BMW motorsport does not expect the new M3 to win races next year. Says motor sport engineering chief Thomas Ammerschlager – who came to BMW via Ford’s Zakspeed Capri and Audi four-wheel drive work – “l don’t think we will be able to win overall with the M3″, A pause. “We do think, however, that it will be very competitive in it’s class, “Pause two, “And we can also win the World Championship this way.”

But with the big 635CSi coupe winning Eurosaloon series counters this year and bound for the new World Group A series next, does BMW need another overall race victor? There is a thought in BMW’s slick, separate Motorsport Gmbh operation on Munich’s Preussentrasse that if the twin-cam, four-valve M635CSi supercar takes off in the United States, then that too might finally be homologated in Group A, Selling the necessary 5000 of the near-£40,000 car in Europe in 12 calendar months has defeated BMW in the past, but if the US will take up the slack in sales, then, for 1988, BMW can hit the opposition with an M6-M3 one-two.

So this £17,600 BMW M3 appears to be what used to be called an homologation special: a pejorative term coined to dismiss hard-riding, torque-less, noisy, limited-production machines aimed solely at letting a manufacturer chisel its way into international motor sport. Not true, BMW believes that final M3 production over the model’s unspecified lifespan will total 13,000, much more than the 5000 required to give the car a Group A homologation number and a free passage onto the starting grid. And, naturally, the M3 is closer to being a pedigree machine than simply a crude raiding of the company parts-bins in the name of sporting glory.

For a start, it looks radically different to any other yuppie-dream three-series. Steel wheelarches with quattroid flares are designed to mask racing tyres up to 10in wide. There is a deep front airdam, complete with blanking plates over brake cooling ducts. A neat, surprisingly low-key rear wing echoes back to 1973’s BMW 3.0CSL, the first European production-based race car to up the aerodynamic ante.

Even the rear window is raked an extra 3, and the plastic bootlid raised by 40mm for aerodynamic gain. Add into that mix front and rear screens which are bonded directly to the bodyshell to slick out the airflow and up chassis stiffness and BMW’s intentions look a shade more serious, in the windtunnel, the drag factor drops from Cd 0.38 to Cd 0.33 with a front/rear lift coefficient of 0.12/0.04. While the rival Ford Sierra RS Cosworth creates negative downforce at all speeds, the M3 is only a jot less efficient: yet neither car has a rear aerofoil with an adjustable centre blade to finely trim downforce from track to track.

Thomas Ammerschlager’s men have worked long and hard on the road car suspension. At the front end, castor angles have been tripled over three-series norm to dial some steering feel into the M3. Beefier five-series wheelbearings are used in now stub axles. Thickening the anti-roll bar, pivoting it on the outside of the strut and altering the mechanical advantage of those pivots has effectively doubled the roll- stiffness of any previous three-car. By contrast, save for the same twin-tube shocks, super-duty anti-roll bar and 25% locking factor limited slip differential, the rear axle of the M3 is much closer to off-peg BMW. Larger diameter and thicker ventilated discs hide behind 15in BBS alloy wheels and come with ABS anti-lock as standard.

Ammerschlager would like to see the M3 suspension become available across the three-series range as a factory option – which immediately highlights just how supple the ride on 205/55 low-profile rubber is. “It depends if the sales people can sell it for what it (should) cost” he says, “its brakes, suspension, struts and steering, “Ammerschlager smiles, “It isn’t cheap. It’s not just changing shocks and fitting shorter springs, you know….”

If the suspension and brakes sound good, then the new M3 engine should be even better, To pigeonhole it a little too neatly, this 2303cc four is simply two-thirds of the glorious twin-cam, 3.5-litre, 286bhp straight-six previously employed to leer butchly from the engine bay of BMW’s labeled M1, M5 and M635.

Why a four and not a unit based on the 325’s smooth-as-Jeffrey Archer six? A shorter crank lets the race engine scream at 9000rpm with a projected 10,000rpm maximum and there is, claims BMW, more torque pumped from down below from four big 93.4mm pistons. The block is the BMW 1500 heart from the ‘sixties which was the high-boost core of Nelson piquet’s 1983 World Championship-winning Brabham BT52B-BMW.

Unlike the gear-driven cams of the M12/13 Formula One engine, the M3 unit uses a duplex chain to rotate the twin overhead cams. Valve sizes are 37mm inlet and 32mm exhaust with a central spark-plug in a clean, pent-roof combustion chamber. Four throttle butterflies each feed an individual inlet tract with a Bosch Motronic engine management system monitoring the mixture and all other vital functions.

In line with the new German motoring morality-high performance is almost acceptable while exhaust pollution certainly isn’t – the M3 is available in two versions. With and without an exhaust-cleaning catalyst. The cat-car loses 5bhp from the free-breathing specification’s 200bhp at 6750rpm and has 7lb/ft trimmed from the cat-free’s 177lb/ft at 4750rpm torque output. On the road, the comparable 0-62mph times are 6.7 seconds down to 6.9s and top speed is reduced from 146mph to 143ph.

Two factors emerge from this backhanded acknowledgement that Germany’s environmentalist Green Party might just have a point. Firstly, with the catalyst in place and having sophisticated plastic bumpers which meet all worldwide requirements as standard, the M3 can be exported to America to dawdle musclebound in a 55mph world. Secondly, it proves that for fresh-air reasons BMW will ease back on the M3’s power output a little.

Now, eventually, the M3 will go to right-hand drive Japan but not to right-hand drive Britain. Why not? Because in Japan driving a European quality left-hooker confers a certain status: in Britain left-hand drive cars, however rare, are a fiscal disaster when finally traded in. And Ammerschlager reckons that unknitting the exhaust manifold on this angled engine – to feed a right-hand drive steering column through – would slash horsepower. “Technically speaking, anything is possible, of course. But a substantial docrease in engine power in right-hand drive form would distort this car’s character. “How much power would any British-market car lose? “About 15.20bhp, l’d say.”

On the road, the M3 chassis immediately excels while the jury is out over the ultimate engine performance. Compared to a standard three-series, the M3 underpinnings lose nothing and gain everything. The ride/handling manifesto is a marvelous compromise, with a supple ride being matched by a consistent grip. Turn-in is neat and tidy, the ABS-brakes are phenomenal, right up there in the Sierra Cosworth bracket, yet without even the slightest hint of that car’s steering-wheel tango under hard usage. Indeed, the overriding feeling issued by the M3 is one of thoroughly engineered quality: even the engine mounts are hydraulic to damp the four-pot buzz from perculating into the cockpit. The whole car feels solid, beautifully finished, clean and somber and crisp. It feels, well, like a BMW.

