The old dictum that racing improves the breed has always been part of the creed of all motorsports enthusiasts. It is sometimes difficult to shower how technology trickles down from the likes of an Indy or an IMSA GTP car; but when the racing hardware is similar to what is sold for the street, an immediate benefit for the consumer is more believable. But how much of a racing sedan actually finds its way to a street machine? Usually, previous little; there are virtually no market pressures to apply racing technology. At best, a bit of the image rubs off.

Enter the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) and its rules for Group A racers. To qualify a car for Group A, a manufacturer must produce at least 5000 cars of that type in any given 12 month period. The cars must have a minimum of four seats. Minimum weight is related to engine displacement, but the cylinders may not be bored out more than 0.6mm to reach the displacement limit for that weight class; similarly for sleeving down engine too large for the desired weight class. Individual components may be modified, polished, lightened, machines, etched or heat treated, but not replaced by parts stemming from other sources. The original fuel injection system must be retained, but may be modified. The camshaft is free, as is its timing. Suspension pickup points must remain unchanged. Wheels and tires must be contained within the original bodywork; they aren’t allowed to stick out. Add-on aerodynamic aids beyond the car’s original roadgoing equipment are not allowed.

The result of all this is that cars not immediately associated with racing are used to good effect tin this predominantly European class. Victory Lane at the Nürburgring or Spa has in years past been occupied by the likes of Volvo and Rover; the 1985 Class 1 (over 2.5 litres) was won by Volvo, closely followed by Rover with MW a distant 3^rd. In Class 2 (1.6-2.5 litres) Alfa Romeo beat out BMW. In 1986 BMW won both Class 1 and 2, against competition from Mercedes-Benz (190E 2.3) and Rover Vitesse, what we used to call the 3500.

The manufacturers were beginning to get serious about touring cars, fielding teams both above and below board. For 1987 there would be several racing series for Group A cars, including the new World Touring Car Championship, coinciding with the European touring Car Championship except for four races in Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Track wins meant more dealer sales. To achieve its own unfair advantage, BMW decided to enter Group A in a big way – by laying on a series of 5000 cars for the road designed solely to field similar cars on the track. A direct example of racing improving the breed or, more correctly, the right breeding making racing possible. The car is called the M3 and is based on the familiar 3-Series sports sedans. We compared this homologation special to its more civilized brother, the 325is, and the results are very interesting.

The M3 is a product of BMW Motorsport GmbH, but motorsport is not that group’s sole business. Other M products range from the Formula 1 engine and tuned street cars to designer clothes and “Motorsport” dead pedals in designer colors. The M3 is the first BMW since the M1 to be built for homologation.

The M3 at first glance looks like a typical café racer. But on this car, all the add-ons have a purpose. It’s all there because it needs to be there for racing. Remember, no spoiler on the road car means no spoiler on the racer, no add-on fender flares allowed. Not immediately noticeable is the greater rake to the backlight, achieved by moving its bottom edge back and fairing it all in with a plastic cap over the C-pillars and the rear edge of the roof. The trunk lid was raised by installing a plastic molding to replace the normal metal lid. Spoilers, skirts, fat tires and boxy fender flares capable of covering wheels up to 10in. wide (the largest allowed in its racing class) complete the zoomy kit. Despite, or perhaps better said,  because of all the add-ons, BMW claims a Cx of 0.33 versus 0.39 of the 325is.

Under the skin more modifications have been made. The front suspension, for example, has altered pickup points. The front hub carrier is different, giving the M3 more caster than the “civilian” versions for better high-speed stability and more steering feel. The power-assisted steering has been quickened. Lower control arms are aluminum instead of steel. The car has been lowered, and rising-rate springs have been installed at the rear. Spring, shock, anti-roll bar and rubber-bushing calibrations  have been changed. The brakes have been upgraded to those used on the 6 and 7-Series cars. A 25 percent limited-slip differential and ABS brakes are standard.

The shift lever of the US market car displays a conventional shift pattern, in contrast to the European model that has 1^st to the left and back. Gear ratios, too, are different. The US car is geared significantly lower in 1^st and 2^nd, for better acceleration. Ratios in the remaining gears are similar but not identical.

The engine bay is also heavily modified. The engine is surprisingly not the newer, lighter, aluminum M20 inline-6 used in other cars of the 3-Series, but rather the S14 inline-4, derived from the old M10 that also spawned the F1 powerplant. The M3 engine develops 192bhp at 6750rpm and 170lb-ft of torque at 4750rpm. In contrast to its 4-cylinder older brothers in the BW family, the M3’s engine has siamesed cylinder that also serve to stiffen the block. Why the step backward, to a four? The shorter, forged crankshaft of the four is stiffer, more resistant to torsional vibrations, and can be revved higher; the new six was designed for low weight and easy, cost-effective assembly and is therefore not as strong as the older design. Also no 4-valve head is readily available for the new six, while the old four had 4-valve heads as long ago as 1966.

Note that the new six is not to be confused with the bigger six used in the larger 5-, 6-, and 7-Series cars and the 4-valve M1 powerplant now used in the M635CSi and M5.

The M3 engine features two chain-driven cams and a cast-iron block, while the 325is has a single belt-driven cam. The M3 has far greater power potential than the new six and can rev higher in racing trim; BMW claims 10,000rpm is possible. The induction system uses a Bosch Motronic III and four throttle butterflies, one per cylinder, to reduce lag. A larger cast-aluminum oil pan, with windage tray and baffles, holds the greater quantity of oil required on the race track.

The interior of the car has the familiar, excellent BMW ergonomics. Subtle changes tell the driver that this is an extraordinary coupe; the speedo goes to 160mph, the tach to 8000 with a 7300rpm redline, and the fuel-economy gauge in the speedometer has been replaced by an oil-temperature gauge. Although the M3 is intended to provide a basis for a race car, it comes fully equipped with all manner of creature comforts, including sunroof, electric window lifts, central locking, sound system and air conditioning. About the only option is metallic paint. Automatic transmission is not available.

What shall we use as a yardstick? A good candidate is the BMW 325is, basically similar to the 325es tested in Road & Track, December 1986. The 325 family features the new 2.5 litre inline-6, which develops 168bhp at 5800rpm and 164lb-ft at 4300. Compare these figures to the M3; although power is less, torque is similar and is developed at lower revs. That’s significant, as we’ll soon see. In comparison to the M3, the gearing is taller all across the board, which should hurt the 325is in acceleration. The 325is has limited-slip differential, sport suspension with twin-tube shocks similar to the M3, sport seats, front air dam and small body-color rear lip spoiler and a number of detail changes compared with last year’s model.

Seat time. The first impression upon entering the M3 is how well everything is laid out for serious driving. The steering wheel fits the hands’ the gauges are where they should be. The grippy seats, among the best to be found anywhere, are adjustable for rake, reach, height and thigh support, thankfully without any electric motors. The ventilation system works well. Materials and workmanship in the interior are excellent.

On the road, the M3 exhibits a typical BMW trace of oversteer at the limit, useful when mastered. Cornering performance of the M3 is spirited, with little body lean. The car feels tossable. The pedals are easy to heel and toe, and the shifter has a somewhat notchy but accurate feel. Smooth, quick shifts are easily mastered. Steering is light but precise with nice feedback, allowing control of that oversteer. The suspension is not as hard as one might expect. The ABS brakes are, as always, simply wonderful, with a nice, hard pedal.

Now the down side. The car’s strongest asset, its engine, is also its largest liability. It is the logical choice for BMW’s motorsport activities, in view of its power potential; but under most driving conditions one is likely to encounter without need of a helmet, it is harsh, rough, buzzy, and boomy. There’s lots of valve-train noise thanks to the chain-driven overhead cams. There is a lack of power off the line, but BMW wisely chose high numberical ratios for the first two gears. The gearing is useful around town but long-legged if need be. The engine comes on the cam at 4500rpm or so.

By comparison, the 325is engine is quiet. Although not as noiseless as, say, the prime mover of the Acura Legend or the bigger BMWs, it is certainly one of the smoother engines around. A wee bit of valve-train noise can be heard, but it’s more of the well oiled machinery variety and not an annoyance to the enthusiast. One staffer summed it all up by asking, “Who needs the M3’s 4-cylinder peakiness with this car’s smooth, torquey, very tractable quick six?”

All of this is forgotten when the M3 is driven quickly on a mountain road. Preferably with the windows down. All of that booming and buzzing around town suddenly seems insignificant; in fact, it’s pleasant….and fun. This is what driving is all about. The engine, when revved hard, shoots the car from turn to turn; the four butterflies make it a happy responsive revver. The hard brake pedal and ABS allow braking deep into the turns, even in the face of guardrails and 500ft drops, far past the point where prudence would have one back off in lesser cars. The shifter and clutch are quick and precise. The steering is accurate; the driver is in control. Suddenly it all makes sense. This is as close as most owners will come to participatory motorsports and that is what this car was designed to do. Said one driver, “It seduces me despite my better judgment.”

And how does the 325is fare under such driving? Not at all badly. Although breeding will tell, and the 325 is not racebred, it does quiet well. It, too, is a joy to drive under such conditions; it, too, has the foolproof of barking and predictable handling. The difference is in degree; the brake pedal is a bit softer, the steering a mite less precise, the suspension a tad softer. Where the 325is shines is in all-around utility. The engine develops more torque at lower rpm than the M3, allowing spirited performance around town and away from stops, in spite of its gear-ratio handicap.

In other forms of performance driving, the M3 runs up to 60mph in 7.1 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.4 sec, 91.0mph. By comparison, the 325is does the same in 7.5secs and 15.7sec/88.5mph. On the skidpad, the M3 circulates at 0.82g, compared with the 325is’ 0.79; the cars run through the slalom at a commendable 64.7 and 64.6mph, respectively.

Which one to buy? The M3 is the choice for those who crave a car whose racing image is more than skin deep. This is a race car, make no mistake; every significant part on it is there to justify its presence on the racers. When pushed to its limits, it performs like a race car – fast and noisy.

For customers who don’t absolutely need the motorsport image, who may feel a bit self-conscious about the M3’s plastic body bits and spoilers, the more conservative 325 is a more logical choice. It’s far more civilized, and offers very nearly the same performance at a significantly lower cost.

Finally, after all this investment, did the M3 bring home the laurels for BMW? Two yeses, one no. The M3s won the German Touring Car Championship and the European Touring Car Championship quite handily. In the World Touring Car Championship, things were not quite so easy. The series was hotly contested by the BMW M3s and the Ford Sierra Cosworths, with the nod finally going to Ford in the final race of the season, at Mount Fuji. The series promises to be even more exciting next year. Without a doubt, BMW, will not take this lying down, no doubt developing even more tweaks over the winter, to improve its breed both on road and track.

Related posts:

1. Group A Comes to America Group B rally cars, the Killer Bees, were among the...
2. Hör Technologie M3 Hör Technologie has been steadily cranking out a small, high-quality...
3. BMW M3 Thoroughbred Bavarian race technology for the street....

It wasn’t that long ago that BMW was suffering from a severe case of the blahs. Through the Bavarian auto maker continued to make impressive inroads on the American market, aficionados of the marquee slipped into reactions of indifference, a response that was due primarily to the firm’s lackluster powerplants combined with continued price hikes.

