tires ($1200); and the $1900 Premium package that bundles power folding mirrors and Bluetooth interface along with upgraded leather interior trim that has a distinctive carbon-fiber look.

The interior held up well, but the side of the driver’s seat got scuffed up. Rear-seat space was decent.

Who wouldn’t react favorably to a perform ance car so well rounded? Here’s who: some whiners on staff anxious to get past the 1200-mile engine-break-in period, during which BMW suggests that drivers never use full throttle and refrain from revving higher than 5500 rpm. Once past this period, our crew was fulsome in its praise for the BMW’s everyday drivability—although it pays to keep the variable shocks on their softest setting on poor pavement. We even noted relatively few iDrive complaints, at least until the knob that controls it became loose at 37,000 miles. (It was replaced under warranty, without charge.) BMW has since changed the iDrive interface, and the new setup is far easier to operate. Those who plugged iPods into the M3 were satisfied with the interface between tunes and car.

We always plan for snow in the winter, so at 19,903 miles, we installed a set of Pirelli Winter 240 Sottozero tires on the base 18-inch rims. We racked up 10,500 miles on these tires, during which the M3 proved quite adept at getting around despite all the white stuff that fell in Michigan last winter and spring. The car also rode better on the 18s, although most drivers felt the decrease in ride quality with the 19-inch wheels was worth it for the improved looks.

Spot the missing iDrive knob . . .

The service history was fairly uncomplicated, and with the free regular maintenance, the only out-of-pocket cost for 40,000 miles was $1450 for new tires. Based on our experience, the stock Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s should last roughly 25,000 miles for the rears and 35,000 for the fronts. As for service, after an initial 1200-mile stop to replace the engine oil and the transmission and differential fluids, the BMW’s onboard computer determines the service schedule. It prompted us at 16,210 (engine-oil change), 27,769 (various inspections), and 29,248 miles (engine-oil change).

Due to an oversight, the M3 arrived at our offices without satellite radio installed, so we decided to add Sirius pay-radio service in the car at 13,264 miles—the unwed among us were suffering Howard Stern deprivation—which cost $245 for wiring and programming.

At the 27,769-mile service stop, the M DCT transmission was reprogrammed as part of a service bulletin that resulted from the “sudden loss of engine power when decelerating to a complete stop with light brake application.” M3 forums describe the sensation as being akin to the car stalling due to the transmission holding a higher gear than appropriate. In any event, this mechanical foul-up never bit us.

Over the M3’s long stay, several drivers banged up the perilously low frontal underbody against curbs, inclined driveways, and irritating parking-lot barriers, to the point that we had to replace the engine splash shield and other underbody parts at a cost of $501. Other than this, the car’s exterior (and interior) held up extremely well over its 17 months with us.

The only significant complaints involved the dual-clutch transmission. In automatic mode, it works remarkably well, and it was hard not to be awed by the speed of the shifts and its smoothness of operation. Indeed, technical director Dave VanderWerp observed that it “upshifts so smoothly under part throttle that it’s easier to detect a shift from the change of the exhaust note than it is to feel it. Too bad,” he went on, “that the lazy throttle tip-in from standstill is so off-putting.”

And near the end, the dual-clutch transmission was making clunks and groans. Assistant tech editor K.C. Colwell was adamant that the transmission had loosened up considerably. Twice while the M3 was parked facing downhill, the transmission slipped markedly when the driver was trying to back up. If the clutches need to be replaced, our local dealer quoted us $3296 for the job! So far, none of the M3 forums has reported any issues with M DCT, save for the service bulletin already mentioned. Indeed, most owners seem besotted with the dual-clutch gearbox.

