Was A E89 M version every made.?
- Thread starter Yorkie Z
- Start date
Shame they didn't i would be saving my pennies to get one now 
I was wondering this a few months ago. As an e85 M owner, would an E89 35is be an upgrade or not. I couldn't work that out. Havent driven one so don't know what they're like, I suspect i'd know the answer as soon as I drove one for 5 minutes 
I've driven an E89 35i (both DCT and manuals). Nice cars, but they didn't float my boat. Not because of a missing M on the back, but because I personally prefer normally aspirated, high-revving engines (I know medium-term that's a law of diminishing returns), I like my LSD and the extra grip and confidence it gives me nailing it out of a corner, I prefer my hydraulic steering to the rather lifeless version in the E89 and because the E89 is too heavy. Arguably the E86 was too heavy so the E89 definitely is.
They changed the target market for the E89 and unfortunately they moved me out of it. Not sure it was the right move, which is why I think the Z4 is a goner.
They changed the target market for the E89 and unfortunately they moved me out of it. Not sure it was the right move, which is why I think the Z4 is a goner.
BMW brought out the 35 iS model with a short term boost on it and all the m suspension that was available as an option on the 35i. Gave it a short time boost of about 35 hp i think. I remapped my 35i with Dinan Stage II and it had 385 hp and 425 lbs of torque, all the time, not just for a short period. A dinan mapped 35i with the m-suspension would be the closest thing to a true M. I didn't have the suspension , that was a shame, but the car was a rocket. 
At our altitude I could stay with the new E9* series M3 (4000 ft)
At our altitude I could stay with the new E9* series M3 (4000 ft)I think the N54 is a great engine too and turbocharged it develops stonking power and performance.
But, there are those of us who like a nice, linear, power curve, where power increases right up to the point where you hit the rev limiter. In the turbo cars (new M4 being a prime example), the maximum BHP is available from about 5,500rpm up to about 7,000 (or whatever it's redline is). That's not a characteristic I like. Where is that reward for holding on to the limiter, that you get in the Z4M's? That last 1,000 rpm gives you that extra kick. It's habit-forming. They just love to be revved and it's a natural, gorgeous sound. I don't like piped engine noises through the speakers either. All of which unfortunately means no new BMW for me next time around.
But, there are those of us who like a nice, linear, power curve, where power increases right up to the point where you hit the rev limiter. In the turbo cars (new M4 being a prime example), the maximum BHP is available from about 5,500rpm up to about 7,000 (or whatever it's redline is). That's not a characteristic I like. Where is that reward for holding on to the limiter, that you get in the Z4M's? That last 1,000 rpm gives you that extra kick. It's habit-forming. They just love to be revved and it's a natural, gorgeous sound. I don't like piped engine noises through the speakers either. All of which unfortunately means no new BMW for me next time around.
Also how come Porsche can develop a new engine based on the Carrera S that revs to 9,000 rpm for their most sporting model (GT3) yet BMW just throw in the towel and gives us synthesised engine noise through a stereo and bloody turbos on everything?
I am with you on that one, there isn't a model that floats my boat. For cruising, my X5 has very similar performance to a 3.5i (not the handling of course), but for the true sports experience I would have to check elsewhere.
The 911 brochure has made a regular appearance lately, but with my Abarth experience where a dealer is far away, it is something I have to think about whether I could handle driving every time an hour to have a minor detail addressed.
The 911 brochure has made a regular appearance lately, but with my Abarth experience where a dealer is far away, it is something I have to think about whether I could handle driving every time an hour to have a minor detail addressed.
the move toward smaller turbo'd 4 pots may have something to do with it, the biggest market for the BMW is still the yuppie and Asian crowd. The Zeds were a bit of a sideline I think.
Better get a P car Guv. :driving: Just came back through the snow from the store in mine, only had it sideways twice :rofl: :rofl:
Better get a P car Guv. :driving: Just came back through the snow from the store in mine, only had it sideways twice :rofl: :rofl:
Because bmw wants their cars a bit more reliable than a 9k rpm monster, and bmw is a normal car manufacturer and porsche a sportscar manufacturer. That means that their carbon footprint has to be different than porsche's.original guvnor said:
It is not because porsche is technically capable of doing things and bmw is not.
Also bmw is (sadly) not in the supercarmarket.
Guido, I totally get that for non M cars but the M's should be different, bespoke. They sell in such small volumes relative to the rest of the range that their impact on CO2 would be negligible.
Similar threads