And then there was the distaste created when – despite the uninvolving level of performance delivered by the automobiles – the dreaded Kingdom of Yuppiedom embraced the blue-and-white propeller as the symbol of youthful status.

Those rather commonplace Bimmers from the late ‘70s and early ‘80s short-circuited acceptance by true BMW lovers, leading that group to wax nostalgic over such past gems as the 2002tii. Happily, though, adherents of automotive excitement can once again look to Munich for pulse-quickening sustenance.

BMW’s renewed vigor is led by a group of genuine sports machines, the M-Squad, which emanates from the same high-tech halls responsible for developing purpose-built race cars. So far, the M-series is comprised of three cars: the M6, M5 and M3.

Based on BMW’s 3-series coupe, the M3 exists because of a now-extinct race series, FIA’s 1987 Group A World Touring Car Championship. Homologation rules called for 5000units to be produced within a year, which has afforded a select group the opportunity to own a street car that was truly developed for the track. That old saw, “Racing improves the breed,” is nowhere more justified than on the M3.

The car’s competition genes are reflected in the aggressive bodywork. The wide fenders, front spoiler and rear wing, redesigned angel of the rear window, and side rockers provide more than just surface excitement. Aerodynamics is a key to racing success, and that science can also be utilized to refine passenger cars. The additions bring the coupe’s Cd down to a slippery 0.33, which translates to impressively quiet thrusts through the atmosphere and a solid grip on terra firma.

And grip is certainly the term needed to describe the M3’s handling characteristics. The basic suspension setup remains the familiar front strut/rear trailing arm arrangement, but he M3 has been lowered via shorter springs. It also features revised values for the shocks and springs, a large rear anti-roll bar and new attachment points for the front bar. Tires are 205/55VR-15 Pirelli P600 radials on 7JX15inch cross-spoke alloys, while superior braking discs, ventilated in front. As with all BMWs in the US, the M3 has standard ABS.

Especially un-standard, though, is the heart of this beauty, a 2.3 litre, 192 hp four cylinder powerplant. Using the virtually identical block as BMW’s Formula One engine and the same cylinder head design as the legendary M1, it also features twin chain-driven overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, free-flow exhaust manifold and twin exhaust tubes. Advanced engine management, called Motronic, measure such functions as air density, ambient temperature and engine temperature to keep it on the cutting edge of performance. As with most multi-valve engines, peak horsepower is found high up in the rev range – while the maximum torque of 170ft lbs is reached at a more accessible 4750rpm. Redline is reached at a lofty 7000rpm.

Acceleration is understandably swift, with 0 to 60mph accomplished in the area of 7 seconds, and the quarter-mile in roughly 15seconds at 90 plus mph. The M3 tops out around 140mph, and it’s all done with a raspy smoothness unknown to most four-cylinder engines. Power flows through a wonderful five speed sports gearbox that features close ratios ideally suited to the power curve. Gear selection is managed by a well-located quick-throw shift lever.

For all its high-performance aspirations, though, the M3 can be driven in the urban grind without a care. True, max power is usually out of reach during commuting, but find a stretch of open road and prepare for world-class fun.

As is the case with all quality automobiles from Germany, the cost of ownership is breathtakingly high – $34,000 at last count. The only option is metallic paint, and the list of standard equipment is right in line with the sumptuous level of comfort and convenience identified with current BMWs.

If it sounds as though we lust after such a car, be assured that we do. Few other cars can deliver the M3’s combination of sporty appearance, superb handling, smooth ride and responsive powerplant.

However, we also think of the M3 as a target vehicle for our Jetta GLI project. By the time we’re through modifying the Volkswagen, we think we can approach very closely the panache and motoring behaviour of the M3. Stay with us for the story of our success – or failure.

Related posts:

1. BMW M3 vs 325is The old dictum that racing improves the breed has always...
2. Race Bred and Street Bound 1986 marked the first year all BMWs offered in the...
3. On Track Artistry It's the type of car that gets you in trouble...

Subtlety was out. After several false starts, there was clearly only one way to get BMW M3 Evolution number 475 off the line and down Millbrook’s mile straight at its scintillating best.

And that was sheer brute force. Whip the screaming four-cylinder up to within a few hundred revs of its 7000rpm red line, then simply dump the clutch. Howling their hearts out, the massive Pirelli P700s struggled for grip on the tarmac, the car’s rear end drifting almost in slow motion from side to side as it wrestled with that suddenly applied 220bhp. As grip slowly overcame slip, the engine dipped from 7000rpm to 5000rpm, then held momentarily before soaring again as the BMW speared down the track.

The awkward dog-leg shift out of first was forced through even before the wheels had stopped spinning. The revs dipped but the engine was slap bang on its torque peak and the M3’s charge undiminished. Through 60mph in just 6.7 seconds, then a straight pull back on the stick to third and peak torque once more.

Another of those awkward dog-leg shifts slammed through with no time to worry about the vagaries of the Getrag gearbox’s sloppy gate – but a quiet sigh of relief, nonetheless, that it had risen to the occasion well enough – and we were on to 100mph in a decimal over 18 seconds; the punch of acceleration still following forcibly through.

Brake hard and true as the end of the straight looms up, then swing round for the run back and another full-revs, clutch-dumping start. But don’t get the wrong impressions. The brutality of our test track treatment was not ignorant but calculated. And a tribute to the remarkable abilities of BMW’s little racer.

As any tester will tell you, the technique for standing starts in a powerful, rear-drive car is usually the simplest of all to master. Half revs, drop the clutch and you’ll have all the wheelspin you need for a fast getaway – too much quite often.

Not in the M3. At half revs, the big Pirellis stay glued like barnacles to the track surface. Try a thousand higher. Little better, the grip breaks, wheel spin for a year or two, then the revs fade as the tyres claw their footholds back. Try again – peak torque revs; that usually does it. But no, the wheels spin for a few yards more, grip again and the engine fades.

And so it has to be sheer force; peak power revs, and at last we get it away with the right balance of spin an traction to keep the engine boiling until momentum has picked up.

The M3 story we’ve discovered in this single exercise is as much about grip as it is about power. The Evolution version may have an extra 200bhp at its disposal, but it’s the prodigious grip that allows it to use the power with impunity. It is this grip, in the end, that impresses even more than the car’s performance.

‘Evolution’ is one of those motor sport terms little understood by anyone who is not both a member of Mensa and enjoys the FIA rule book as bedtime reading.

In layman’s language, having produced 5000 examples of a saloon car in order for it to be homologated as a Group A competition car, a manufacturer can then ‘evolve’ 500 improved versions from that original – stretching whatever the strictly defined guidelines for so doing might be as far as possible of course.

Needless to say, this process also creates an instant, limited edition collector’s piece – identified in the case of the M3 Evolution by a numbered plate riveted to the centre console.

The Sierra Cosworth, you will recall, evolved into the RS500 Cosworth via a series of nifty changes that opened up an Aladdin’s Cave of rich possibilities for the race-track. A massive new turbocharger and a second rail of fuel injectors (not even connected up on the road cars) were all ready to activate a whalloping power improvement by a simple engine management chip change, while a set of additional rear suspension pick-up points (again unused on the road version) allowed track tuners ample opportunity to re-work the semi-trailing rear end into something more sophisticated. And finally, revised spoilers reduced drag and increased rear end down-force.

It was, in truth, not so much evolution as revolution. By comparison, the M3 has been through a very modest development step. The engine is substantially altered, true enough; it has new pistons, increasing compression ratio from 10.5 to 11.0:1, a lighter flywheel, revised camshafts, a new air intake system and a re-chipped Motronic management unit. But such changes are much less significant in competition terms than Ford’s evolution changes for the Cosworth.

A naturally aspirated engine could not have its output radically increased as easily a Ford’s turbo-unit could, and the 300bhp-odd of the Group A M3 engine is only likely to rise by 20-30bhp as a result of these mods.

The road-tune engine gains just 20bhp, too, it 220bhp being developed at the same 6750rpm as the original. Torque, likewise, changes only a little from 177 to 181lb ft maximum at the same 4750rpm. To take advantage of the added power, the Evolution’s final drive has also been stretched slightly’ from 3.25 to 3.15:1.

The engine itself is, of course, the durable iron-blocked four-cylinder which has been at the core of so much of BMW’s competition work since it first saw lift in the BMW 1500 back in the 1960s.

In M3 guise it became a short-stroke high revving 2302cc unit, featuring a version of the twin-cam, four-valve-per-cylinder head used in the bigger, six-cylinder M-cars. Its Evolution development is identifiable at once from the vividly finished white cam cover and air collector, which sport the blue, mauve and red stripes of BMW Motorsport.

But, from a racing viewpoint, the significant alterations are those which the uninformed observer might well not spot. A delicate boot lip aerofoil beneath the existing spoiler improves downforce by between 10 and 15 percent, and 22lb of weight have also been pared from the rear of the car by substitution of a lighter boot lid, wing and bumper supports, as well as the use of thinner glass in the rear screen and rear side windows. Wheels and tyres are also larger than the original M3’s: 225/45ZR16 Pirellis on 7 ½ J alloy wheels, though these were already available as an option in place of the standard 205/55s and 7-inch rims.

In truth, the extra power is not really discernible on the road; it takes track testing to spot the differences – for they are small, being partially hidden by that slight rise in overall gearing, which is in slight rise in overall gearing, which is in turn offset by the lower profile tyres.

Confused? Well, in comparison with the standard car (if a machine like the M3 could ever be termed ‘standar’), the Evolution proved 0.2 seconds quicker to 60mph, a difference that had widened to just over two seconds by 100mph (18.1 against 20.5).

Top speeds are even harder to compare for we tested the original car abroad on the autobahn, where it reached 145.9mph. Around Millbrook’s oval, the Evolution averaged 144.8mph and was clearly losing some speed through tyre scrub. How much? That’s hard to say, but the original M3 has been ‘maxed’ round Millbrook by others at between 136 and 139mph, so BMW’s 152mph claim for the Evolution looks fair enough.

But so what if the Evolution is only marginally quicker, the M3 in either guise is a magnificent performer. The four-cylinder engine is a real race-bred screamer, though with enough docility to make it a perfectly mannered road unit, too.

It will pull smoothly from below 2000rpm, though it only starts to feel at all meaningful once it is nearing 4000. From here on – it flies! The real red meat of performance, though, is reserved for the final 2500rpm from just below 5000 to the rev limiter which cuts off an engine that is still in full flight at 7300rpm.

The rather boomy exhaust note of the short-stroke four turns into a throaty howl and that acceleration which had started to impress a thousand revs earlier just keeps striving on.

Such an eager, high-revving power unit makes road driving not only thrilling but remarkably fuss free, too. The M3 has power and torque reserves sufficient to make gearchanging less than a priority. On a country secondary, it will punch out if corners and swallow up the short straights between in third, while on quicker roads, fourth will carry it comfortably through fast sweepers and simply devour those longer straights.

But as we said at the beginning, given the chance, the Getrag box’s close, tight ratios can maintain the M3 at maximum momentum – when you’ll discover it’s a stunningly quick machine indeed. To well beyond 100mph acceleration just doesn’t falter and only as it nears maximum speed does the M3 begin to show off.