On the track, the road car reveals a gentle oversteer which can be provoked on the throttle and an easy-going understeer through slow to medium-speed turns. Firm and understated driving brings out the best in the chassis: sideways is slow in this car.

Looking at the power and torque curves for the M3 engine they seem meaty enough. But on the road, there is little effective power below 4000rpm. This is an engine which has to spin to deliver, and all from 4000rpm to the cut-out at 7250rpm. Keep the engine alive on the throttle and the car becomes quick rather than staggeringly fast, but it is a technique which places demands on the driver. There is little about getting the most from this engine which is easy or relaxing: yes, it will pull from 30mph in fifth gear, but that is not the point. To go quickly the gearbox must be used, the right ratio found at exactly the right time.

And that gearbox has a racing gate, with first opposite reverse and the top four gears filling out the H. Ratios are close, top is direct rather than overdrive and the shift can seem clonky thanks to insipid spring loading across the horizontal plane. You need closer to three days than three hours to begin to suss out the M3. A long, hard journey would answer all the questions over whether or not you could live with the peaky power band and the stolid shift.

Chances are you could. Chances are you’ve been spoilt by a succession of blandly obsequious user-friendly cars, and to use this real driver’s car on real driver’s road is, initially, enough to send your system into sugar-shock.

Right now, race prototype one, the muletta, has spent 2000 miles being pounded around Italy’s Mugello circuit by Austrian saloon ace Dieter Quester. He says it is going to be a great race car. “It’s much more neutral than the road car” he confirms as he chauffeurs you around the superbly challenging Tuscan track in a fine whistle or road M3 Uniroyal-squeal. “But this car is good for a road car, no? “he says as he uses the kerb to straighten out his corner exit. Next lap he turns-in earlier to compensate for the rear tyres going off a fraction. Tomorrow he will be back in the muletta, working on 1987.

BMW won’t run a works M3 team next year. Instead, Quester and Ammerschlager’s army will work on producing a Group A racing specification for any race team to buy. “There will be an engine kit, suspension, wheels, even the fuel tank” says Ammerschlaer. “It will be like a CKD (completely knocked down) kit in a box, “Charley Lamm’s Schnitzer team will get to open the M3 box along with a host of teams contesting both the World and various national European Group A series. Except for Britain, of course: BMW GB won’t race a model that is not sold in this country.

A 300bhp 2.3-litre BMW M3, even though Ammerschlager promises the car will be on the 960kg class weight limit, won’t be able to hold the turbo-torque of, say, a 400bhp 2.0-litre Ford Sierra RS Cosworth on the race-track. But when you ask BMW Motorsport what they learned most about developing the Formula One engine since 1981, the reply does not centre on materials technology, Bosch Motronic programming, fuel chemistry or valve timing. No, says Ammerschlager, what BMW learned about is turbocharging. Does this mean BMW Motorsport’s future might include a turbocharged car? A turbocharged M3, perhaps? Ammerschlager says, carefully, “that it’s a bit premature to talk about any projects we envisage for the future. But it’s possible, yes”.

And rallying? There is a four-wheel drive 325i in the BMW brochure now. Would that driveline fit snugly beneath an M3 to produce a Ford Sierra XR4×4-beating, 4wd Mazda 323-pummeling loose-surface rally star? Ammerschlager worked on engineering Audi’s Quattro-system to its more prosaic models and building on the all-wheel drive future: privately he can talk of a day, 10 years hence, when torque-split changes progressively through a corner from turn-in power on. But a 4wd M3?

“I’m pretty sure that this won’t become a four-wheel drive BMW, because the engine modifications to get the system to fit would be so substantial that they wouldn’t be worth it….”so BMW Motorshport does not want to win rallies, does not expect to win races. A World Championship, saloon car style, would do nicely instead. And so, even more than it appears initially, the BMW M3 will become the definitive class act.

Related posts:

1. Saloon Racer – F1 Style BMW's Group A M3 saloon racer is designed to bring...
2. BMW M3 Thoroughbred Bavarian race technology for the street....
3. MMM… With their Formula One participation poised to cease, BMW are...

Time to wake up. BMW has finally recovered from the shock when it had to watch Daimier-Benz marching into its territory and selling small sports sedans. Now the Bavarians are hitting back. They started with the 325i in Europe, the first whole-heartedly acceptable successor of the lamented 2002tii. Now comes the Three Series-based M3, BMW’s tardy answer to the Bomber-Benz 190E 2.3-16.

What’s more development of the M3’s 16valve four yielded as much power in European catalyst form as it did in US early spec about 200bhp Düsseldorf or Des Moines. A US BMW spokesman says DOT/EPA versions of the car will come to the US early in 1987, and that performance differences between those cars and our European M3 test car will be negligible.

The formula is much the same as Mercedes: 2.3litres in four cylinders, 16valves and on top of it a full load of aerodynamic body-modifications that are a matter of taste, to say the least. Visually the M3 represents pretty heavy stuff, bulbous wheel-arch extensions, spoilers, rear wing and all. The latter does give worthwhile reduction in rear-end lift, though-in conjunction with other add-ons that need a second glance to become obvious. In fact the complete upper rear section proves to be unique. It is made of plastic and gives and gives a slightly flatter rear window with a correspondingly shorter trunklid. All this not only improves high-speed stability to very satisfactory levels, it also reduces aerodynamic drag, the coefficient dropping from 0.36 (325i) to 0.33. It might help to bear that in mind when trying to install luggage through the now very narrow boot opening into a much smaller compartment.

Inside the M3 things look a lot more restrained. The fuel gauge housed within the big rev-counter had to make way for an oil temperature gauge. Deeply profiled sports seats, an option on other Three series BMWs, are standard and – the fiddly height-adjustment apart-an excellent compromise.

The whole interior gives an impression of how scrupulous German car manufacturers can be when it comes to functionality. If you expect to have a right to decadent luxury after paying 58,300 Dmarks/$27,100(in Germany) for a car, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Things like leather upholstery, air conditioning and even ventral door locks have to be ordered as extras (As with the Mercedes, these specs might differ for the US). The BMW’s aura is Spartan rather than baroque and that makes it very refreshing.

The expensive looking parts of this BMW lie beneath its skin. Open the hood and you will get spoiled. What you see is a small but beautiful example of Bayerische Motoren Werke at its best, all tastefully made up. The fact that this new hero counts fewer cylinders and fewer cc’s than the much cheaper 325i (33,000 DM/S15,350 in Germany) doesn’t mean much. What counts is the result, expressed in bhp, and here the new four cylinder scores. Whereas BMW’s small six cylinder (M20-series) with 2.5 liters and 171bhp has pretty much reached its limits, the M3 engine is still rather under stressed. Two hundred bhp might look like a good start, but if one examines things a bit closer-especially the M3’s new multi-throttle fuel injection- there is no doubt plenty in reserve for future activities, specifically those on European race tracks.