Most of the sentimental drivers on staff would have preferred a manual transmission in the M3, although the automatic function of the M DCT is good for mindless commuting. All around, this M3 was a far better experience than our long-term E46 M3 [March 2003]. Not only is the M3 dramatically improved in acceleration, braking, and skidpad grip, but it was utterly dependable. That 2001 M3 burned through 14 quarts of oil and used to sputter, stumble, and often stall on cold winter mornings. This M3 needed just two remedial quarts, the first of which wasn’t added until 25,000 miles, and the car held a steady idle on even the bitterest cold starts. Based on our experience, the current M3 is the world’s all-around best car for the money, although several staffers would have preferred to trade some of the coupe’s looks for the added practicality of the sedan. Choices, choices

RANTS AND RAVES

K.C. Colwell

This is the finest car on the market, period.

Russ Ferguson

The slow-speed launch can really suck. One auto-shop teacher accelerated very gingerly and got the M3 to buck and hitch like a 16-year-old learning to drive a manual.

Sara Quiroga

My only complaint about this car is that I don’t own it.

Mike Dushane

The dual-clutch transmission short-shifts at the slightest hint of wheelspin in automatic mode. Very annoying. I wind up driving in manual mode all the time, so why not save money and get the manual?

Steve Spence

Very grouchy sometimes in responses to the throttle. And that’s about the only negative to this great, great car.

Tony Quiroga

The M3 didn’t work very well in deep snow—and the winter tires did little to help. But in snow less deep, the M3 tracked beautifully and worked remarkably well.

Track Tires

Here are two truths about self-respecting M3 coupe owners: They would not even consider the optional sunroof that eliminates the distinctive carbon-fiber roof, and it’s likely they will end up driving their cars at a racetrack. That second sure thing happened to us as pseudo-owners, and after a handful of laps we’d obliterated the tread on the stock Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 tires. They simply can’t cope with the amount of heat generated by this 3600-pound thrill machine at its flaming limits.

So we went looking for stickier, street-legal track tires—commonly referred to as “R compound”—but finding them in either the M3’s standard 18-inch size or the optional 19-inch dimension was difficult. However, Michelin has one, a BMW-specific version of its Pilot Sport Cup tires, in only the 19-inch size. In fact, these tires originated with the Euro-only, lightweight CSL edition of the previous-generation M3.

Available only as a replacement tire, this “Sport Cup +” version (fronts, $353 each; rears, $416) features additional grooving in the tread, which compromises stiffness to be friendlier in the rain (which it is) compared with an off-the-shelf Sport Cup. And these tires are also able to withstand higher temperatures than the stock PS2s. Unfortunately, skidpad results were no better with the Sport Cups (0.96 g), and braking (156 feet) was a bit worse.

On a racetrack or a back road, it’s a beautifully balanced and hugely entertaining machine.

We returned to the 1.9-mile GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan, where we’d chewed up our stock tires, with much improved results. Although it didn’t feel like there was a whole lot more stick in the corners (our best time was a 1:38.1), more important, lap times remained consistent. But after almost 1000 street miles and a couple of dozen hard laps at GingerMan, the fronts (see photo) had 2/32nds of an inch of tread left. The rears fared better, only burning through half (3/32-inch) of their tread. Even though the BMW-specific Sport Cups didn’t outgrip the PS2s, having a tire that’s consistent and lasts significantly longer during abusive lapping is indeed a boon for the track-rat M3 owner.

Few automobiles have had the sort of longstanding street cred given to Ford’s Mustang GT. But the deference it has enjoyed for much of its four-plus decades has been called into question recently now that recently introduced muscle-machines from Chevy and Dodge have come along with larger, high-tech V-8s. With its comparatively small 4.6-liter V-8 under the hood, the Mustang has had a lot to overcome. Alas, with its lighter weight and charming handling characteristics, the GT still won our most recent Mustang GT/Camaro SS/Challenger R/Tcomparo, and by a fairly comfortable margin. Well, come fall of 2010, the Mustang GT stands to put even more distance between it and its rivals with a thoroughly modern mill of its own, the new 5.0-liter “Coyote” V-8.