The response, too, is instantaneous. Shift up, bang the throttle hard down gain and the engine’s bite is immediate quite the opposite of a turbo’s slightly reluctant pick-up.

The gearbox isn’t the easiest to use – especially as one is shifting with the right or rather the wrong – hand. First is out in a dog-leg while a strongly spring-loaded gate separates second/third from fourth/fifth.

It’s one of those shifts that is all too easy to fumble over when driving casually – forget the spring loading and you often wrong-slot. But, driven in anger, everything comes good. And that, of course, is what counts. All this would be to no avail, though, without the M3’s terrific traction. You can slam the throttle down hard and early on the exit of a corner and those big Pirellis will just bite in and grip. There’s no trace of wheelspin or ___ twitching, just the instant launch of a Lynford Christie craving his starting blocks.

It’s a combination of traction and response that makes for sparkling motoring. You can drive the M3 Evolution like the racer it is: brake hard, turn in, lower on, blast out.

It appears just to flow through bends – the hallmark of greatness. There’s little body roll, good feel through the assisted steering and the chassis balance is impeccable. It will understeer turning in – quite noticeably if you turn in too late and too hard – but once the power is back on it simply squirts through the corner with impunity.

And the M3 is so easy to drive, too. Grippy leather-edged sports seats hold you tightly in place and the left-hand driving position is almost inch perfect. ____ one that inspires instant confidence; ____ pedals are properly spaced for heel-to-toe shifts and there’s a massive footrace down alongside the clutch. All-round visibility is good, too.

If there’s a fault to be found when driving the M3 (and fault finding hardly seems fair in a car that behaves so beautifully) then it’s that the steering struggles to keep up with the chassis’s ability. At 3.6 ___ between locks it is much higher geared than the standard 325’s awful 4.5 turns, but it is still not really quick enough. Flicking the car through a complex of tight bends demands rather too much work at the wheel and you miss the Cosworth’s steering quickness.

Brakes are more than up to the job, however. The car stops hard and true; there’s no weaving, and not a hint of fade. And on a dry surface, you’d have to be literally screeching to a halt before the characteristic pedal thump-back of ABS made itself known.

The inevitable consequence of such crisp, racer-like road manners is that the M3’s ride is hard – too hard for some, no doubt – but despite the stiffness and its associated wheel thump, even on rough country roads it remains stable and tidy, with little or no bump steer.

Our car, in fact, came with three-setting, drive-adjustable dampers – an electronic system developed by BMW in associated with Boge. The three settings (altered by a turn-wheel at the base of the gearstick) roughly correspond to Sporting, Normal M3 settings and Comfort – with the last automatically up-grading itself to Normal at higher speeds.

The differences between the settings are not as great as might be expected. In fact at first you’re barely aware of them. The M3’s springing is stiff, and the wide, low tyres noisy even on the softest setting. But try each setting for longer and differences do emerge in the way the car copes with various types of road imperfection. In Comfort, for instance, the car is less jolty at low speed, but go faster over and undulating road and you notice a slight floatiness that isn’t in tune with the hard demands made by fast motoring.

The Sport setting is harsher than the standard as well, and it can become quite unpleasantly jarring over had surfaces. Does it improve the overall handling balance? That’s hard to say; it would need a lengthy back to back test over a variety of roads to come to a firm conclusion. So perhaps at a costly £1388, it’s an option that doesn’t conclusively prove its worth. Not that the car is short of possible options; ours had another £2000 worth: electric sunroof (£692), headlamp cleaning (£288), computer (£337), electric front windows (£383) and heating control (£149), and anti-theft locks (£369).

As you can see, the M3 Evolution’s hefty £26,960 price tag pays for that purebred, competition pedigree and not for a great deal in the way of added luxury.

Naturally, you do still get superb build quality with the M3 Evolution – homologation special it might be, but this is still a BMW – but for the exclusive club of 40 British buyers who’ll take one home this year, the most important part of the car will probably be that aluminum plate with its limited edition serial number.

It’s a collector’s piece from the start, but certainly not one that should be tucked away for safe keeping. For this is the sports saloon brought to perfection: for sheer driving pleasure, you won’t beat it.

Related posts:

1. M Power As well as their handling and performance, M3s have attracted...
2. Bloodless Evolution BMW's M3 is a super road car, but not the...
3. BMW M3 Evolution The Sport Evolution has been honed by serious drivers for...

Think of BMW and it is fairly natural to think of motorsport, but things have been a little fraught in Munich of late. BMW Motorsport GmbH is currently leaderless, following Wolfgang Peter Flohr’s resignation in late summer and although BMW still have an eye on the motorsport scene, the main company board seems set to await the sporting plans of Mercedes before committing themselves further.

Certainly, it seems, BMW have already turned their faces against rejoining the Grand Prix circus (their 1.5 litre/640bhp turbo helped Piquet’s Brabham to the world title in 1983), and that was largely responsible for Flohr’s resignation, and for some time now the main sporting interests have been production car based.

It seems that Munich’s decision makers see maintenance of upmarket status for the new 5- and 7-Series, where commercial success is assured, as of far higher priority than sporting achievement.

But although they are currently so non-committal about their own competition plans, BMW nonetheless continue to support the activities of diverse outside specialists – largely nowadays in pursuit of racing and rallying glory for their M3.

Schnitzer, for instance, based in Freilassing on the Austro-German border, won the first (and apparently last) World Touring Car Championship title last season, with M3 driver Roberto Ravaglia, yet they lost the Makes title to those wicked black Ford Sierra RS500s.

This year, Schnitzer (and many other, private concerns, including Alpina in the German championship) continue to chase wins for the M3.

But lacking sanction, so far, from the BWM board for the necessary 5000 run of a turbocharged car with which to fight Ford on more equal terms, outright racing success has been hard to obtain in Europe.

We are told that BMW Motorsport have developed a turbo M3 ‘Cosworth crusher’, but it is not scheduled to appear before the new sheet metal of the 3-Series itself, early in the 1990s. That time gap to the turbo M3 leaves the new Evolution M3 (with 10 percent of the original 5000 homologation figure uprated, or only 500 models produced) as the standard bearer for BMW Motorsport and their allies in racing. And even that car doesn’t fit into any plans for rallying, where Evolution models are banned.

Yet every cloud has its silver lining, and for the 18 month old Prodrive organization, based in Banbury, near Oxford, BMW’s indecision could not have come at a better time.

Now, instead of simply acting as ‘the biggest sales outlet, anywhere in the world, for BMW Motorsport cars and parts’, Prodrive are initiating their own engineering moves.

These have already included the design, development and manufacture of a non-synchromesh six-speed gearbox – masterminded by former Williams and Benetton transmission consultant John Piper, and brought to fruition in the space of only six months.

It is typical of Prodrive’s dynamic approach; talking, for instance, for more than the allotted 10 minutes at a time to Prodrive boss David Richards its bound to leave even the most determined Yuppie deflated.5.5 million.

Here is a man who had the courage and the foresight to sit as co-driver with 1981 World Champion rally driver Ari Vatanen, from his British debut onward, but whose retirement from world class rally co-driving actually resulted in an increase in achievement.

New, 36 year old Richards is winning his championship solo, and commuting in his own helicopter, but when he set up Prodrive, it had neither its present BMW British racing bias nor its Banbury home.

In the beginning, Prodrive ran Rothmans-backed Porches and Metro 6R3s from a base at Silverstone, for drivers such as the late Henri Toivonen and multiple British rally champion, Jimmy McRae.

Before long, Prodrive managed to ‘push’ BMW into allowing them to rally the 3-Series and with that they expanded so rapidly that they very soon had to move to a new, bigger base. They found it in Banbury, in January 1988. The move included 32 personnel and Perodrive now number ‘more than 58, with 75 expected by March 1989′, says David Richards briskly.

Naturally enough, turnover has boomed and the forward projections will doubtless excite interest in the City, too. The founder and majority equity holder revealed, ‘in 1987 our turnover was £1.7 million. 1988 that figure will be around £5.5 million. We expect £12.5 million next year and £20 million annually by 1990.

‘Such growth takes account of the interesting business opportunities created by our competition contacts to increase our engineering business, with a move into retail dealerships also likely. In fact, I think pure competition income will account for no more than £3.5 million of that 1990 total.’

So, who controls Prodrive apart from managing director and majority equity holder Richards? Well, his co-directors include former Rothmans sports executive Ian Parry (sales); ex-Ford competitions administrator Charles Reynolds (competitions); David Lapworth (engineering); former Rolls-Royce employee Dave Campion (technical services) and John Bailey (finance). The engineering division sees equity shares for Mr.Lapworth and designer John Piper, the latter a cheerful young engineer who has worked with Nigel Manshell in both Formula 1 and Formula 3.

The acceptance of BMW’s four-wheel drive 325iX for international competition also stemmed mainly from a Prodrive initiative, but that was almost nothing compared to the idea of taking the M3 into internationally rallying.

David Richards recalls how it happened; ‘We really forced them into it, step by step. BMW were not keen at first, but we have always had fantastic support from the national sales companies, particularly from BMW France. They are the best export market for the M3.’

Thus it was perhaps particularly fitting that it was on the French island of Corsica, last year, that Prodrive engineered BMW’s first world championship rally win.

Such success had its own commercial reward for Prodrive. ‘We built 28 of the 120 competition M3 kits released by Motorsport’, reveals Richards. ‘And besides building the front-running M3s for championship honours in France, Belgium, Italy and the European series that Patrick Snyers presently leads, Prodrive have built up M3s, or materially assisted in BMW’s motorsport programmes, in Holland, Spain, Switzerland, Greece and Norway.’

Most of those M3 activities were concerned with rallying, but Prodrive have not ignored the M3’s racing raison d’etre.

The two-car M3 team which they run under Mobil r/BMW Finance colours, for Frank Sytner, will be familiar to many British TB viewers now that saloon car racing gets regular exposure. At the time of writing, Sytner is just, but only just, leading the British Championship – from Any Rouse in the inevitable Sierra RS500.

Prodrive have also contested some European races this season. The six-speed gearbox, as homologated on 1 July, survived 23 hours of the Spa 24 hour race at the end of the same month (around eight of the European Touring Car Championship), only to be let down in the end by engine failure.

Our test cars were two of the three Prodrive Evolution M3s which are contesting the UK Series; the much-repaired Mike Smith machine and the series-leading M3 of BMW and Alpina UK retailer Frank Sytner.

The differences between the first M3 and the Evolution model were not so radical as to force new cars upon Prodrive. They share the new front and rear spoiler, and lightweight bootlid and rear glass, but it is worth noting that neither power nor weight are notably changed in Group A racing guise.

Prodrive’s senior race technician, Peter Holley, explained: “The road car changed do not affect the racing systems that we use, so power remains around 300bhp for a really cracking example, with 285 to 295bhp the norm.” And race engineer David Potter added: “The quality of the panels used and the slight reduction in glass thickness don’t drop weight appreciably below 1000kg (2200lb), which is still above the M3’s class minimum of 940kg (2068lb).

