Finally happy with my M4

[Montana M3]

Hi all-I've been doing a lot of reading on this forum and others, and have found the accumulated knowledge and experience here invaluable. This is my first post, and I thought I’d pass on my experiences with the F82 M4, both stock and modified. This will be a bit of a long one.

For perspective, I’ve been to four or five driving schools, have owned a number of sport bikes including currently a Ducati 999S and a Buell XB12Ss Lightning Long getting an 88” race motor as we speak, a heavily modified 600+ hp Mustang SVT Cobra, two AP2 Honda S2000’s, one with modified suspension, and a 2013 manual E92 M3.

I ended up with the E92 M3 because I wanted something that was powerful, livable, that handled well and connected easily with the driver but also had good build quality and a high quality interior. The E92 M3 met my expectations on all these counts. It was a fantastic car, classy and sporty at once, and when I’d added a catless test pipe, underdrive pulleys, a Macht Schnell intake and a Mike Benbo ECU reflash, it was really responsive and sounded absolutely fantastic. I loved the car, and it always felt special to me-not merely just a nice car, but a really special one. Alas, it had so many ongoing and ultimately unresolvable problems that it ended up being replaced by a 2015 F82 M4 under a set of circumstances I am not at liberty to discuss further.

This one was different. The F82 M4 felt light, sure, and it was nice enough inside, but it didn’t feel special at all. The interior trim choices seemed flashier, tackier than were available with the E92 and its understated brushed titanium trim, and the exterior styling seemed, to me, unnecessarily and detrimentally busier than the E92 was. It didn’t sound good, in fact, it sounded embarrassing. It had a lot more torque but seemed to fall on its face at higher revs compared to my E92. It was a lot bigger, and the steering was direct, accurate and immediately responsive but utterly lacked any tactile feedback; the seats were, for me, a lot less comfortable than the leather seats in the E92, with a hammock-like shape where the seatback meets the seat proper which tended to continually make me slide forward, even with the seat proper tilted backward/up at the front as far as it would adjust. The steering telescoped upward as it moved back, meaning I had to choose between having the steering wheel as low as I like it, or as far back as I prefer it. The seatbelt was also continually sliding off my shoulder and against the side of my neck due to the shape of the seatback. To be fair, I *was* eventually able to find a seating position that works for me by elevating the seat all the way, which solves both the steering wheel position problem and the seatbelt against the neck problem. In short, it was, for me, a very lukewarm, forgettable car, although nice enough, maybe the same way I’d feel about an Audi A4 with a bit more power, or perhaps a nice 7 series. I gave it time, I really gave it a chance to grow on me-and it never did, so I started looking elsewhere.

I looked at 911’s, Boxsters, test drove several last-gen CTS-V's, both manual and automatic. I looked at Mustang GT’s to try and get an idea of what a GT350/R interior might be like and how the car generally felt from the drivers seat, since an actual GT350 in the flesh seemed a bit more scarce than the average unicorn. I test drove a 2016 Camaro SS… and then I found myself behind the wheel of an ATS-V, not just once but three times. I loved it. My first drive was in an automatic car, and, unlike my M4, I felt connected to it immediately on a tactile, instinctive level. The car was highly communicative and immediately responsive, with superb sightlines and a hood profile that makes the car shrink underneath you when pushing hard. I found myself in disagreement with the prevailing view about its aesthetics. I found the long, uncluttered, clean lines to be elegant and understated, the entire car quietly classy, especially in black. The interior was likewise simple and elegant, with high quality materials everywhere I could see and touch, superb seats and a noticeably better attention to detail than was evident in the previous gen CTS-V. Even the dashboard, if less elegant and special than it might have been, was at least clean and simple. Finding my ideal seating position didn’t take long, and everything fell easily to hand. Every control I interacted with felt like it had been engineered for tactile precision and feedback, from the detents on the turn signal stalk to the magnesium shifter paddles. I was really impressed with the car.