Nevertheless BMW’s PR people don’t find it easy to explain that apparent lack of cylinders to traditional customers. They have to reach way upscale to the current 1.5liter Formula One engine, in fact, to give the right clues. Though, to be honest, the relation between these two engines is rather loose. One of the differences: to squeeze the required 2.3 liters into the four cylinder-block (still dating back to the old faithful M10-series), the bore had to be widened to 93.4mm, losing the waterjackets between cylinders. Stroke measures a rather long 84mm.

Even if it doesn’t have all that much in common with the F1 motor, there can be no doubt that this engine is a real thorough-bred. It feels like one and it acts like one, giving that full-blooded bite one misses with so many products of the electronic fuel injection age. Power keeps on pouring in, instantly and right through the rev-band. Floor the throttle at 1500rpm and you will feel an impressive punch that belies the small size of this engine. The way it urges up to its 7100rpm limit should recreate that healthy smile that some BMW drivers lost long ago. In that respect the new M3-engine undoubtedly sets new standards in its class, making its 167bhp archival with the three-pointed star feel fairly emasculated.

The M3 used for this test, however, didn’t quite live up to our expectations as far as the figures were concerned. 100km/h (62mph) came up after a standing start in 7.8sec, considerably short of the claimed 6.7sec. 160km/h (100mph) took 19.1 sec, the quarter mile being covered in 15.5sec. While this is nothing to complain about, BMW itself make it look slightly disappointing. An ordinary 325i (0-62mph:7.7sec;0-100mph:20.2sec;quarter mile:15.5sec) can give the M3 a good run for its money, proving that 29 additional horsepower is not by itself enough to open new dimensions. Like the Mercedes, the extra power mostly shows up at the top end: When we took the M3 to the autobahn it pulled nearly 7000rpm in fifth gear, which is fast by anybody’s standard. The maximum speed worked out to be 237km/h (148mph), one click quicker than promised and, thanks to a close ratio five-speed box, well within the working range on unlimited highways.

The gearbox itself proves to be just what a proper sports-sedan needs. Once used to first being sited out to the left, to allow second through fifth to form the H, it makes hunting through the gears a joy, with at least two ratios to choose from at almost any speed.
With that kind of powertrain at one’s command, it proves difficult to resist digital driving, i.e. with power either fully on or fully off. So it comes as no surprise that in real life the M3 doesn’t exactly qualify as a fuel-miser. Average consumption amounted to 16.9mpg with a low of 14.0mpg. It may be comforting to know, though, that under restrained driving 21.8mpg is well within reach.

Good news as the M3-engine certainly is to the enthusiast, there is one area where it is badly lacking refinement. Surely the fact that two cylinders are missing does not stay unnoticed. But even if one doesn’t expect the ultra-sweet behavior of a typical BMW six, the M3’s lack of manners in this respect is disappointing. Running between 4000rpm and 5500rpm induces a high frequency exhaust-boom that can’t be called exciting any longer. It is nerve racking. That this happens in a very useful rev-range makes it even more annoying.

Perhaps this shortcoming is more irritating on the BMW than it would be on other cars because in all other departments the M3 is admirably civilized. Driven fast over undulating roads, it is proof that even a car of such pronounced sporting nature doesn’t have to be uncomfortable. The M3’s suspension, basically standard Three-series but carefully tuned to cope with its increased performance, is well dumped but still soft enough to keep the wheels on the ground under all but the most extreme circumstances. The ride feels firm but well controlled and is complemented by outstanding handling qualities, with light, precise steering, quick reactions and little understeer, when turning into corners. Pressing on the M3 reassures its driver with basically neutral cornering and makes him feel free to manipulate it into satisfying oversteer, should he be in that kind of mood. A limited slip differential (25 percent) ensures sufficient progress under extreme circumstances.

There are moments, though, when the M3 needs special care and attention. They show when braking hard, especially on less than perfect road surfaces. Directional stability, otherwise one of the M3’s strong points, suffers noticeably, although the brakes themselves (ABS is standard equipment) leave nothing to be desired.

So what do you get? Apart from a steep drop in your bank account, no more and no less than a sports-sedan par excellence. No doubt the M3 represents the current state of art as far as sensible sporting machinery is concerned. That said, it might come as a surprise that it also is a homologation special, destined for the European Touring Car Championship.

With BMW’s exit from F1, it is in the Touring Car Championship that BMW will keep its motorsports flag raised in Europe. The M3 should serve it well.

Related posts:

1. BMW M3: From Munich with Brio M as in macho, muscle, and more fun. M as...
2. MMM… With their Formula One participation poised to cease, BMW are...
3. Best Ever! Burkard Bovensiepen's Alpina firm is recognized as a manufacturer, not...

BMW Motorsport Gmbh is without question one of the most experienced and effective of all competition-orientated research and development units. Its subtle M-motifs have distinguished BMW’s remarkable M5 performance four-door saloon and the mouth-watering-if-very expensive-M635CSi Coupe, and now these respected badges are appearing on what will initially at least be a 5,000-off homologation batch of 3-series two-door saloons intended to legalise the model for International Group A touring car racing from the start of next season. The new model is called, simply, the BMW M3.

Now the good news is that this top-of-the-range 3-series feels very nearly as good as it sounds with its 7,000rpm 16-valve four-cylinder fuel-injected engine delivering 200 horsepower. Such sheer, basic grunt is accompanied by an extremely high standard of refinement, ride and roadholding which is provided by extensive modification to both the basic 3-series bodyshell and the running gear.

But the bad news is that we shall not be seeing the model here in the UK. Now considering that this is one of the most enthusiastic of performance-orientated markets, why won’t we be getting it Essentially the tall 2.3-litre engine is a slant-four, angled to the right to minimise bonnet height, induction on the left, four branch fabricated exhaust manifolding dropping down to the right. Motorsport’s M3 engineering group, headed by ex-Ford and Audi boffin Dr Thomas Ammerschlager, has toyed with ways to insinuate right-hand drive steering beneath that slant-head and clear of a suitably efficient exhaust manifold, but they have concluded that it can’t be done.