In Group A racing, in fact, M3 power is augmented by little more than 35 percent, even in the best examples, which is considerably less than any team running turbo cars would expect. This shortfall leads to inevitable discontent, particularly when the M3’s arch-rival the Sierra RS500 can be transformed from 224bhp in road form to a widely available 440 to 480bhp in competition guise.

Three times this season, the disparity between the two has led the German authorities to restricting the Ford’s power output by means of air restrictors, while allowing the BMW’s up to 330bhp with the use of single-side fuel injection. The British rules, by comparison, remain unfettered, save in the less prestigious (Uniroyal/Monroe) ‘production’ series, but David Richards is among those who support rule changes to make the racing closer between BMW and Ford in 1989.

On the M3 rally engines, replacement camshafts help bring the torque peak down to a reasonable 5500rpm, but on the racing engines the 199lb ft peak doesn’t occur until 7000rpm – which explains the need for close gear ratios and plenty of them for circuit success.

The conventional five-speed synchromesh Getrag gearbox has ratios (from first to fifth) of 2.337, 1.68, 1.358, 1.150 and 1.000:1. The ‘Prodrive six’ offers ratios of 2.449, 1.913, 1.579, 1.332, 1.148 and 1.000:1. That means a more appropriate ratio for most race track cornering problems.

Peak power is at 8200rpm, but the Bosch Motronic chip in the digital engine management system of Frank Sytner’s car allows a maximum of 8800rpm. On Britain’s short tracks that will allow Mr. Sytner to brush 150mph, but the wide choice of axle ratios is claimed to yield up to 175mph on longer circuits. German magazines have electronically timed the M3 from 0-60mph in some 4.5 seconds and there is no reason to think the Prodrive examples would be any slower.

The cabin is functional in the business tradition, but far from stark. The door panels are trimmed and the predominantly white colour scheme extends to the steel scaffolding which Matter sell as a roll cage.

As you would hope in a world that is going to be subjected to the considerable g-forces generated by 9-inch wide Pirelli slicks, the driving position bolts you into the car as an integral component, located by six-point Sabelts and the clinging embrace of an ultra light Sparco racing seat, while braced by a massive aluminum foot rest. There is little chance that your feet will slip off either a foot pedal or the floor, since anti-slip grids are liberally applied.

Instrumentation is extensive, with six dials, and functions such as ignition, lightning and fuel pumps are supported by nine, fused push buttons over the transmission tunnel. The Stack rev-counter is a particularly memorable device, for it recalls the maximum rpm used, via two recall commands, and can be plugged into a micro-processor analyser to spew forth engine speed readings at regular circuit intervals.

The four-cylinder 2332cc engine (slightly overbored from standard, at 94.0mmX84.0mm) literally starts on the push of a button. It pays not to touch the throttle pedal, as the engine management automatically accelerates the engine beyond the 1150rpm tickover to produce perfect starts – helped by a Pulsar battery transplanted from a helicopter.

You may study the six-speed plus reverse gearshift pattern apprehensively, but such fears are quickly dispelled by the instant selection of first. There is the inevitable clonk of a generously dimensioned dog-gear box without synchromesh, and the fifth to fourth downshift takes some finding, yet the deft speed with which each shift can be made thereafter will be familiar only to motorcyclists and formula car-drivers.

‘You do have to be brave and just slam the changes through confidently,’ admits designer John Piper, ‘but we are in the process of designing a “Mk2″ unit that will be even better, because the lever will be shortened and a degree of compliance built in to reduce the shocks fed back to the driver in long rallies or 24 hour races.’

Naturally, the engine does not like full throttle in racing trim while the Stack tacho’s needle is in amongst the small numbers below 4000rpm. Even then, you are better waiting to 5000rpm for a rude response. In practice, 7000 to 8800rpm is the natural habitat of this tough, 2.3litre, 16-valve screamer.

For our test, the British Championship silencing was fitted, below 5000rpm the noise emitted really wasn’t much more than that experienced on a sporting road car. But above 5000 there is a definite increase in interest and from 7000 onward the whole unit seems to pull its short stroke act together and soar towards the rev limiter in each gear.

‘You hardly ever hang onto a gear for more than a couple of seconds.’ says Sytner with enthusiasm. You share his glee when the tachometer blinks by barely 400-500rpm on each marvellous change, and the engine resumes its supercar standard of thrust.

As we’ve already noted, the M3, even in Evolution guise, does not have much power by the standards of the ‘boosty boys’ who utilise turbocharging in their Sierras and Nissans, but it transmits every drop to the pavement and preserves every precious decimal point of cornering speed.

The sheer grip available is hard to comprehend in something that bears such a close relationship to a road car, but the steering is not monumentally heavy on the move, even without the standard power steering.

Basically, you point the M3 at a corner under full throttle and it either screams through….or not. In the latter case, just radio the experience Mike Smith for further low level landing advice!

Ask Frank Sytner to list the virtues of his white Evolution steed, and he will cite in comparison to the original car, ‘the car does feel better. It has more aerodynamic bite and it just turns in terribly well.’

We later learned that part of the reason for this lies in the use of 16inch diameter front wheels and 17inch rears. They’re BBS at present, but likely to be Speedline in the near future.

Next, stir in a thoroughly sorted suspension system (based on newly fabricated parts for the MacPherson front struts, and vastly stronger rest trailing arms). Then deploy 1000lb/in front springs (about eight times stiffer than those of a sports hatch!) and 675lb/in rears. In addition, the system is swiftly adjustable in most respects, and has a number of alternative leverage points for the 27mm front anti-roll bar and 20mm rear, to transform roll stiffness.

Of the M3 in general, Frank feels its winning qualities are ‘firstly, robustness – it never feels that you should drive it anything but absolutely flat out, and there are no worries about boost levels, or any of that nonsense. It will run to nearly 9000rpm for 24 racing hours. Secondly, the handling gives it the capability of qualifying in amongst Sierras with nearly twice the power. They brake like hell where we might dab and have to go flat out.’

‘You have to work really hard in this car for a lap time, but it’s supremely satisfying when you succeed.’

‘And thirdly, the brakes are excellent. At 300bhp you try not give speed away, but when you do need them they are brilliant. Not as good as they have been, because the authorities made us lose an inch of rubber width this season, but still fine.’

Whatever the treat from the Sierras, it’s still likely that the cars we drove represent the formula that will ultimately win this year’s British Saloon Car Champship. It was an exhilarating privilege, and maybe there’s a lesson beyond racing – that there must be a future for six speeds in the next generation of roadgoing 16-valve performers.

Related posts:

1. A beautiful car with everything you need BMW relies heavily on motorsport to sell its sporting road...
2. M Power As well as their handling and performance, M3s have attracted...
3. Road Race Rivals Adopting Group A rules for rallying as well as racing...

It’s the type of car that gets you in trouble with the law…it is so responsive that you want to drive it hard. This car has some very good natural abilities in its production state. You can feel the road. You know it’s there. The speaker is Willy Lewis. The car is the BMW M3. In our unending quest to find out what cars will do when pushed to the limit, we enlisted the help of Lewis, a stock M3, Ray Korntan’s firehawk racing M3, arid Watkies Glen International Raceway. It took more than a little effort to pull all of those things together at the same time, but after several changes and many promises “not to do anything silly,” we found ourselves on a fine summer day at the legendary road course.

Watkins Glen is where it all began. If you are into sports car racing, then you know that the tiny up state town everyone calls The Glen gave birth to the Sports Car Club of America, to sports car (read foreign car) racing in America, and much of what we hold sacred about racing today.

After some very hard times, The Glen is back in a big way. The course is beautiful, and a perfect place for us to see just how much racing can improve the breed.

The folks at BMW made a street M3 available to us on the condition that we not completely destroy it in our little test. The bright red example they provided had 9000 miles on the clock and one of the strange maladies we have ever encountered in a car: a loose windscreen. The problem would manifest itself at speeds above 60mph by generating a strange hiss from the area of the dash.

At first it seemed to be coming from the radio, but persisted even with the radio turned off. The cure was discovered long before the cause. By cracking one of the side windows, the noise would go away. Lewis was the one who finally discovered the cause of the noise and wondered aloud if the entire windshield might not pop out at some point. We tried not to think about that for the rest of the test.

In all other ways, the street machine was just what any citizen can buy at the local BMW dealer for $35,000 cash money. For a complete road test of the M3, refer to the December 1987 issue of SCI. We will just touch on the salient points here. The car is the spear carrier of BMW’s attempt to get back to the performance market it abandoned in the seventies in favour of the Yuppie market. It is the 1988 version of the 2002tii. That is to say, a state of the art, nearly uncompromising road car that is as fun to drive as any sedan in the world. It will do virtually anything the driver asks of it with ease and restraint. It encourages its driver to push his own limits, but that driver will likely never approach the M3’s. For a capsule summary, refer to Willy Lewis’ quote at the beginning of this story.

Mr. Lewis knows about testing cars that are quite similar and finding the subtle difference. He probably holds more different single-marque titles than anyone around. In 1983, he won the Renault Cup against a zillion other folks in identical RS (Le Car) Renaults and the following year won the inaugural season of SCCA’s Sports Renault. In 1985 he missed repeating that championship by one point. For 1986 he proved that he could also drive formula cars by winning the Barber-Saab Championship. In all of these series, he proved he was the best when it came to running identical cars.

For this season Lewis and his sponsor (more about that in a minute) wanted to do a BMW program in the Firehawk (IMSA showroom stock) series. And if you are going to do a BMW program in showroom stock, who better to hook up with than Ray Korman.

Now understand, Lewis’ deal was not the usual beer or tire or oil or tobacco deal. Nope, ole Willy got himself linked up with an art gallery. Yeah, you know, like Picasso or Rembrandt or Da Vinci. Well, in this case, the connection happened to be Van Gogh. To be more precise, it was the Van Gogh painting Les Irisis, which sold last year for a record $53 million. That painting belonged to a friend of Willy’s, one John Payson. Payson owns galleries in Maine, Manhattan, and Florida. His business is selling works of art, and he felt that one way to reach an affluent audience of potential customers was through racing. While beer and oil and tire companies might want their name on a car, Payson had something more elaborate in mind. He commissioned one of the artists he deals with to design and execute an original graphic on the car. Then he also had a second car built and painted just for display in his galleries and at other shows. (For the very dedicated and observant BMW types in the crowd, we will tell you that the show car is not an M3, but a 325 that Korman’s shop converted to look like an M3. It is still a 325 under the skin.)

“The race car is conceptual art,” explained Payson. “It is art for the moment. They display car and the painting that goes with it (they are artistically one unit) are permanent art. And they are for sale as art objects if anyone is interested.”

If you have to ask, then you can’t….etc. Anyway, the going price is about $100,000. Remember, you are getting one of a kind here.

The artist who did the design, Gary Buch, says that the design is, “a very abstract representation of a tree over the car or a shadow of a tree over the car or a shadow of a tree with the leaves being ripped off the back.”

That’s very nice, Gary, but let’s leave the art to Connoisseur and get back to racing.

The main secret of the M3’s success, of course, is the 2.3 litre 16 valve four banger that pumps out 190+bhp in standard trim. That moves the 2700 pound car through sub-16 quarters and 7.5 second 0 to 60sprints. Those numbers are not all that impressive, but then Americans are the only people in the world who think standing start times are important. What the M3 does as well as nay car we have tested is respond. Between 40 and 90 on most roads, the M3 in standard trim will do its driver proud against any competition.