I also found the 2016 Camaro SS to be an outstanding car, but it felt just a bit more up on its tiptoes than the ATS-V had, just a bit less settled. I’m not sure if this was due to the 20” wheels vs the 18’s on the ATS-V, if it was due to tire selection, or if it was something else. The interior is leaps and bounds better than the previous gen Camaro, although still a bit stylized for my tastes. In particular, the double hump over the instrument panel right in the line of sight is bothersome-but it did sound amazing and it was very responsive to drive, with a very good automatic transmission and tremendously fast shifts. Considering that there’s nothing to be done really to improve the magnetic suspension, massive brakes and substantial rubber, I considered that money otherwise spent on suspension/chassis/brakes could perhaps be put toward improving the Camaro’s interior shortcomings with the help of a good shop. Ultimately, though, the Camaro was/is a bit shouty for my tastes, and more importantly, it was not a tactile improvement over the ATS-V although it sounds fantastic. The GT350 is likewise an amazing car by all indications, but I felt that although the Mustang GT interior I *was* able to look at is much better than their previous efforts it is not quite in the same class as the ATS-V. I was also profoundly uninterested, insulted, actually, at the prospect of contending with the entire dealer allotment game, tracking down an eligible dealer with an unspoken for car the hard way, and the likely quite substantial dealer markups. I’m just not interested in playing those games no matter how good the car is. The Porsches are undoubtedly nice cars, jewel like actually in their attention to detail, but it really bothers me that Porsche sees fit to deliberately cripple the dynamically superior Boxster/Cayman in favor of the legacy 911. A company that prides itself on superior performance engineering deliberately under-engineering two of its three primary performance models somehow lacks integrity from where I stand. The Cayman/Boxster should be better cars than they are, and they could easily be so.

I finally settled on trading my M4 in on an ATS-V, the only remaining question being what kind of numbers they could come up with. As I was in the process of working through this with the dealer, the ZL1 Camaro was announced. The Camaro SS was not dynamically better or faster than the ATS-V although it sounds better, and it had downsides-interior and styling. The ZL1, however… now this is a car with some real possibilities. I’ve always loved N/A motors, with supercharged motors a very close second and turbos a distant third due to the way the engine responds to the touch, and I’ve always loved the sound of a good V8. The video clips I've seen for the ZL1 sound staggering. This is going to be a monster. So, rather than trading up to an ATS-V with an 11K delta upfront in my particular case, and initial depreciation on the backside only to, possibly or probably, swap out into a ZL1 as soon as the newness wears off and dealer markups disappear, I decided to hold onto my M4 for another 18 to 24 months and then reassess. A purely practical economic decision, which brings me to the good part.

Considering I was going to be in my M4 for 18 months minimum, I decided to do *some* work on it to try and make the deficiencies more livable. I took the car to Active Autoworke in Miami, where I had Swift springs installed, had my rear tires moved to the front wheels, had a set of 295/35-19 PSS’s fitted to the back wheels and had a full alignment done. Active also installed one of their catless downpipes, and they did a reflash with a dyno tune. With an estimated 10% differential between a Mustang and a Dynojet dyno, and a further 16% estimated driveline loss, I'm in the ballpark of 560 engine hp and a bit more torque than that.

NOW THIS is a different car. When I got in it and drove it for the first time, I was treated to the same tactile immediacy I had loved so much about the ATS-V. Now the M4 has not only the quick and accurate steering it's always had-but you can also actually feel what’s going on with the steering. The car has also lost that disconnected floaty feeling I disliked about it as a stock car. And the sound-now it sounds like a proper performance car, and I’ve actually found myself really warming to the straight six sound against all expectations. It is now tremendously more responsive and immediate, with a lot more power up top than it had before. I now like this car so much that I’m seriously questioning my anticipated trade to the ZL1 Camaro. As a drivers car it is in a completely different category-and the changes I had done to it weren’t significant. There is no reason BMW couldn’t have done this from the start-well, the power aside d/t emissions regs etc. Likewise, the changes I made weren’t tremendously expensive, and they made a night and day difference in making the M4 a proper drivers car.

It has occurred to me that a good deal of the disagreement about the M4 as a stock car, with some loving it and others hating it, has to do with whether the driver in question is more of a visual person or a tactile/auditory person. I think the former isn’t especially bothered by the general numbness of the stock M4 and can appreciate the undeniable speed and precision in response that even the stock car offers. Meanwhile, the auditory/tactile folks can’t stand the unacceptably numb steering, the slight sense of chassis disconnection, the artificial air compressor exhaust note. All in all, I feel I have completely transformed my M4 with a few well chosen but relatively minor suspension and powertrain upgrades, and at present, this is a car I really look forward to driving.