“We would have to replace the ‘fan’ manifold with a cast one and that would probably cost us 15 maybe 20 horsepower”. A right-hand drive M3 would therefore be strangled down to around 180bhp, which is only nine more than the sprightly 325i which is already available over here. The price premium on the M3 will be such that a 9bhp advantage over the next model down simply would not make sense, Now that is a pity because the M3 in unstrangulated form really is quite an impressive beast, though in what I consider to be a surprisingly unexciting way . . . Let me explain.

Essentially, Motorsport regard it as the logical successor to the M1 mid-engined Coupe which they struggled so hard to build between 1978 and ’81. They justify this stance by explaining that it is the first BMW since the M1 to be designed and built for competition from square one without compromise, beyond those demanded by the relevant racing regulations.

You see it is not just another hopped up basic 3-series saloon. It is far more fundamentally a new and different model, a mere 3-series lookalike, and a true ‘homologation special’ because, after insisting that they want to bow out of Formula One engine supply. Munich is fiercely determined to achieve real success again in the European Touring Car Championship, as of yore.

In fact the company’s commitment to the new M3 is such that it becomes the first M3 is such that it becomes the first BMW ever to be developed by Motorsport Gmbh for production on BMW AG’s volume lines. Motorsport Gmbh itself in Preussenstrasse has only 315 employees, two-thirds of them design and development engineers rather than production people, and from September this year their new plant in Garching-another suburb of Munich-will be building the M5 in relatively puny numbers while AG’s main plant thunders out 5,000 M3s hopefully in time for Group A homologation (acceptance) in March, next year. In fact Preussentrasse produced 250 M5s in 1985, it and Garching will complete a projected 450 this year, then production is planned to rise to 650 next year and to 1,000 in 1988.

The idea for the M3 was first floated in Summer 1981 just as the 456th and last M1 was being completed.To provide Bee-Emm with the greatest possible startline advantage with the 2.5-litre Group A class, it was necessary for as many circuit-racing tweaks as possible to be designed into the production model as standard.

Consequently the basic 3-series steel sheet was modified to carry widely flared pressed-steel-note, not Tupperware ‘add-on’ –wheel arches as standard, capacious enough to accommodate 10-inch wide wheels as permitted under Group A for cars up to 2,500cc.

Wind tunnel test results indicated an improvement in Cd by raising the standard 3-series’ boot-lid height-Mercedes-Benz of course having come to the same conclusion with their 190E Shells. Rear screen rake was eased three-degrees to provide smoother lead-in to an end-plate mounted rear wing. Plastic composite moulding technology provided the new raised bootlid, rear-screen pillar outer skin and sandwich-construction wing components. Suspension development produced what Amerschlager’s group considered the proper compromise between road and track settings, and ABS braking with enlarged discs and stiffened calipers was adopted as standard with power steering. Neither ABS nor PAS will appear on the finalised Group A racing M3s unless there is some quantum leap in either technology.

Ever since their fiendishly-complex Apfelbeck-headed radial-four-valve competition engine of the mid-‘60s, BMW have been to the fore in the arts of four-valves-per-cylinder head design and once they shook the radial valve format from their minds and adopted a more simple pent-roof layout their power units, developed under the direction most notably of Paul Rosche, became fearsomely effective, and reliable.

They have won six European Formula Two Championship titles, in addition to numerous touring car trophies and in effect the new M3’s four-cylinder 16-valve head represents two-thirds of the M1-originated 24-valve six-cylinder which lives on in the current M5 and M635CSi. The Rosche/Ammerschlager team preferred the four-cylinder to a ‘six’ because its relatively shorter crankshaft is inherently stiffer while the in-line four-cylinder layout avoids the torsional vibration periods inherent with a ‘six’, promising higher revs, hence more gas passed through the engine, hence more power, with greater reliability.

So effective has this choice proved to be that the standard M3 is now red-lined at 7,000rpm-not half bad for a sizeable ‘four’-and if the driver is that way inclined 7,500rpm can be used, though if sustained I feel it would probably invalidate the guarantee . . .

Of infinitely more importance to Motorsport’s engineers is the promise of a sustainable 10,000rpm in Group A racing form, and that I do find impressive. . .

The age-old BMW 1,500-derived cast-iron block provides the basis of the M3’s engine, bored-out now to 93.4mm. This overbore necessitates casting the two centre-cylinder liners in one unit-as is already the case with the six-cylinder engines-and this itself increases unit stiffness. Stroke is 84mm for a 2.302cc displacement, and the forged, eight-balance-weight crankshaft rotates in five main bearings. It’s a wet-sump unit with careful baffling and a separate oil-cooler matrix tucked away behind the car’s aerodynamic chin-dam.

Inside each pent-roof combustion chamber the four valves per cylinder are inclined respectively at 18-degrees (intake) and 20-degrees (exhaust), for an included angle of 38-degrees. The inlet-valve heads are 37mm-nearly an inch and a half-in diameter, exhausts 32mm, just over an inch and a quarter.

There’s a single central spark plug per cylinder, and the valves are actuated by duplex-chain-driven dohc-the Formula. One variants of this block, remember, using gear-driven camshafts instead. Bosch Motronic digital fuel injection is fitted with intake air volume engine-management sensing. There are four separate intake manifolds, each with its own independent throttle butterfly.

Significantly BMW intended to sell the M3 (and also the M653CSi) in the USA, and their development provides a catalysed M3 (as now demanded increasingly in Europe) with only five bhp less than the unconverted version. Its peak 195bhp and the free-flow’s 200bhp are both developed at 6.750rpm, while peak torque is exerted at 4.750rpm. BMW claim 0-100kph (0-62mph) in just 6.7sec for the un-catalysed model, 7.1sec with converter.

Externally the M3 is unmistakable with its lowered suspension, extended wheel arch bays, front and rear air dams, that rear wing with its full-width unsupported span offering an uninterrupted working undersurface, and less steeply raked rear-screen.

In fact glass is a very rigid material, and Ammerschlager has specified bonded-in front and rear screens for the M3 which materially improve the bodyshell’s torsional rigidity, a vital factor in achieving competitive handling for the racing version, which will have a minimum 300bhp and rev to 10,000rpm, and maybe more . . .

Standard moulded composite bumpers match worldwide requirements including the USA’s nutty-Norah standards, the plastic boot-lid is 40mm, 1.6in, higher than the standard 3-series and assists in a 50 per cent aerodynamic lift reduction.

Underneath, front suspension geometry changes have tripled castor to ensure directional stability at 140mph-plus top speeds. Anti-drive is built in and power steering has been carefully weighted to give more feel. Redesigned front stub axles accommodate larger-than-standard racing-orientated wheel bearings. Anti-roll bars appear front and rear, picking-up outboard of the spring struts to exert “almost twice the standard spring effect” Gas-filled dampers have been selected with very firm settings, and different response curves selected during Bee. Emm’s development testing.