All of those qualities, unfortunately, add up to some serious problems for the M3 as a showroom stock race car. With the M3, BMW has done many of the things that racers would normally do to street cars to make them into showroom stock racers. The attention to detail, the assembly, the choice of springs and shocks, and a hundred other things have already been optimized by BMW. That means that preparing an M3 for showroom stock racing yields less improvement than with most cars.

Not to worry, however. If you are going to prepare and race BMWs, there is just one place to turn.

Ray Korman probably knows more about setting up and racing BMW showroom stock cars than anyone in the country. In 1986 he built and raced the only Sports class car to ever win overall at an IMSA Firehawk race. His 325e BMWs were the scourge of the Firehawk series whenever they raced. Korman cars won half the races and the series championship for BMW.

Korman began learning his BMW magic by working on an 1800ti at tracks in Bangkok, Singapore, Macau, and Kuala Lumpur when he was stationed in the Far East by the US Air Force. He also ran BMW’s with numbers like 2002tii, 320i and 325e. By the time he came face to face with M3 last year, he knew that he had his work cut out.

“The photo of the M3 that you’ve seen in the magazine ads where it’s lifting a front wheel shows you our problem. At speed in certain types of corners, the front would lift and air would get under the car. The car would understeer right off the track. We would have to go into the corner and then lift to make the front bite. Since the cars behind us didn’t know we were going to lift, we got hit more than once,” says Korman.

“Also, the brakes got very hot. They would work very well, but build up to 1600 to 1800 degrees. Last year we did more with brakes than in all the previous 20 years I have been running BMWs. The brakes were an utter disaster on street courses. John (Andretti) virtually destroyed a car when he hit the wall at Columbus.”

So Ray and his people went to work on the suspension and the brakes. They spent a lot of time getting the proper sway bars and shocks. Both are adjustable: the bars are from Korman, the shocks from Bilstein. The IMSA rules allow negative camber, which is added to M3 by cutting slots in the tops of the mounting towers to lean the shocks inwards. Those changes were just hard work and lots of time.

“The brakes,” says Ray, “are a super secret.”

He will be happy to sell you all of his special pads you’d like to have, but they are outrageously expensive because to make them he has to buy new BMW pads and scrape all of the pad off the backing plate and then mold the new material onto those plates. That means you have the price of a set of pads before he ever begins working his magic.

To make them work right, however, you will need a set of special wheels (at nearly $300 a pop), and guess where you get the wheels? Right again, BMW fans. Korman had the wheels specially made in Japan and had to buy lots of them, so he has a good supply. They are built to extract air from around the brakes so that more cooling air can be pulled from the back. After all, 1600 degrees is not the optimal temperature for brakes running a 24 hour race.

“We don’t get any major horsepower improvements out of the engine. BMW builds these cars very carefully. But we go through the engine and make certain that it is right,” Korman says.

“You don’t get to make many changes, so you have to be certain that you are getting 100percent out of the changes you do make.”

Ray says that if an M3 is brought to his shop, it will cost something like $9000 in parts and $9000 in labour to create a competitive Firehawk M3. Oh, and be sure the radio is wired completely separately. “The first time we went out (with the radio installed) and keyed the mike, the engine quit.”

So what does all this R&D and test time and money yield?

A car that is surprisingly like the street car. We have tested several showroom stock cars against their street-going counterparts and found most of them to be completely different beast than their stock brethem. The Korman M3 is clearly a racing car, but most of the personality that BMW built into the street machine is still there.

As we cruised the track at Watkins Glen, the most noticeable difference between the two cars was the noise. The Firehawk car has no muffler or catalytic converter, so it tends to be loud, as in 16 valve 200-plus horsepower loud.

Lewis puts it like this: “The street car seems much less powerful. When you are doing 6500 in the Firehawk car, you can really hear it. The street car is much quieter. Both cars are flat off the line unless you want to use the clutch to come up. The engine doesn’t come on until about 3500, then you start feeling the powerband. At 4500 you can ask the throttle to do anything it will. But the cars are more alike than different.”

As Willy pushed a bit, it was clear that the street car was outclassed. It did not have the cornering power at the limits of the Firehawk machine. At first, both cars could stop about equally, but that did not last.

“The street car is so good that you almost forget that it is not a race car. As I came down through the horseshoe, I thought I was driving the race car, until we got right near the limit. Then it feels like you have lots of understeer, but what really happens is the front end starts to come up. It feels like you could throw the back end out, but if you apply power, it just goes strait. You have to fight your instincts, lift, and let the front end bite again.

“Now, on a loose surface that problem doesn’t come up. Probably because you don’t have such high speeds. We went out on a gravel road, and it was easy to induce all the oversteer we wanted. You can really drive the car with the throttle if you want to, especially on gravel.

“The M3 has all the brakes that anyone would ever need on the road, but on track I could feel them starting to beg for mercy. It’s a credit to Ray that he has overcome these shortcomings for the race car. The only thing the Firehawk M3 lacks is cubic inches. To go as fast as Camaros, you have to draft them on the straights. We used to eat them in the corners, but they have new suspensions and brakes and our work is even harder.”

A good time on the long course at The Glen for the street car was a 2:25 (83mph), “a real scary 25. The front end starts to lift and the brakes start to fade by the end of the second or third corner,” says Lewis. “It wouldn’t make a difference for one or two laps, but after that…”

Two years ago, a 2:25 would have put the M3 near the pole, but the times they are a-changing. In serious practice and qualifying, the Firehawk M3 turns laps as quick as 2:20.

“Remember what we are doing here,” said Lewis. “We are pressing these cars right to the absolute limits. On an expressway, 100mph is white knuckle time, and we are going a lot faster than that here. I remember at Sebring I had to brace the steering wheel with my knee to plug in my helmet radio. I happened to look down at the speedometer and we were going 122mph. And there we are saying that a street car exhibits some understeer as 85 under severe loads in a tight corner at the very limits. This is a very good street car. Believe me, I would much rather drive it every day than I would the race car. The M3 is a car that is easy for good drivers to fall in love with.”

The conditions of our test precluded a wheel-to-wheel race, which would have proven very little anyway. After all, the street car had neither a roll cage or shaved tires, and its full exhaust system was just another of its many performance handicaps.

Even in the short stretches of The Glen where the two cars were side by side, the Firehawk car was clearly better. It stuck better, leaned less, tracked more certainly, and had more power at al speeds. It could go into the corners deeper, hold a tighter line, and carry more speed into the straight.

But I have to say that when it came time to go home, I’m glad that the car I drove the 250miles back to BMW was the little red M3. The only thing I avoided all the way back was the expressway. If you are going to drive this little car, find an endless trip of twisty asphalt and keep the revs up high.

Related posts:

1. BMW M3 Track Test The M3, old news or not, is so well balanced...
2. Group A Comes to America Group B rally cars, the Killer Bees, were among the...
3. BMW M Road and Track BMW's M1, M3 and M5 represent almost ten years of...

Adopting Group A rules for rallying as well as racing was meant to close the gap between road and competition machines. That it has done, not by producing slow race and rally cars, but by bringing a new generation of affordable 150mph road-rockets. While last year’s Group A hatchbacks were virtually as quick over rally stages as the previous Group B monsters, ordinary customers have been able to buy a car capable of more than doubling the speed limit which cost less on introduction than £17,000.

We have been used to the idea of homologation specials in runs of 400 or 200, from Lancia Stratos to Metro 6R4, but, the FIA reasoned, surely a minimum production of 5000 would preclude out-and-our hot-rods being built?

Five years ago, perhaps, no manufacturer would have dared to propose such a car for sale, but with the apparently insatiable demand of the enthusiasts for more and more performance, we now have two near-150mph machines which fall easily within the executive car price bracket. And both are saloons with rooms for four or five people. Can a car such as this be a useable proposition?

Undoubtedly yes. Both the Ford Sierra Cosworth RS500 and BMW’s M3 tested here offer blistering acceleration, outstanding grip, and razor-sharp responses in a packet which will stay cool and untroubled even in traffic queues. And at just under £20,000 for the Ford and £23,550 for the M3 they both offer performance value well above almost anything else.

To a lover of two-seater Italian exotics, it hardly seems right that these two should clothe the impulsion of a Ferrari in a family body, but it shows that the “sportscar label gets more and more blurred year by year.

Ford’s racer has become notorious for getting its owners into trouble, and has supplanted the Capri as the first choice for the light-fingered. Drivers have been caught out by its explosive performance, and more than one has caught fire, always a hazard with turbocharged cars. Yet this has only helped to give it a rather wicked image which does no harm at all to sales of such small-run devices. And having paved the way to the circuits with 5000 204bhp cars, the next step was to take advantage of the FIA ruling which allows a further 10% of this number to be built with improvements – the evolution process.

Even 5000 is a tiny number to an international giant like Ford, so the evolution cars, developed by Ford’s Special Vehicle Engineering department at Dunton, were assembled instead by Coventry-based Aston Martin Tickford.

Starting with fully-built Cosworths, Tickford’s team removed the spoilers fore and aft, modifying the front airdam to gulp more cool air where spotlamps once sat, and then fitting a new boot-top spoiler to complement the extra lip on the tailplane.

The 204bhp motors were removed and new 224bhp units from Cosworth replaced them, boasting larger turbo, revised inlet tracts and a new full-width intercooler which has to be mounted behind the radiator instead of above as before. Extra heat-shielding also appeared, and new location holes allowed for minor changes to the geometry of the rear trailing arms.

All 500 cars were ready for their homologation inspection by the end of July last year, and the Eggenberger team took the new car to a 1-2 victory immediately afterwards at Brno.

There is, however, one substantial difference between road car and racer which helps to explain where more than 400bhp of works horsepower comes from: a secondary injection system is built into the RS500 engine. Inactive on road cars, the system is called into play in race-prepared cars through a different microchip, and allows the engine to swallow an even bigger fuel/air charge on each intake stroke.

With most of the private team cars, converted up to RS500 spec, it has become difficult for anyone else to snatch overall victory from Ford, and indeed the world teams title eventually fell to the Sierras, after some wrangling over legality. But BMW’s successes with the M3 have been if anything more consistent and wide-ranging: Roberto Ravaglia is WTC champion driver, the less prestigious ETC crown fell to an M3, and the car has dominated various national Group A and Group N series.

For BMW, too, there was a sensational dispute over the legality of its cars: at the WTC opener in Monza, M3s finished 1-2-3-4-5-6-8, only to be disqualified when the scrutineers questioned the plastic boot and roof panels. Once that drama was settled, the Munich evolution car had arrived: enlarged from 2302cc to 2332cc, 12:1cr, improved breathing and an extra cooling slot in the front spoiler, pushing the total over 300bhp.

While Ford was still undecided whether to back its Cosworth or XR4X4 Sierra for rallying, its German rival had been developed from the beginning to do both jobs, and proved this with the victory in Corsica of a car privately prepared in Britain by Dave Richards’ Prodrive team.