Last, I'm looking to pass on my old front tires-2x PSS 255/35-19's with 2300 miles on them. I'll post details in the classified section.

Thanks much,
Jon

[ItsaGoose]

Thanks for sharing. How has your traction changed with the wider PSS's?

[dmk08]

Funny. I had my car pretty much fully modded with good parts. Just moved back to mostly stock and much happier.

My new car will be very limited modding. Jb4, springs, wheels, and cf.

Too much added power or tinkering with the stock suspension too much definitely kills this cars balance.

[trey100]

Thanks for that. Good reading and feedback.

On your last point I am not sure it's black and white where some people are visual and others are tactile/auditory. There are many shades in there. You may be all to one end where the sound of the car and feeling every bump is important to you. Others may appreciate less of that, especially if the car is being used for non-track duty. BMW decides where they want the car to be to attract as many people as possible knowing some folks can go more hard core if they choose. If the car came lowered for instance, it may look better but becomes less useful for road duty. This, at least in M3 guise, is still a sedan that can be used for daily hauling and family duty. The M has good bones to work from what it appears to do that.

Glad you were able to tailor the car to what you like.

[dkhm3]

you did the stock 19" wheels 295 rear switch out recommended in the wheel/tire section?

it's crazy to know that those wider tires fit the stock wheels.

nice to know you really like it.

would love to get more specific feedback on the other mods.

[Montana M3]

Goose, I haven't had an opportunity to do any real hard driving, but between freeway on ramps and taking some hard corners, the car does seem anchored better than before. I'm finding I don't have to feather the throttle to put the power down the way I did before, for example. I'm also convinced that a good part of the improvement in steering feel specifically is due to the tire change, something one of the other guys on the forum, CanAutM3 I think, alluded to as well, iirc.

[dmk08]

Wider better tires and swift springs seems to be a good combo from reviews.

[F83]

Funny I've had both generations. I prefer the steering feel from the E9X but literally everything else in my mind goes to the F8X. Controversially I even prefer the sound (once you get the MPE and code off active sound - which sounds bloody awful) though I recognize I'm likely in the minority in that. Anyway to each his or her own. Glad you are happy.

[Msmall143]

i recently got rid of a ZL1. now way would i go back to it over the M4

[TRZ06]

The two biggest disappointments I have with my M3 is the damping tuning and the lack of being able to put the power down / overly sensitive MDM mode.

The suspension while great on the compression side, is way under dampened on the rebound side , which gives the car the floaty/instability feeling. Fixing that with Ohlin coilovers very soon.

The second issue is harder, but the RE71r's did help some, and either Euro MDM mode is next, or the updated firmware that is supposedly out by BMW. Still working on trying to find out if that is legit or not.

[shahano]

Seems like the M4 jsut isnt for u.. SO much complaining over the car. Better for you to move on.

[Never Convicted]

That was really interes*thud*zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[GrussGott]

Great write-up Montana! Mirrors many of my thoughts coming from the E9x. Of course any conversation here about the negatives of the F8x are eventually met with "my baby isn't ugly you are" responses so be prepared for that.

But then I see you've already met shahano and the crew.

[W///]

Originally Posted by shahano

Seems like the M4 jsut isnt for u.. SO much complaining over the car. Better for you to move on.

Did you even bother reading the entire post?

[ASAP]

Having driven an ATS V, anyone who speaks highly of that car will get an automatic internet slap in the face...

Talk about a POS that is internet hyped... yeah, the steering and susp is good... it also ends there.

[Rockapotomuses]

Good read op. I share your views. I think maybe bmw intended for ppl like us to mod. Would be nice if they offered these as part of the comp package. Im weary of aftermarket guys in Miami.

[nicknaz]

Glad you like it in the end op. You need to put a tl;dr in that post though

So springs,275 wide front tires and alignment have suddenly made the "feel" better for you? What are your alignment settings, if you don't mind me asking?

I too agree that tire swap and alignment are a must, but in my case, it was to add more rear toe in, since it was set at almost zero toe from the factory.