While rear suspension is essentially standard 3-sereis, save for uprated damping and spring-rates, the entire M3 brake system is new, using larger, thicker discs clasped by stiffened heavy-duty calipers. Wheels are 15in diameter cast-alloy as standard carrying 205/55 VR 15 tyres.

A new transmission system was necessary, a bonded-lining heavy-duty clutch now driving to a close-ratio five speed gearbox using what used to be known as the “ZF” change pattern, whit first across to the left and back. Ratio spacing is very close with fifth a true fifth, not an economy-style overdrive gear. There’s a 25 per cent locker in the final-drive.

So what’s it like on the road? Let me first declare an interest, or possibly prejudice. My previous experience of BMWs up to the 325i left me with hardly any impression at all, beyond the recognition that they very nicely engineered and well made and I felt generally both over-rated and over-priced. Nice, efficient, crisply dull cars, tending, despite their manufacturer’s laudable sporting activities, towards dull. Arrive at your destination, lock it up, walk away and you couldn’t remember what you had driven there in.

The 325i changed much of that; the M5 woke me up and the M635CSi quite bowled me over, so I regarded the opportunity of being let loose in a new M3 in Tuscany with relish.

Initial reactions were as follows; tight, comfy, sensible sports seat really locates you well. Gear change quite stiff, rather long travel for such a sporting car, soon became accustomed to the odd gate-yes well, it wasn’t the first time I’d used that ZF pattern (this is called over-confidence).

Out onto the autostrada near the spa town of Montecatini Terme it was impossible to try a maximum speed run due to heavy morning traffic but two features instantly impressed. Firstly it’s difficult to believe the M3 has such a sizeable four-cylinder engine beneath its bonnet. It revs so freely and so smoothly it could easily be a six, and almost a turbine. It’s responsive and willing, and Motorsport have achieved that degree of refinement without the complication of Porsche 944-style separate balance shaft to smooth it out.

Yes, Motorsport’s preferred short-stiff block and eight-balance crankshaft really pay off exquisitely well.And then the chassis ride quality is superb. It is firm-damped, level and roll-free (on the road) yet there’s no skipping from crag to crag, nor any apparent penalty in excessive thump-bump road noise. I was very impressed. Overall the M3 is a laudably quiet performance car.

Neither do those low-profile tyres notably grab and white-line on longitudinal joints or runnels, this in marked contrast to the Ford RS Turbo which nearly broke my wrist in a wild runnel-deflection without actually hitting anything. Still hurts me occasionally, so it does.

Traffic clears near Pistoia, let’s try some oomph. Knocking down into fourth, floor the throttle and . . . disappointment.Not very much happens. Below 4,000-4,500rpm there’s apparently nothing at home. The M3 accelerates sure enough, but there’s nothing at all dramatically neck-breaking about it. There’s just a firm, constant thrust as the autostrada streams by, the pressure increases smoothly up around 5,000rpm, and there’s a robust hard edge to the exhaust note higher in the range at peak power. Up around 120-125mph we ran out of clear road, there was obviously far more to come towards BMW’s claimed maximum of 143mph. but like so many of the M-series this M3’s true pace becomes more apparent on paper than on the open road where its character is really so restrained. It is a top-end autobame stormer rather than a traffic-light sprinter, and although it can fight its corner most effectively there too, that is not its forte.

From 50 to 75mph takes only 7.5sec in fourth, and as we would shortly discover, that smooth engine is also quite flexible when pulling from low speeds in the higher gears, short of ‘racing it’ through the “box.Up into the mountains towards Vinci-Leonardo’s home-town-and on towards Scarperia and the Mugello autodrome the M3 proved a most effective point-to-pointer on winding roads, though on one sharp dusty right hander it showed the fierce understeer now built in to all road BMWs for stability in high-speed curves, and to kill their one-time reputation as wicked terminal oversteerers. But you just back off and it tucks in.

Then, selecting reverse during photography, our car’s gear-level snapped off in my hand . . .crystalline fatigue showing in the fracture, down in the tunnel an inch and a half above the bottom joint. “Pre-production!”, Motorsport’s men would roar. It had certainly lived a hard life in several previous days of press-testing.

With Grand Prix heroics in mind we drove on to Mugello. Trying another car on circuit it then became very evident that the understeer dialled in for the road has to be dialled out for the Group A racer, but equally clearly that a couple of days juggling with alternative spring-rates and damper settings would do the trick. Mugello itself is a tricky place, with a succession of varying-severity S-bends, two fast 90-degree rights (which you can link together into one 100mph sweeper) and three long open 180-degree plus curves in which, unless you were prepared to stuff it in tail-out, front-tyre scrub would take over and until you could wind off lock whereupon the tail would kick out at last.

And for all my ‘vast experience’ of that ZF gearchange pattern, I forgot it all in my first two laps learning the circuit, and having had the gear-lever in one car fracture totally, through no fault of my own. I now found myself trying hard to snap another. In scientific terms it’s called Driving Like a Rock-Ape, but mind prevailed over mass, the M3 survived, and so did I.

It proved so stable in faster turns you could really do anything with it. Minimal roll, back-off or sudden turn-in oversteer available at will, magnificently-weighted steering retaining sufficient feel to enable you to catch any slide, very powerful, again-responsive brakes performing without complaint beyond blackening the front wheels with pad-dust.

Eventually, after slithering up the kerbs, quite quick and never on the grass but never as smooth as I would have liked to be, I got it together, the M3 swinging lock-to-lock comfortably through the esses, spending perhaps two-fifths of every lap in long sustained slides, an indicated 124mph, just coming up in fifth before braking at under 150-metres into the hairpin beyond the pits.

It was hot and sunny and after 10 successive laps with bare slippery hands I was plain running out of puff, unlike Bee-Emm’s latest.It impresses as a thoroughly competent car, too refined to feel as neck-breakingly quick as its figures might suggest but oh so effective and efficient as a cross-country charger.

In comparison with its rival Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3-16 and the Ford Sierra RS Cosworth, what d’you find?It is nominally 4bhp down on the albeit-turbocharged Ford but a whopping 15bhp up on the Merc. It has 177lb ft of torque at 4,750rpm, a little more than the hapless Merc but a whopping 26 less than the much less-expensive forced-induction Ford. It is slower flat-out than the Ford but considerably quicker than the Merc, and its 0-62mph time is 0.1sec quicker than the turbo Ford and a full 0.6sec. quicker than the Mercedes.