If there is a benefit from the elimination of the specialist Group B rallycars, it must be that cars such as the Sierra Cosworth and the BMW M3 have a chance to shine both on tarmac and on dirt roads – broadening their useful return to the factory which has invested in their development, while still imparting an air of glamour to the more mundane cars in the High Street which they resemble.

That resemblance can be stretched, of course, and while Ford has retained the two-down Sierra shell essentially unaltered under a layer of air-smoothing dressing, BMW has made some radical changes to the 3-series shape.

All-new wing panels incorporate smoothly flared arches which will swallow tyres of up to 10in width (the maximum allowed in this 2500cc class), but even more striking are the changes to the rear window area. To help fill in the low-pressure patch behind the relatively steep window of the standard saloon, the whole glass is lifted from the bottom edge, giving it a flatter rake. A new 1 1/2 in higher plastic bootlid carrying a tall spoiler fairs the new panels into the rest of the tail, and the result is less lift and better stability.

Careful use of GRP and impact-absorbing foam means that the bumper/airdam at each end fulfills all the various impact regulations, even those in the USA, and simple flared sills below the doors tidy up the airflow between the wheels, giving the M3s a drag-coefficient of 0.33 despite its extra width.

Powering this taut little saloon is not the six-cylinder one might expect but a slanted 2.3 litre four related to the Formula Two and Formula One engines. This choice was based on the greater strength of a shorter crankshaft, allowing higher sustained engine revs with all the advantages that implies for racing. Valvegear closely follows the pattern of the six-cylinder M1 engine which continues in the other two M-cars, the M635 and M5, the twin cams being driven by a duplex chain, and the spark plug sitting centrally between the four valves.

Although this four-cylinder block has been in production for many years, the M3’s 2.3 litres capacity means that it now has the biggest bore possible. As a result the two centre cylinder-liners have to be cast as a pair like those on BMW’s big six-cylinder engines, a principle which helps stiffen the whole unit in preparation for racing revs of 9000 and more. A complex sump and an oil cooler ensure that the oil can do its job under racetrack extremes.

BMW’s Motronic injection system fuels the engine and is linked on the home marker to the compulsory catalytic converter, which knocks 5bhp off the unrestricted output; down to 195bhp. Torque shows the same small drop from 177lb ft in British specification to 170 at home. Yet the clean-breathing version still breaks the 7-second barrier for the 0-60mph dash, and any loss in top speed is marginal – 143 as opposed to 146mph. Should an environmentally-concerned UK buyer want to convert his car, the catalyst may be added later with a simple adjustment of the electronics.

A close-ratio five-speed Getrag gearbox with first down to the left leaves the top four gears in simple H, while the clutch has its lining bonded as well as riveted in place. For maximum grip a 25% limited-slip differential is standard equipment.

To give the M3 its arrow-like stability and instant response the chassis alterations have been extensive. Castor is three times the standard amount, while new stub axles allow larger 5-series bearings to be fitted. The power-assisted steering has a very quick ratio, and not only is the anti-roll bar substantially stiffer, but it now pivots on the outside of the spring strut, giving extra leverage. Wheel movement is controlled by new twin-tube gas-pressurised dampers, tuned to different response curves front and rear. Revised damping plus harder springing are the modifications on the rear axle, which retains the geometry of the semi-trailing arm swept back at 15″

Both the front and rear brake discs are larger and thicker, the fronts being vented, and ABS is standard fitment. There is plenty of rubber in touch with the road, as the 15in alloy wheels carry 205/55 VR 15 Michelin MXX tyres.

But climb inside the M3 and nearly all these changes are invisible; true, the speedometer now reads to 160mph, and the top edge of the free standing rear spoiler intrudes slightly into the rear view, but the fascia looks perfectly standard 3-series, and the square-cut sports seats could be those fitted to many other fancy German cars. A steering wheel on the left looks out of place in a car with British plates, but as long as the car stands still it appears to be an ordinary small Munich saloon.

That feeling disappears within a few yards when the M3 sets off. There is a bark as the engine starts, and with the lever slotted down to the left for first, the quick positive clutch and hard responsive feel through the leather rimmed wheel indicate the character of the car even before the lever slips into fifth gear.

Everything feels tight and sharp; the gear ratios are close together, the steering is rapid, and there is an immediate answering surge when you depress the throttle. It does not seem to matter that the revs have nearly reached 5000 before the torque levels off; the engine pulls firmly even from a rather rumbly 2000rpm, getting stronger and stronger as the 4000 mark is passed on the way to its 6750 power peak, accompanied all the while by an almost Italian raspberry from the exhaust.

Although the smoothness of the six is missing, the harsh edge obvious at low revs quickly fades out; and no matter what the revs a stab of the throttle flicks the tach needle round smartly for very rapid gearchanges.

Only the pronounced angling of the steering wheel spoils the otherwise excellent driving position; the driver sits rather upright in the black leather Recaro seats with all instruments visible and all controls comfortably placed, but the axis of the wheel points strongly towards the centre of the car, stretching the left arm more than the right. Yes, one gets used to it, but it never feels quite right.

Amongst the instrumentation (lit at night by a pink glow) there is an oil-temperature gauge set into the tach but no pressure reading, surprisingly. BMW’s neat computer is installed in the centre console, but without the handy column stalk button of the 7-series, and incorporates an ice-warning which saw a lot of action on a trip north. A chime sounds and the readout flashes if the temperature drop to 38degrees F, and again when it drops to 34 degrees; if you get into the car in freezing conditions the alarm sounds when the ignition switch is turned.

Good heat and ventilated control is provided by rotary knobs, the horn buttons are set in the wheel spokes, and the door mirrors are electrically operated, although the windows are not, to save weight on the track. In all other respects, though, the M3 is equipped as a luxury saloon despite its uncompromising competition breeding; not surprising when you remember that, like ford Cosworth, even if 300 of these cars are sold to private race or rally teams, that leaves 4700 to be sold to the general public.

For the driver, the biggest contrast between Cosworth 500 and M3 is In power delivery. A racing car in road trim sounds a doubtful proposition to make available to the man in the showroom, even though the horsepower he gets is considerably less than what the big teams are playing with; 120bhp down on a top M3, and at least 200bhp less for the Ford than the Eggenberger Texaco Sierras which took the WTC team title in 1987.

While turbocharging allows extra horsepower to be added relatively easily, by enlarging the blower and revising the settings in the engine control system, the result in the RS500 shows up all the disadvantages of turbos for road use. Low compression means slow reactions while the little boost needle wavers below atmospheric pressure, but as it flicks to positive boost the urge redoubles and the car bolts forward like a cycle racer breaking away from the pack. IT is a Jekyll-into-Hyde switch; sudden but predictable if you keep an ear open to the engine and an eye on boost gauge and tach. Where the plain Cosworth had something to offer from 3000 but lost interest before 6000, the RS500 spins to seven thousand but waits until four to set off.

In a straight line it is exhilarating to keep the pedal hard down, listening to the squeal and puff of the blower in each gear while the arm-stretching thrust of second steps down tot eh calmer but no less exciting fifth-gear rush into the realm of three-figure speeds – for this is where a turbo excels. At 95mph the boost needle is quivering with anticipation: a twitch of the right foot and the speed whistles without effort to 120 or more.

But while the upward transition is controllable, the reverse is more likely to catch you out, when the snarling Mr. Hyde reverts to mild-mannered Dr. Jekyll. Settled in a corner with all four tyres sharing the work and a steady throttle, the Sierra feels completely flat and stable, little clonks coming through the small wheel to make you imagine that this is Donington’s Redgate corner; but when the real world intrudes with some mud on the road or a tighter kink than you allowed for, the risks of lifting off are magnified. If that boost gauge drops, a large chunk of horsepower will evaporate in an instant, and when pressing on hard that could spell disaster, promoting a spin so fast that even the Sierra’s quick steering might not save you.

With normal aspiration, the penalty for such a mistake is less severe, and the BMW’s 2in-shorter wheelbase means it is easy to catch should the rear wheel get out of line. Its top-gear performance, of course, cannot match the Cosworth, but both cars are exceptional anyway; from 70mph the M3 will hit 90 in just over seven seconds using third and fourth gears, which is impressive enough.

The unit revs willingly past maximum power (6750rpm) and on beyond the 7000 mark to a maximum 8000. In fact it is so keen to rev even in top that I repeatedly wanted a sixth gear, although the car is by no means under-geared – at 70mph the engine is turning at a comfortable 3000rpm, and the ratios are nicely spaced.

Driving the Ford quickly around country roads demands much more concentration. It is certainly the more extreme, the more racer-like of the two Group A cars; spherical joints instead of rubber in the suspension means the occupants know all about potholes, which reverberate through the interior. Spring rates are very stiff too, and the trade-off for the ultra-flat cornering and tremendous roadholding is the rattle and shudder over broken surfaces and bumps.

This is where the difference between the base cars begins to show; BMW’s fine standard of assembly carry through to its race-special, with solidly fitted panels and trim. Basic Sierras are aimed at a lesser market, and even the addition of all the luxuries such as velour Recaro seats and high-quality radio/cassette cannot disguise the tinnier sound of the doors shutting and the odd creaks from the fascia panels.

Yet it is a comfortable place to be, at the wheel of the Ford, cradled by the prominent bolsters of the firm seats. A smaller leather-covered wheel means less of a stretch, for like all the lesser Fords the wheel is not adjustable. Instead there is a crank to alter the height of the seat, though I should have been happier if the tilt angle were controllable separately. A leather gearknob tops the lever with its notchy action, less crisp than the M3 but fast enough when trying to shift from second to third without losing boost; the boost gauge itself is hidden by the wheelrim.

Other than this the dials are all in plain view, and the 90degree quadrant tachometer, for many years standard pattern for racing bikes, is particularly easy to take in out of the corner of the eye as the next double-bend unravels ahead of the Sierra’s blunt nose.

With its outrageous tail spoiler, strongly sculpted side-sills and bulky airdam, there is no fear of overlooking the Cosworth, and of course the choice of the three-door shell which the UK does not otherwise see distinguishes it from all other Sierras. Undoubtedly the spoiler’s effect is significant, amplified on the RS500 by the rubber lip and additional XR4 X 4 spoiler below which is the quick way to tell a “normal” Cosworth from the evolution car. Where the unadorned Sierra sways about in side-winds (improved in the latest cars but still unacceptable in the estates), the RS500 runs like a torpedo for the horizon, and the faster it goes the more dogged its aim.

Many a joke has been cracked about Cosworth drivers blissfully unaware of a police car in the shadow of this tailplane, but the serious fact is that nothing at all is visible in the RS500’s interior mirror. It may be the best anti-dazzle device ever, but it is frankly unsafe on the packed roads of southern England, and the tiny number of these cars which will be sold is not an exuse.

Away from the worst of the traffic, the RS500 simply leaves behind just about anything else available in power-per-pound terms. It is not surprising that, at less than £17,000, dealers and public alike were quick to absorb the original batch of 5000 cars, though not all of these left the dealers’ forecourts in a hurry, and advertisements still appear from time to time offering delivery-mileage cars.

Theoretically, all 500 evolution cars, converted from plain Cosworths, have been sold too, though no doubt some will surface again having been stored by optimistic investors.

