Progress is a strange animal, not least because it’s such a tough one to measure accurately. I don’t mean in cold, statistical terms – that’s easy. What I’m talking about is real progress, as in Mondeo succeeds Sierra, Omega replaces Carlton progress. The sort that is beyond reasonable questioning, no matter how fine the tooth comb.

Don the starched lab coat and point the microscope at BMW’s new M3, for example, and no matter which way you cut it, this is one car that would appear to have the magic word stamped right through to its very core. So why did we, as a magazine bursting with enthusiasts, find it so hard truly to admire the latest M3, in the way we had so passionately its slower but more memorable predecessor?

The consensus was that despite its incredible point-to-point ability and vastly superior performance, refinement and economy, the 286bhp six-cylinder M3 had sold its soul and gone soft in favour of broader market appeal. And that, in turn, had drained away a fatal amount of the original’s delicious appeal.

But were we missing something? Did the new M2 posses a spectrum of talents so far advanced that they had shot over our heads unnoticed? Or we were right in thinking that BMW had, in metal, administered a death blow to a legend?

We had to know. So we got the current M3 back and put it head to head with the sweetest example of its most immediate predecessor we could find: an Evolution II M3 plucked fresh from BMW GB’s historic fleet with just 5000miles on its clock. And to add a third dimension we got touring car ace and BMW aficionado Steve Soper involved. If he couldn’t help us find the answer, surely no one could.

As the keeper of “about three old M3s and 16 or 17 M5s over the years”, Soper knows a thing or two about M cars and what makes them different from everyday BMWs.

“I used to drive my old M3 from Monaco, where I was living, up to Germany to do a race, and for the first hour or so, up in hills where the roads were all twisty and you could have some fun, it was great. The feedback you got from the car was superb. But three hundred miles later I used to think, what the hell am I doing, why didn’t I fly?”

But wasn’t that the part of the old car’s pull? Because it was noisier than most and you had to concentrate on every mile, two hands on the wheel as it bubbled away between your fingers, you felt special in an old M3. As if every journey had a sense of purpose and occasion behind it.

Not necessarily. The way Soper sees it, which admittedly is very much from a company man’s standpoint (his wages for driving a works MW in the BTCC are rumoured to be between £300,000 and £350,000 a year), the old car’s more aggressive imagine, its spoilers, dog-leg gearbox and quasi-racer feel wasn’t, and still isn’t, something that everyone wants. “You and I might want that because we’re enthusiasts,” he said. “But if you’re 45, married and your wife has to drive the car as well, there’s no question that the new car is less compromised.”

But not everyone is supposed to like genuine M cars, are they? They’re supposed to be different from the herd, and therefore feel a touch removed from the ordinary on the road.

“Yes,” agrees Soper, “but if you’re in the business of selling cars, you’ve got to think more broadly than that.” And so we arrive at the crux of the matter, just like that.

Which is this: the old M3 was a homologation special, a total thoroughbred, and therefore bore about as much resemblance to a regular 3-series, over and under the skin, as a Lada Samara does to a Ferrari F40. So it couldn’t help but feel special. The lastest car, on the other hand, is little more than a top-of-the-range 3-series with a powerful engine and big brakes – a very quick interpretation of a 325i with a few discreet spoilers and a set of funked-over alloys to distance it visually from lesser members of the range.

And so it is when we take the two cars to Goodwood. The old car is slower – not surprising with a 50bhp disadvantage – and fails to deal as successfully with the heart-in-mouth bumps that punctuate at least two of Goodwood’s quicker bends, Madgwick and St. Mary’s. But, just like the Porsche 968 Club Sport in relation to the faster, theoretically more able Toyota Supra at last year’s handling day, the Evo is more fun, more rewarding. And, crucially, is more forgiving of our mistakes when we make them.

In the end, it’s all down to the steering. Without a doubt the new car’s body control and damper tuning are better than the Evo’s at Goodwood. As are its brakes, gear ratios, grip and stability through the fast corners. But its steering – that vital contact seam between fingers and blacktop – is hopeless next to the Evo’s, which bristles with feel and precision whereas the new car’s vague and lifeless.

But for Soper it’s not as simple as that. “Getting into the old car these days feels as if you’ve jumped back a step in time,” he says. “For me there’s too much feedback and not enough technology. It’s like trying to compare the lovely tactility you get with something like a 246 Dino with an F40. You can’t”

But being an enthusiast, is he not keener on the way old cars like the Dino and orginal M3 communicate their intentions more vividly than the new breed of rocketships, which, although faster point to point, simply aren’t as much fun as their predecessors?