From this comparison the Mercedes, which is fully 132lb heavier than the M3, is not only the heaviest of this trio but also the least powerful-by a considerable margin-it has the lowest top speed – again by a considerable margin – and is the slowest 0-62mph, yet despite all these minuses it is still the most expensive; in Germany DM58, 140 against DM58,000 for the M3 and a relative-bargain DM-48, 420 for the cheap and cheerful Ford.

On paper the turbo Sierra Cosworth predictably out—performs the new M3 on power, torque and top speed but is 88lb heavier which, together with its turbo wind-up characteristics, explain its acceleration deficit. The significant point must be that the M3 performs without recourse to forced induction and the thermal stress that imposes, so promises greater reliability.
Neither will the Sierra Cosworth and the M3 fall into the same Group A class, by virtue of the Ford being turbocharged.

Motorsport Gmbh having now unleashed their M3, it is up to BMW AG to complete that initial 5,000-off batch in time for their FISA homologation target date next year. If they manage it in time the 2,500cc Group A class will surely become another Bcc-Emm preserve.

But it remains to be seen whether or not the UK will ever win itself a right-hand drive M3. I got the impression that Motorsport’s planners don’t understand the-British attitude to left-hand drive, despite my patient explanation that we drive on that side to keep our sword- hands free. Will demand make dropping another model here to make logical space for the M3 seem sensible? That must be very doubtful.

Irrespective, it‘s a very impressive little beast, but never the wicked fire-breathing projectile some might claim it to be. It’s above and in some ways beyond such undignified behavior. Because it is a BMW after all…

Related posts:

1. No Hold Ups In The Fast Lane BMW Motorsport expects the new M3 middleweight to do everything...
2. Storm Force There's a power struggle in Germany. Mercedes began the strife...
3. BMW M3 Thoroughbred Bavarian race technology for the street....

The ‘log book’ for C232 HVW, a Ford Sierra RS Cosworth, is now as travel stained and battle-scarred as this Sierra’s under-belly. For this hard-worked Ford, a 2000-mile round trip to meet BMW’s latest Motorsport weapon, the 146mph M3, came on top of life as a press demonstrator which saw service on the model’s original launch in Spain.

Yet, in our hands, this white, three-door Sierra averaged over 23mpg, while occasionally inserting over 80 miles into each hour while turbo-whistling its way to our meeting with the M3. The Ford’s consumption was exceptional, for it was mostly running off-boost, keeping over-cool company with our long term 325i along the way. The RS, however, did develop a thirst for water that verged upon the rabid!

That impromptu log covers an unusually eventful span from 14,400 to 16,600 miles on the Sierra’s recorded mileage and includes one or two incidents in our stroll across Europe.

Half a day and £500 lost to French customs, for instance. Or the best part of 24 hours wasted, close to yet another border, when Walton and a fallen rock consummated an unwanted relationship that cracked the Cosworth’s alloy sump.

The severing of the same car’s exhaust manifold to twin exhaust downpipe at our chosen circuit was another hiccup in a tough trip, but it was all worthwhile.

For these two showrooms and circuit competitors promise a new dimension in the capable compact saloon class that Mercedes pioneered with Cosworth in the widely praised 2.3/16.

Travelling south we found our objective, BMW’s 200bhp, Motorsport division developed 3-Series – better known, to friend and foe alike, simply as the M3.

For two days we played in paradise. We had the use of a deserted race track (one of Europe’s best, with 3.3 miles of kinks and crests that recall a sunny Brands Hatch) and free run of the surrounding public roads: ribbons of motorway, city avenues and bump-ridden byways on which to pit Ford against BMW in their most exciting contest since the days of the 320bhp RS Capris and the BMW CSL ‘Batmobiles’ in the European Touring Car Championships of the 1970s.

The white Ford and the fleet BMW are worthy adversaries. Despite the presence of turbocharging on the Ford’s 16-valve Cosworth 2-litre, the Sierra RS and BMW’s M3 come to the line with almost the same power to weight ratio: 167.2bhp per ton for the heavier and larger 3-door Ford, versus 169.5 for the compact 2-door BMW.

They also have practically the same aerodynamic drag factors: BMW’s revised 3-Series outline weighs in at 0.33, against Ford’s production confirmed 0.34Cd.

Ford and BMW also agree on conventional front-engine, rear-drive layouts that depend on MacPherson front and semi-trailing arm rear suspension. Furthermore, both share gas damping, the standard security of ABS-backed four-wheel disc brakes and power-assistance for more responsive rack-and-pinion steering to guide substantially modified chassis of production origin.

Performance was bound to be close between such similar concepts (though they will race in different classes as Ford’s turbo will race in different classes as Ford’s turbo takes the Sierra into a bigger league) and in the event we found it was hard to separate the pair in back-to back electronic measurement of their prowess at the circuit.

Both Ford and BMW utilise their 200bhp outputs to sprint from 0-60mph in less than seven seconds, both will exceed 145mph and only 0.5mpg separated them in track use.

On the road, BMW provide a measurable fuel consumption advantage, but the Cosworth-boosted Sierra retaliates with a killer display of flexibility in the higher ranges of fourth and fifth gears.

From 50-70mph and beyond, the high-winged product of American ownership and American transmission, Belgian manufacture and British engineering, stomps away on the German Dunlops that it shares with Porsche. And the multinational Ford finally leaves the Fatherland trailing, with a small maximum speed advantage.

However, we all know how figures can deceive, so what are such cars like to live with? Which would you marry, if you would marry at all?

To help us answer such crucial questions, both manufacturers allowed unprecedented access to their cars. We tried M3s on two brands of tyre (Uniroyal and Pirelli), with and without such option as air conditioning, leather upholstery, sunroof and trip computer.

Our testers have also driven a number of similar Fords, including the updated car photographed here and one absolutely brand new production RS, and over a wide range of terrain.

Interior & Controls

The M3 has the initial air of an ordinary 3-Series; neatly coordinated, with the ultimate on analogue instrumentation clarity, but with detail changes which make it an even finer cabin to occupy.

As ever, BMW switchgear is laid out logically and operates with a precise air of quality that Ford can only contemplate.

Ford themselves have a riot of colors on their 160mph speedo, on the 7000rpm tachometer and above the slightly gimmicky rocker switches with their hedgehog ‘bristles’ to assist sweaty digits. BMW burst into splashes of red only to delineate a 7000 to 7300rpm warning band, or to act as warnings on the usual water temperature and fuel tank dials.

They do, however, permit themselves some time off from somber high quality plastics and restfully toned grey cloth trims – with a splash of Motorsport colors about the central dashboard M3 logo, repeated on the bottom spoke of the Motorsport leather-rim steering wheel.