Though it is eclipsed by the Ford is sheer brute performance, it has to be said that BMW has produced the more useable car. On a dry, open piece of road, the Cosworth offers the closest feeling to a rose-jointed racer, tiny movements of the wheel translating into a precise dart left or right while its adhesion squeezes the driver against the seat bolsters. Gently straightening the car and feeding in more boost makes the stomach tense with excitement and concentration – a wonderful sensation.

But venture out on a soggy day, and a different tension grips you. The front wheels skitter from puddle to puddle, and finding it will spin its wheels in third keeps you well away from the outside of the performance envelope. Only the relentless action of the brakes with their four-pot front callipers and ABS seems well suited to these conditions.

Try the same weather in the M3, and confidence returns. You can tell exactly how close to the edge those fat Michelins are treading, the balance is unaffected, and that sparkling engine continues to churn out instantly-controllable torque. With adequate forethought on road-positioning, LHD is not a problem; it demonstrates that the view past a slow lorry is from hanging back rather than being near the centre-line and this is a car which will whistle past in the smallest gaps. Undoubtedly the more rounded of the two in its blend of abilities, the little M3 is a gem.

BMW has been proved right in its belief that it would continue to sell to performance-hungry enthusiasts; an extra 1500 have been built over and above the FIA’s arbitrary figure of 5000 units, justifying its choice of a full-scale assembly line.

Ford, on the other hand, never intended to extend production of the homologated car beyond the minimum, being content that its relative cheapness and scarcity would ensure sufficient buyers, but instead planned a “new” model, saloon version with more emphasis on comfort. That car, the Saphhire RS Cosworth, will be announced at the beginning of this month and we will report our impression in the next issue. Its arrival will close the price gap between these two racetrack rivals, and make choosing between them a harder task.

As things are, there is a £4000 difference, so the man who can afford the BMW is possibly not going to see the RS500 as being in the same part of the market. But the Sierra Sapphire is an altogether more refined machine than the previous hatches, and with the right suspension compromise, ever better build quality, and the more responsive 204bhp engine, a Sapphire Cosworth might tread on BMW’s toes.

Related posts:

1. BMW M Road and Track BMW's M1, M3 and M5 represent almost ten years of...
2. Storm Force There's a power struggle in Germany. Mercedes began the strife...
3. Locking Horns: BMW M3 vs Ford Sierra Ford and BMW both have serious European Championship saloon car...

By ditching the original Sierra Cosworth’s jumbo jet rear wing for its newest and possibly greatest RS, Ford has struck a blow against the boy racer it will surely never regret. Where that wing was all about racing, raw performance and track ride and handling, the new model’s discreet spoiler tells a different story – one that sums up Ford’s fastest-ever production car. With its sober three-box body, subtle body add-ons and quietly purposeful air, the Sierra RS Cosworth gains a respectability that sees it in the forefront of high performance sports saloons. Its hariy-chested one-off image has been discarded along with that giant wing.

The change is reflected inside and underneath, with a package of revisions that confirm this boy racer special has indeed grown up. The RS is now a softer, quieter, easier car, with plenty of luxury equipment on one hand and, crucially, no loss of performance on the other. It’s a mixture – on sale now at £19,000 – that meets BMW’s M3 and Mercedes-Benz’s 190E 2.3-16 head on.

In this battle the production Sierra RS takes the middle ground. On its left, the M3 is a pure homologation special – a roadgoing version of a racing car, just like the previous Sierra RS, and to many people, immediately appealing because of it. On its right, the 2.3-16 has always been a full production car, albeit made in limited numbers. The motorsport connection is confined to specialist help and manufacture of the cylinder head. Like Ford, Mercedes uses Cosworth.

Ford is a clever company and the timing and execution of the new Sierra RS show just how clever. It has managed to combine the appeal of the successful homologation special – 1987 world touring car champion and victor of 29 international rallies – with a production capability of up to 7000 cars a year at time when, massive rear wing or not, everyone knows this Ford is the car to beat. That it has done so without skimping on redevelopment shows an understanding of the sports saloon market worthy of either its German rivals. The icing on the cake is that it has done so at a price that greatly undercuts those rivals.

Together, then, are three cars which, different backgrounds apart, set out to do the same job on remarkably similar ingredients. In choosing the four-door Sapphire body – surely as much for the extra bodyshell rigidity as any styling statement – the Ford joins the Mercedes in offering the most traditional looking package. The Mercedes has the longer wheelbase but dimensions elsewhere are within an inch or two of each other, although the Ford’s claimed kerb weight is a healthy 200lb less.

The BMW M3 is smaller everywhere than its rivals. It is a good 4ins less in the wheelbase than the Mercedes and has only two doors in its unique M3 body which sees a greater rake to the rear window, making the car look less upright than standard 3-series models. ‘Sportification’ of these otherwise commonplace mid-range family cars follows a familiar pattern of deep front spoiler, sill extensions and small wing on the bootlid, plus of course blacked-out chrome trim. The BMW sparkles hardly at all, especially when, like the test car, the body and interior are in unrelieved black.

All the engines are water-cooled fours with cast iron blocks. Their performance credentials all lie in alloy head: twin overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder are common, as are sophisticated electric fuel and ignition systems. The BMW and Mercedes share a 10.5 compression ratio, with power from their 2.3litre engine ranging from 185bhp for the Merc to 200 for the M3, developed at a heady 6200 and 6750rpm respectively. No shortage of power here, even if the lack of either bulk cubie capacity or forced induction does result in torque around the 175lb ft mark.

The Sierra claims 205lb ft of torque and Ford says 80 percent of it is available between 2300 and 6500rpm. On paper this is the Sierra’s greatest advantage over its rivals; with 204bhp, it is not very far ahead of the BMW on power, though the peak does occur lower at 6000rpm. The engine is a 2-litre with the same outline specification as the others but topped by a Garret AiResearch turbocharger blowing at a maximum of 0.7bar.

Close ratio gearboxes are used throughout, those in the German cars with dogleg first gears and direct drive top, while the Sierra has a conventional gearchange gate and 0.8 fifth ratio. With a 3.64 to one final drive there’s nothing overdrive about it, though, and maximum speed occurs a little past the power peak. The engine would need to pull 6500rpm in order to record a true 150mph, which our test car couldn’t manage on what was a very windy day at Millbrook.

The Ford and the BMW share the same basic suspension of front struts and rear semi-trailing arms, the Mercedes using its own multi-link independent rear end. Front and rear anti-roll bars are common to the three cars, as are 7ins rims shod with 15ins 205 section tyres. The German cars make do with 55 profile boots (Goodyear NCTs on the M3, Pirelli P6 on the Mercedes) while the Ford uses 50 profile Dunlop D40s – with surprising results.

Big boosted disc, all with standard anti-locking, are fitted and steering is power assisted rack and pinion (BMW and Ford) and recirculating ball (Mercedes). Equipment runs the gamut of luxury car fare with no obvious omissions, even if the 190’s manually adjustable driver’s mirror strikes a peculiar note in so expensive a car. Four-wheel drive isn’t available for any of these cars yet, but it seems logical move. As revealed in Autocar 13 January ‘87, Ford’s four-wheel drive Sierra RS Cosworth is closest to production.

Behind the Wheel

Compared with the classy black leather interiors of Mercedes and BMW, the Ford’s cabin comes across as a bit of a boudoir, with its pastel shades and obviously synthetic trim, dominated by a cumbersome dashboard of heavy-handed design and obvious plastic. The recaro seats and RS leather-bound steering wheel and gear knob cannot disguise the truth of this cabin: you are in mid-range Ford saloon, nothing more. The good news is that the driving position is easily the best of the bunch if you’re 6ft or more (anything less than that and the BMW is just as good) and the seats, too, are the best. These score most points over the others for lateral support which extends up to the shoulder blades, even if their height does make sitting in the back a little claustrophobic. Add the best ergonomics of the group, well-placed pedals and gear lever and clearly laid out instruments and the Ford is quickly comfortable and undemanding. If only it had class.

Our test M3 was converted to right-hand drive by Birds at a cost of £4440, to make a total without options of £27,420. With BMW UK’s allocation of 100 left-hand drive only M3s now all sold, this is the only way to buy a new M3 in this country. Or appearance it would be impossible to pick it from a production line right-hooker, with not a mismatched panel or creak anywhere.

The heavily bolstered, leather-trimmed seats are superb, providing lots of well-placed support but against the Ford, not the same rock steady location. Nor is there the same amount of room. Fore and aft travel is restricted and the cabin always feels narrow, making the driving position far less accommodating than either the Ford’s or the Mercedes’. Drivers of below average height will fit like a glove, however. Complaints then are few, there’s the overwhelming blackness of everything relieved only by little flashes of blue on the scattered M badges, and a centre console with a switch layout that’s illogical and fiddly. Against this, as always in BMW, the instruments are a model of clarity. Plus there’s something about this car, a slightly wicked totally indulgent side, that guarantees a smile everytime you snuggle down into it.

The Mercedes at £27,300 plus options doesn’t quite manage that, but its’ close. Here is another delicious cabin that’s put together as well if no better than the BMW’s (the sound of the Mercedes doors closing is that of a precision instrument) but rather more “user friendly” with its curvaceous instrument panel and grey houndstooth trim for headlining and seat and door inserts. It’s warmer than the BMW but not sickly like the Ford.

The instruments are not as simply marked as the BMW and, compared with the Ford, the switch gear’s locations and design is poor – an area where the 190 is showing its age rather quickly. The driving position is a curious and overall rather disappointing mixture. On the one hand there is an amount on fore and aft travel for the seats which wouldn’t shame an S-class – a seven footer could drive this car – but on the other there is a typically large and very low set steering wheel that makes anything other than a straight legs, straight arms driving position an awkward compromise. The position isn’t saved by the seats: compared with the other they offer only token sideways support.

None of the cars is guilty of causing aches however, for all the front seats have fine lumbar support. The Mercedes are equipped with the best shaped back seats but the least room in which an adult can enjoy them. Lacking headroom and leg room makes the BMW impossibly cramped, while in the Mercedes a compromise can be struck that at least allows one big adult to ride in the back behind the passenger seat. With adequate legroom, excellent rear headroom and superbly sculpted rear backrests this is in fact a fine place to sit. The Ford has by far the most cabin room, though comfort in the rear is let down by a poorly shaped backrest. With a 60-40 split fold-down seat opening on to an already good sized boot, it’s again the Ford that scores highest for carrying luggage.

Performance, Economy

The Ford’s engine is neither mechanically quiet nor vibrations free, but let there be no doubt that it is the master of this group. There’s more power throughout the range, spoiled neither by turbo lag or lack of low down response and it is willing and able, time after time, to record acceleration figures that embarrass its German rivals.

Dropping the clutch at 4800rpm in the dry sees the car rocket to 60mph in 5.8secs. There’s never a suggestion of the engine bogging down, something that’s quickly appreciated around town. Second will pull away from a stop and trundling in third or fourth at very low revs is never a concern. This flexibility, surprising for a 2litre turbo, is matched by an even power flow that builds progressively into the car’s greatest performance strength; its potent mid range.