Fenders Say “5.0” and Mean It

Developed by a relatively small team of engineers working on a shoestring budget, the new 5.0 V-8 is nonetheless quite an achievement. Codenamed “Coyote” during development (Ford says its official name is “5.0-liter Ti-VCT DOHC V-8 Engine.” We prefer Coyote), the new, all-aluminum DOHC engine features four-valves per cylinder and displaces a full 5.0 liters. Contrast that with the old 4.9-liter “Five-Point-Oh” motor that Vanilla Ice crooned about forever ago. Compared with that engine, the new 5.0 is nearly twice as powerful, producing 412 hp at 7000 rpm (compared with 215 for the old 4.9) and 390 lb-ft of torque at 4250 rpm (versus the 4.9’s 285) on premium gas, with 300 lb-ft of that torque available at just 2000 rpm. Regular unleaded is acceptable to use, but expect the power ceiling to drop by 10 ponies and 13 lb-ft should you choose the cheap stuff. As for that power peak at 6500 rpm, well, that’s near the veritable rev stratosphere on Planet Muscle Car.

Incidentally, the Coyote shares pretty much nothing with the outgoing 4.6-liter V-8 currently providing 315 hp and 325 lb-ft of torque to the 2010 Mustang GT. Only the bore centers are the same; nothing from the 4.6-liter will even fit on the new engine. Bore increases from 90mm to 92.2mm, while stroke increases to 92.7mm. The compression ratio rises to 11.0:1. Cylinder heads are now more compact for better intake manifold flow. The intake manifold is now partially exposed and dressed to impress during that all-important driveway hood pop, thanks to a halo-style engine cover that covers only the wiring and fuel rails. Slick.

Some of the newfound potency (and speed of development) comes about by following some of the same channels that the base Mustang’s gutsy new 3.7-liter V-6 employed on its successful quest to achieve 305 hp. Most significant among them is the fitment of Ti-VCT (Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing), which Ford says will be on 80 percent of its products by 2012. It allows for extremely precise overlap of the time that both intake and exhaust valves are open, optimizing efficiency during both high- and low-load operation. As with the V-6, the cooling system has also been reworked both for efficiency and effectiveness. Also important is that the engine was designed for the (possible) future implementation of direct injection and/or turbocharging.

Minor Fuel-Economy Improvement

Curb weight is likely to remain close to that of the current GT, since the weight of the engine only increases by about 10–15 pounds, according to Ford. The GT was already the fuel-economy champ in its class, but fitted with the six-speed automatic it will gain two mpg on the highway to 25, while the 17 mpg figure in the city remains the same as the 2010 model. With the newly fitted MT82 six-speed manual replacing the five-speed from 2010 (that’s right, six forward gears, like the rest of the performance-car universe!), fuel economy remains flat at 16 and 24, which is still an achievement considering the massive power boost.

As for that way more important performance figure—acceleration—Ford has declined to give us a figure. But we’re betting on a 0-to-60-mph number in the 4.6-to-4.8-second range and a quarter-mile run of under 13 seconds, based on that fact that we’ve consistently been able to hustle the Chevrolet Camaro SS to 60 in 4.9 seconds and through the quarter at 13 flat with all of its extra bulk.

The Rest Gets Better Too

According to Ford, the entire chassis has been retuned—again, following a rather thorough retuning for 2010—including a new electric power-steering system, new anti-roll bars, new wheels and tires, upgraded stock brakes, and a new optional Brembo brake package that brings four-pot calipers and 14-inch rotors.

The 2011 GT also gets a few new convenience items, including a message center in the instrument cluster, convex outer sections in the exterior mirrors, a programmable vehicle key, illuminated visors with storage, and a universal garage-door opener. Convertible models benefit from additional stiffening, too.

Styling of the 2011 Mustang, which goes on sale this spring, hasn’t changed a lot from 2010, although there is a new grille and the car does see a three-percent improvement in aerodynamics thanks to new rear tire spats and better sealing around the radiator and decklid. There are also three new colors for 2011: Yellow Blaze Tri-Coat, Race Red, and Ingot Silver. Clearly, then, the most important exterior changes are those huge, gleaming “5.0” fender badges, and everything that they signify.

(BY STEVE SILER)