Ford give you an XR3i wheel with a leather rim and the accountants had even allowed a leather gear lever knob on the test Sierra RS! On stepping from BMW, Ford trim strikes the senses as typical Euro-mass-manufacture and you are also conscious of how rough those Ford flap-style door latches are in comparison with the operation and finish of the similar BMW door access.

Ford seats do not adjust to cover as many possibilities as those of BMW, which are manufactured by the company themselves, not by Recaro, says their spokesman. BMW offer the driver thigh, height, and tilt controls, in addition to the normal backrest and legroom adjusters.

However, Ford’s sporting Recaro front seats (With driver’s-side height adjustment and excellent rotary knob backrest control) were voted just as comfortable as those of BMW and the driving position is outstanding. BMW used to be in a class of their own in this department, but Ford and Recaro have cooperated to provide more location at no discernible penalty in long distance comfort.

BMW incorporate an oil temperature gauge on the M3, where an ‘econometer’ normally sits in lesser 3-Series; it stayed rock-solid, at just under 100°C, even in track use. Ford tailor their standard dash by incorporating the boost gauge from the Sierra Merkur XR4Ti (2,3-litre, as raced by Andy Rouse in 1985-86) in one corner, but no oil pressure or temperature information is provided.

Ford also gloss over the need for a footrest (extraordinary in this class of car) but BMW do include this vital item. Ford counterpunch, however, with a conventional five-speed gearchange pattern for their Borg Warner T5 unit, whereas BMW have gone for the rather dubious (on a road car) racing pattern, with first to the left and back and second to fifth to its right in a standard H-pattern. The layout has obvious first to second gearchange deficiencies in urban or standing start use, and BMW cannot claim they had to have this pattern, for the Group A racer uses yet another Getrag unit, as found in competition 6-Series cars.

BMW move ahead again when we consider visibility; the high wing on the Cosworth pretty effectively obliterates any sign of following traffic and its headlamps, and could cost you your license.

BMW and Ford both provide good three-quarter rear vision for joining motorways and the forward views are uncluttered, the Sierra having a noticeably raked bonnet.

These cars, of course, are not sold on their accommodation potential, but if they were the Ford would be in a class up from the BMW. The two-inch longer wheelbase translates into extra rear seat room (always appalling on the 3-Series, more so with sports seats). Ford also has the hatchbad load advantage, along with Sierra L folding seats.

BMW could claim that boot accommodation was slightly increased on the M3 because the bootlid line has been raised by over one and a half inches, but That 2nd the ‘glassback’ enlargement and refinement of the M3’s back window are intended purely to help airflow (and the Cd factor quoted) for the rear deck and beep spoiler. Incidentally, these items, and the spoiler, plus the side extensions, are all moulded in polyurethanes that are flawlessly finished to match the deep luster of BMW’s exterior paint.

Looking over the exteriors, the Ford may feel embarrassed. After all, it is ‘only’ a Sierra dressed for a new role, not a purpose-built quality car. Yet the Ford kit of plastic add-on panels appeared sturdy, and that rear wing is necessary to overcome lift at speed.

The Ford’s low wind noise at consistently high speeds confirmed that Ford body panel fit and sealing have improved beyond imagination in recent years. A brand new production Cosworth in black looked particularly attractive and the panel fits were acceptable where those of the long distance mount would not have pleased a customer!

Finally, on a showroom static comparison note, we emphasize BMW have no plans to offer the M3 in right-hand-drive form, or indeed offer it in Britain at all. The £18,500-plus quoted is for a German market model, lacking the sunroof, ICE, electric windows and central locking that come with the right-hand-drive Ford.

Driving the M3 & RS

Only in their surprising and accommodating ride qualities on gas damping (Boge for the BMW; Fichtel & Sachs for Ford), with twin-tube units used for their front MacPherson struts, do the Ford and BMW strike common notes.

This may be because both share semi-traveling arm rear units too (single-tube gas dumped), but when you start to drive hard their paths diverge . . .

The BMW is the best Bavaria has ever produced in the chassis department – and the least like a BMW in engine manners!

Thomas Ammerschlager, late of Ford competitions as well as Audi’s chassis department, headed a team who increased the front end castor on the BMW by a factor of three, remounted its front and rear roll bars and uprated the rear springs. On Pirelli or Uniroyal, road or track, this has resulted in a unique blend of increased grip, tidy rear-end breakaway and outstanding safety.

The M3 understeers gently where a 325i backs and rears in sloppy distress. Its assisted steering, with faster response from a 19.6: I ratio, relays all the vital data right up to four-wheel drifts in circuit use, enabling any driver to be quickly flattered by its immense abilities.

Initially, the Sierra feels just the same good-natured pal. Plumper tyres (225 versus 205), in association with radically seperated suspension, featuring front and rear negative camber angles, allow the Ford to develop even cornering power than the BMW.

Also changed on the Ford is the front all centres (raised by 3.6 inches) with 106lb in springs mated to a beefy front roll bar, having a girth just beyond an inch.

On the road, that’s the end of the story, Ford Special Vehicle Engineering in Essex have done the job and provided a Sierra of occupational gripping capability, whether in straightline acceleration, or in outright cornering power.

In track action the Sierra betrays the standard use of 18 degree raked rear traveling arms, springs beyond 230lb/in and ? technology, including the half-inch null bar. Driven beyond road limits, including mid-corner decelerations, the Sierra gets more untidy than the BMW. This RS demands skilled and fast corrections to keep the tail from slapping to add fro.

Playing a vital role in all this comment are two steering changes which Ford SVE made in the light of Spanish launch criticisms: first they replaced the inner TCA (Track Control Arm) joints with rubber instead of plastic ball joints, and secondly they worked with TRW Cam Gears to remove the rack-and-pinion’s sensitivity around the dead-ahead position.

Confirming the details of this Sierra ‘de-sensitizing’ operation, SVE Manager Mansfield told us, ‘we think the inner units did half the job and we’re going over in the same system on all our 4×4 Sierras and Granadas, the first example having been the Sierra wagon. Given the production opportunity we would also like to alter castor slightly, but that has to be it a present.

The result is a still rapid rack (just 2.63 terms lock-to-lock) but the turning circle cornered a lot worse than the BMW’s in broad use. Ford have also foregone the informative wriggling (a la Piesche 911) of the original. Most customers should love it, but in our confrontation, BMW now get the nod for combining feel and response in their modified steering.

Braking is another dynamic quality that becomes vital in such cars. Here, Ford beat BMW on a slightly firmer pedal action from their Alfred Teves anti-lock system, but lose points for a vibration that developed later in the test.