From 4000rpm there’s a wall of power to 6000. Tap into this band in third gear and overtaking become effortless, while even left in fifth there’s sufficient kick to knock you back in the seat when you press the accelerator hard at 110mph. The top speed is disappearing in view of Ford’s 150mph claim – on a less windy day there would be a little more – but in other ways this is benchmark performance for a sports saloon of any price.

In contrast, the second quickest of the group, the BMW M3, feels a little like a castrated racer. All the ingredients are there – the high torque and power peaks, the good response and businesslike sounds – only there’s 100bhp missing.

With a snatch-free drivetrain and tractability from walking pace, coupled with a 6750rpm power peak and 7500rpm red line, there’s a mighty broad engine band in which nothing much seems to happen. In practice a lot is happening; any car which gets to 60 in 6.5secs; the Test Results figure of 7.1 is for an early test car on a wet track is not short of performance. And indeed the BMW’s stride is a deceptive one.

Compared with a small BMW six, this engine is rough and noisy. Nor does it rev to its high maximum with the alacrity one expects, so that by most sports saloon standards performance is brisk if rather bland. To this tune there’s nothing cammy about the power delivery, just a long, even surge to the red line, without the Ford’s mid-range punch or top end kick. It’s possible the right hand drive conversion, which requires a new exhaust manifold, doesn’t help the little Bimmer in the area of performance and power delivery.

Apart from a terrific top speed, the Mercedes’ performance must be seen these days to be no more than average for this sort of car at Mercedes’ sort of price. A full 2secs slower to 60 than the Ford, the engine also lacks the Ford’s strong mid-range but has a more clearly defined power band at the top than the BMW. For this latest acquaintanceship with the 2.3-16 we used an automatic version. Gear changes are as efficient as with any Mercedes automatic but the change-up points are hardly in keeping with so sporty a car, and this needlessly highlights the engine’s power characteristics. With the accelerator flat to the floor gearchanges flow through at the 7000rpm red line, but in everyday driving the car often appears to be in a gear too high for ideally quick response.

Without an eager part-throttle kickdown the accelerator pedal must be pushed past its stiff detent for action stations. The box will go back to third or second, taking the engine well into its power (and noise) band, but it’s an uneven way to travel that doesn’t do justice to the Cosworth-developed engine: it is smoother and more flexible that this automatic would have you believe. Unfortunately we also know from experience that the manual gearbox has a notchy change not up to either the Ford’s or BMW’s. This, and overall performance, will have to improve with the forthcoming 2.5litre to keep abreast of the competition and retain the Mercedes’ reputation for smoothness.

Not surprisingly, where the Merc automatic does score is fuel economy. Running the cars in convoy for 600miles resulted in an overall figure of 21.4mpg for the 190 (against the manual test car’s overall 23.5), and this is enough to pip both the BMW (20.9) and Ford (18.7). Of the three, the most worrying is the Ford’s thirst. After a session at Castle Combe racetrack it recorded 13.7mpg, against the BMW’s 16 and the Mercedes’ 14.6. During performance testing it dropped to 11.6. It all goes to show that while, like the others, the mid 20s are possible on a gentle run, use all the turbo’s performance and fuel consumption is extravagant.

Handling

The driving sleet that lashed Castle Combe on the day of our visit was no bad thing. If these cars had vices, they would show them.

The most secure car here, but also the slowest, was the Mercedes. Left in third gear on the delicious selector lever, it could be hustled through the sleet with perfect poise, mildly understeering through the apexes but rarely missing them, and never seriously stepping out of line.

Despite that big, low-set steering wheel with its far from quick 3.2 power assisted runs lock to lock, the car could be thrown into corners with impunity, displaying a neutrality on or off the throttle that resulted not just in neat lines but the most relaxing drive of the day. The body rolls more than the others – something highlighted by the seats’ lack of support – but the damping its first rate and stability at speed or under heavy braking superb. This is a viceless car.

On the road it shows. Grip, turn-in response and feel through the steering are all of a high order, with reserves of stability to take the sting out of the most treacherous road or over ambitious driver. In spirited driving the only attitude is that mild understeer and body roll. You can dial in oversteer if you want – although the steering doesn’t encourage it – but it’s difficult to think of a circumstance where any tail-happiness would intrude unwanted, or unexpected. The result of all this is a car with less than razor sharp reflexes – much more grand touring than sports car – but of elevated ability.

The two other cars are much sharper in their behaviour and much more rewarding to press-on driver with their flatter cornering and more uncompromising natures. Having said that, there are key difference between Sierra and M3 that separate them utterly.

These grouses aside, the car is marvellous. It has things that BMW and Mercedes seem to have forgotten about: decently quick steering, a firm and positive gear shaft, a firm and reassuring brake pedal and tyres – ultra low 50 profile, remember – that offer grip the other two cars can only approximate. Add the best driving position and most grippy seats of the trio, plus all that fast-acting turbo power, and you have a recipe for the performance and ability that make the Cosworth a real driver’s car.

We were still filled with trepidation when we took to the track, the sleet having given way to hail. Surely here was a recipe for a driver’s car, yes, but also one enormous handful. The reality was different. After only a few laps of mixing 200bhp with hailstones through 100mph corners we had our answer. The car is forgiving, almost gentle, well balanced and surefooted to the point that it is instantly quicker than the others, even in the hand of a driver inexperience with Castle Combe’s sweeping bends. With that wonderful brake deal unleashing such potent force – the best brakes of the group by a considerable margin – and traction out of corners good enough for the mid-range power to go down hard, the car quickly falls into a rhythm of going deeper and powering out sooner. And slight oversteer on the exit is easily corrected by tug on the steering wheel.

Inherent balance aside, the thing that makes the Cosworth stand tall is its controllability, and so it is on the road. The variable ratio steering which offer such precision and poise on the track gives the car and agility missing in others, even if there is sacrifice to be made in road feel. Not everything translates well to the road, though. Where on the track the gearchange had been firm and positive, in everyday driving it emerges as distinctly truck-like and hard work with heavy, long throws and a good deal of notchiness.

The BMW’s lap time of Castle Combe, 3sec adrift of the Cosworth’s, isn’t all to do with the Ford’s superior mid-range punch and wet traction. It’s as much to do with the BMW’s grip and handling, its steering, different pedal weights and gearchange. Of the three it’s the one that demand respect in the wet, and of all three it’s the only one that will seriously bite back if pushed too far. This then, is the most difficult car to drive of the ground and the pity is that even when mastered it’s a whole 3secs slower than the Ford – and not nearly as tidy and reassuring.

The problem starts with the steering. It’s too light, vague around the straight ahead and, with four turns lock to lock, too low geared to capitalist on the agility the car’s compact dimensions should give it. It has the best feel of the group but on its own this is not enough.

The pedals, with their different weights and degrees of travel, are also more hindtrance that help. The spongy brake pedal, despite a strong and progressive braking force, is hugely disappointing on the track. Likewise, the gearchange: the racing pattern is in keeping, but the lever’s over-light and vague travel certainly is not. These aspects, in league with what is a cramped driving position you’re tall, fail to give the M3 the ‘in control’ feel the Ford so impresses on the driver. A shame, because in this car you need to be in control.

Once used to the large steering inputs, turn-in quick and accurate. Under power the M3 understeers – more than either of the others. Get off the power at the wrong moment and the car oversteers briskly, again much more so than even the Ford, though it is made more dramatic than it need be by that steering. Where in the Cosworth a quick tug will correct a slide early and precisely, an out-of-shape M3 requires armfuls of lock, the car fishtailing wildy unless correction has been judged well. In the wet there’s power-induced oversteer, too; at Castle Combe we noticed this most coming out of corners, where it was never possible to get down as much power as the Ford would have thrived on.

On the road in the dry the M3 grips, no question about it. Of the three it has by far the firmest suspension settings, best damping control and flattest body. There’s an on-rails cornering feel here that’s missing in the others. The gearchange fares better, too: it’s still a luxury car gearchange rather than a sportster’s, but it can be stroked between ratios with one finger for a far more sophisticated feel than the Ford’s. High speed stability, even on gusty motorways, is excellent, as is straight stability under heavy braking – both areas well up on the Ford, and probably the Merc too.

Ride and Refinement

The BMW’s stiff suspension and iron damping and body control give it the firmest ride of the group, and also the noisiest. Bumpthump and tyre roar intrude at most speeds. Around lumpy city streets comfort suffers but for touring there’s nothing objectionable about the ride for this sort of car. It jiggles quite sharply on sudden bumps and bang hard over potholes, whatever the speed, but it’s a small price to pay for such tautness. The Mercedes, likewise, jiggles and jolts a fair bit, and lets plenty of tyre roar into the cabin. But it’s not as unyielding around town and has a more supple ride over indifferent surfaces taken at speed. Shame about the noise though.

The Cosworth Sierra scores heavily for its isolation of road and tyre noise – it really is good. Ride, too, is very acceptable: it’s the softest around town and the least susceptible to jiggling over small frequently bumps. The penalty here, as mentioned, is a degree of bounce – a slight suggestion of underdamping. For this we mark it just behind the Mercedes on overall ability, though for short journeys on bad roads, rather than a leisurely fling to St Tropez and back, there’s no denying the Ford’s comfort advantage.

Big capacity fours like these are not noted for inherent smoothness and none of these engines changes that. All suffer from vibration – the Ford is the worst, closely followed by the BMW – and all have intrusively noisy top ends of dubious character. The Ford’s note is the gruffest, especially low down where it’s joined by some gear whine, while the Mercedes, overall the quietest car of the group, has an equally purposeful but more refined note. We expected music from the BMW’s engine, but it never appeared. What you get is an uncharacteristic sound far from the silky smoothness and high rev bark of a small BMW six. All the engine are dominant enough, with the varying amounts of road roar, to mask wind noise, which is not a problem in any of the cars until past 100mph.

Conclusions

There are all fine cars, as purposeful and capable as any to have the label sports saloon. Office opinion as to a winner is divided, which is why we have taken the opportunity to include the personal views of those involved in the test.

The facts, though, are these: the BMW is cramped and fails to give drivers the sort of easy controllability they deserve, especially in view of less than forgiving ultimate handling. It looks the part, is well built and recks of class.

Likewise the Mercedes. There’s an aura here you don’t get in the Ford, an integrity and quality throughout its being. It’s less cramped than the BMW, softer riding and much quieter but with performance that has lost its edge by today’s standards and a driving position that won’t suit all.

And the Ford is, well, in some disappointing ways, just a Ford. That is not to say it is not well built or well equipped – it is. But there can be no denying the ordinariness of the car in some areas. It still looks like a rep’s car and has a cabin design uninspirational in the extreme. More serious is the flawed high speed stability and the car’s thirst.

Against this is a range of attributes that make the Sierra RS Cosworth the best car of the group. With the best performance, driving position, seats, brakes, ergonomics, steering and grip, plus sportily failsafe handling and the least road noise of the bunch, it could not be any other way. Plus it seats four adults in a way the others cannot and costs upwards of £4000 less. The best sports saloon in the business is British.

Related posts:

1. Storm Force There's a power struggle in Germany. Mercedes began the strife...
2. Locking Horns: BMW M3 vs Ford Sierra Ford and BMW both have serious European Championship saloon car...
3. Road Race Rivals Adopting Group A rules for rallying as well as racing...