Personally, I place a lot of the f8x poor reviews at the feet of the PSS tires (especially inability to put the power down), and cold start. If the car was stock with re71r and mpe it would be pretty golden in the press

[TRZ06]

Originally Posted by nicknaz

Glad you like it in the end op. You need to put a tl;dr in that post though

So springs,275 wide front tires and alignment have suddenly made the "feel" better for you? What are your alignment settings, if you don't mind me asking?

I too agree that tire swap and alignment are a must, but in my case, it was to add more rear toe in, since it was set at almost zero toe from the factory.

Personally, I place a lot of the f8x poor reviews at the feet of the PSS tires (especially inability to put the power down), and cold start. If the car was stock with re71r and mpe it would be pretty golden in the press

I agree with your last paragraph to a point. I don't think you should need an extreme performance category tire to put the power down in stock form.

Many cars before it with the same range of power and with lesser tires have managed fine.

My 02' C5 Z06 was fully able to put all 405hp & TQ to the ground in 1st gear with fresh tires. And we are talking 10 yo tire technology.

[nicknaz]

Originally Posted by TRZ06

I agree with your last paragraph to a point. I don't think you should need an extreme performance category tire to put the power down in stock form.

Many cars before it with the same range of power and with lesser tires have managed fine.

My 02' C5 Z06 was fully able to put all 405hp & TQ to the ground in 1st gear with fresh tires. And we are talking 10 yo tire technology.

correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the stock C5z dyno in the ~340whp / 330wtq range, and come with 295 wide rear tires?

And the F80 is ~420whp / 420wtq with 275 wide rear tires? With shorter 1st gear for dct cars?

-20mm tire width and + 80whp is why C5Z can put the power down and F80 is hugely traction limited....

I am using 275 wide RE11 and the car spins through first and second with DSC OFF, so an old model "extreme" street tire is not enough for the stock power (which is AWESOME, don't get me wrong)

[TRZ06]

Originally Posted by nicknaz

correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the stock C5z dyno in the ~340whp / 330wtq range, and come with 295 wide rear tires?

And the F80 is ~420whp / 420wtq with 275 wide rear tires? With shorter 1st gear for dct cars?

-20mm tire width and + 80whp is why C5Z can put the power down and F80 is hugely traction limited....

I am using 275 wide RE11 and the car spins through first and second with DSC OFF, so an old model "extreme" street tire is not enough for the stock power (which is AWESOME, don't get me wrong)

You have your numbers mixed up.

You are using RW HP for the Z06 and crank HP for the M3/4

The Z06 was rated 405HP and TQ from the factory , just like the M3/4 is rated at 425HP 406TQ. Those are the numbers to compare.

The Z06 also weighed less, coming in with an average weight of 3150 lbs.

Yes, it did use 295's in the rear, but that isn't much bigger than the M3 tires and it's on rubber 10 years older technology wise.

Well, maybe RW HP is a better measure, I don't think the M is over rated that high and the Z06 was closer to 345/350

[The Nerd]

Originally Posted by TRZ06

You have your numbers mixed up.

You are using RW HP for the Z06 and crank HP for the M3/4

The Z06 was rated 405HP and TQ from the factory , just like the M3/4 is rated at 425HP 406TQ. Those are the numbers to compare.

The Z06 also weighed less, coming in with an average weight of 3150 lbs.

Yes, it did use 295's in the rear, but that isn't much bigger than the M3 tires and it's on rubber 10 years older technology wise.

Well, maybe RW HP is a better measure, I don't think the M is over rated that high and the Z06 was closer to 345/350

His 420 horsepower for the f80 was at the wheels (even though "factory rated" crank hp is 425).....which equates to roughly 475-480 crank hp for the f80. So he has a point in that 480 hp with 275 width tires is pushing things much more than a C5 Z06 on 295s.

[TRZ06]

Originally Posted by The Nerd

His 420 horsepower for the f80 was at the wheels (even though "factory rated" crank hp is 425).....which equates to roughly 475-480 crank hp for the f80. So he has a point in that 480 hp with 275 width tires is pushing things much more than a C5 Z06 on 295s.

I'm not buying that BMW underrated by 50 HP. THATS INSANE.