BMW and Robert Bosch did a marvelous job in re-valving their legendary ABS so that it reacted only to the hardest inputs, but Ford-Teves was just a smidgeon faster, and just as predictable, for road and track use. Both are in the class of racing cars by normal road standards and a pleasurable reassurance in such 145mph-plus machinery!

In less dramatic driving, particularly in everyday road use, we believe Ford has some important advantages.

Firstly, Henry knows more than most about ventilation and heating. Secondly, Ford have a superb gearbox while BMW persist with the racing ‘pose-pattern’. Thirdly, this Ford cruises with an absence of fuss that puts the deliberately short-geared BMW, with its big-bore, four-cylinder engine, at an immediate disadvantage.

We did not expect to comment favorably on Ford engine refinement against a BMW, but even the fabled Bavarians could not overcome the resonances inherent in a four-cylinder layout between 4000rpm and 4500rpm.

At a constant 4500rpm, and the displayed equivalent of 93mph in fifth, the M3 starts to become wearing, BMW Motorsport’s mildly exasperated engineers acknowledged that a great deal of work had gone into the unit – and its exhaust system – in an effort to overcome this shortcoming. We failed to remind them that even Porsche had to go to countershafts on their 2.5-litre four for the 924s/944.

The plus side of this BMW unit (on which development commenced with a ‘cut-up M635/M1 six-cylinder head to see if it would work’) is life between the 4750rpm torque peak and the 7300rpm limit. ‘It’s just so exciting,’ said one tester with plenty of competition miles completed. In contrast the Cosworth-Ford is less dramatic, but generally better mannered, with a smaller (2-litre, smaller bore) resonance at 4000rpm. Above and below that is exceptional cruising peace, with 102mph and 4500rpm being virtually ‘loafing’, and up to 130mph at 5700 in fifth causing no sustained-speed fuss.

Faced by awesome pace and civilized grace at this speed from such an unlikely source as Ford, it is possible to forget BMW’s superior B-road ability.

For the BMW’s bigger engine, lighter weight and gearbox worked in an H-pattern (scoring heavily on the in-line second to third change compared to usual ‘across the gate’ Ford pattern) make the M3 easier to drive rapidly over country roads than the turbo Cosworth. The RS is slowed by its slightly larger dimensions over unknown and bumpy B-roads. Under such conditions it is also noticeable that the BMW has the slightly softer ultimate ride and more ground clearance!

Performance & Economy

Our figures are the usual two-way averages, recorded with our normal computerized fifth-wheel equipment; both cars were measured within an hour of each other and both are measured using the same points on the track.

While our acceleration runs give extremely accurate representations of the performance offered by both companies, we have to concede that a race track does not permit sustained, and therefore measurable, maximum speed runs.

Consequently, both the maximums given here are as observed by Germany’s notoriously strict TUV government inspection board. In this connection it may be worth noting that the 2.3/16 Mercedes can manage an honest 145mph on less power, thanks to a sleeker overall shape than either of our current contestants.

As you can see, both the RS and the M3 outpower the 185bhp Mercedes 2.3/16 Cosworth conclusively with their 6.7 second (Ford) and 6.9 second (BMW) 0-60mph times, the Ford only opening any kind of measurable edge on the BMW in its 0-100mph averages, where it sneaks under the 20 second barrier. The Mercedes returns ‘only’ eight seconds to 60mph, thanks to a 2950lb kerb weight which allows only 140bhp per ton.

It is nice to be able to report that two such fast cars are also responsive to demands for mid-range power. Indeed the 2-litre Sierra RS blows off the M3’s big brother, the 3.5-litre/286bhp M5, between 50 and 70mph in both fourth and fifth! Our records show 5.9/7.1 seconds versus 6.8/9.3 seconds. The M3’s short gearing, however, does allow it an occasional low speed (usually under 50mph) flexibility ‘win’ over the Ford.

Both cars departed from a standing start with over 4500rpm needed to break traction, emphasizing that rear-wheel drive can still handle a lot of power quite capably. In fact we only ever spun the Ford’s wheels on poor surfaces and the uphill hairpin traction in the mountains along our road route was as compelling as the views.

Summary

It has been an exhilarating as well as demanding business bringing a full report on two masterful performance cars from dedicated opponents. BMW had to take the shock of seeing a white Ford materialize on their temporary ‘home patch’ for a full performance session, while Ford lent us a car which they knew was ‘tired’, in the cause of meeting both opposition and deadlines. Furthermore, they were quite co-operative in taking a seven-mile old production machine off the press preparation schedule for our cross-checking drive.

Although the BMWs came complete with engines of uncivilized resonances, there was no doubt that Bayerische Motoren Werke has spent more time (since July 1981 compared to Ford’s April 1983 initial planning meeting), and more money, in making a genuine production car of their project.

BMW plan at least 15,000 copies of the M3 in the next three years, where Ford are likely to make only 5000 of the car tested here, its mechanical components then being likely to find a modified home.

The Ford performs way out of its league; it really could run deep into Europe and back with the Porsche 944T, gaining on handling and fuel economy, losing a few tenths of a second on acceleration and down just 2mph on maximum velocity.

So this Sierra really is something for Ford to shout about. At £15,950 there is no doubt the Sierra RS Cosworth gives exceptional performance and specification value; just don’t expect the quality and refinement of finish and detail engineering that you get from West Germany’s finest.

The BMW? Well, the company have made it pretty clear they don’t have Britain in mind as a sales outlet for this new flier, and few of you, we suspect, would buy left-hand drive. We view this as serious omission by Bavaria, for British customers have supplied considerable profits over the years and obviously don’t mind paying over the odds for an exceptional car.

Realistically, we can only recommend that such custom is given to Mercedes and their right-hand-drive-engineered 2.3/16, with Cosworth ingredients. It was a pioneer in this sector and we don’t honestly think that BMW have taken advantage of their later start to pull and perceptible advantage over the Merc, save the easy option of 200bhp in place of Stuttgart’s 185, which could in any case be rectified on the aftermarket.

If you are a British enthusiast, we don’t think the Sierra will disappoint in any performance role, and it is a natural competitor, for that was how it was conceived. However, if you are the kind of customer who just wants the best quality sports roadgoing saloon money can buy, then smile while paying over £21,000 for the right-hand-drive Mercedes which Stuttgart bothered to make for you!

Related posts:

1. No Hold Ups In The Fast Lane BMW Motorsport expects the new M3 middleweight to do everything...
2. Winning! Performance Car's two runners in Britain's only 24-hour race had...
3. MMM… With their Formula One participation poised to cease, BMW are...