“Technology is constantly moving forwards and you have to go with it. The old M3 is more honest, if you like, in that it provides you with a more genuine impression of its capabilities at low speed. But it doesn’t give you the confidence at high speed that the new one does and that’s where the technology comes into it.”

Soper goes on to draw an enlightening analogy: “Everyone wants something different. That’s why I want a red car and you want a blue one and why someone would buy a Lotus 7 and go out on a Sunday with the roof down and the old earmuffs on and I’d think they were raving bonkers.”

Fair enough. But given the increasingly anti-social stigma that surround ultimate speed these days, isn’t the amount of fun you can generate on your way to a destination far more important than the speed with which you get there for a sports car in the ‘90s? In which case, isn’t the old car’s more intimate driver/road relationship not only more appropriate but also more acceptable given that it is nowhere near as quick as the new car?

“It’s true you don’t have to physically drive the new car as much as the old one. But that’s because it does it all for you, which for me is a plus. It’s basically a fun Sunday car, the Evo. And in its day it was bloody good. But, as I said, things move on.

“I remember that as a 20 year old I had a Lotus Elan and I used to think it was the best car I’d ever owned. Really special. But a couple of years ago I was offered an immaculate Elan Sprint to buy, and I thought I’ve got to have this. What a lovely car to have some fun in. And I drove the thing and I couldn’t believe what a load of junk it was. An absolute load of rubbish. Maybe the trouble with new car is that it complements the driver so well, does everything so efficiently, that no one can appreciate exactly what it is capable of.”

Around Goodwood, that’s certainly not the case. Soper – profoundly, nauseatingly impressive at the wheel – does his stuff in both cars and is three and a half seconds a lap quicker in the new car (and in the process slashes a full two seconds from John Lyon’s unofficial 1min 33sec record, set in a Honda NSX in identical conditions a year earlier). But somehow lap times aren’t really what this is all about.

Soper couldn’t bring himself to agree with us, preferring the hushed serenity of the M5 that he trundled away into the rawness of the Evolution M3 that the rest of us marched towards when the day was through. But by then we were certain. Of the two M3s, that were sitting side by side in Goodwood’s paddock at the end of the day – one red, one yellow – only one was genuine article. And it wasn’t yellow.

Related posts:

1. BMW M3 Track Test The M3, old news or not, is so well balanced...
2. True Colours The new M Coupé is the fastest; the original M3...
3. Winning Combination For an homologation special, BMW's M3 offers a remarkable combination...

Forget appearances, the vast price difference and the chalk and cheese chasm in technical detail: Britain’s belt and braces Morgan +8 and Germany’s computer literate BMW M3 convertible do the same job. And you know it the first time you drop their tops and aim them down a favourite road on a sunny morning. It’s not just that either blasts to 60 in six wind-in-their-hair seconds or less, it’s that both offer an unforgettable drive. But what conclusively different cars they are.

This is indeed a prizefight with a difference: the Morgan, hairy-chested and with the support of the crowd, facing a car trained by science and the racetrack to the peak of physical fitness. The battleground: The Lake District and the Yorkshire Moors….and the sort of roads for which both cars were born.

In the whole of motoring there are surely not two more opposed routes to what is ultimately the same result. The Morgan gets its punch from the old and ubiquitous pushrod Rover 3528cc V8. It produces 190bhp at 5300rpm and 220lb ft of torque at 4000rpm. When this kind of power is dropped into a car weighing a little more than 200lb, shattering performance is guaranteed.

With sliding pillar front suspension and a live rear axle located by leaf springs – ye gods, even lever arm dampers – the Morgan’s suspension is pure pre-war. The car costs £17,703 and you will have to wait up to four years for delivery.

The BMW’s 2302cc four-cylinder engine has twice as many valves per cylinder, operated by two overhead camshafts. The engine is unique to the M3 and was designed primarily as a racing unit. In roadgoing tune it develops 200bhp at 6750rpm and 177lb ft torque at 4750rpm.

Suspension sounds identical to that of any other 3-Series: MacPherson struts up front, semi-trailing arms at the back, coil springs and telescopic dampers all round. But BMW Motorsport has been to work here. With a combination of fine tuning and geometry revisions it has produced a chassis of rare quality.

BMW GB charges a ridiculous £37,250 for the M3 convertible. Only 40 left-hand-drive cars are being imported this year.

Straight-line performance in either car is sensational but the Morgan is the quicker. It can reach 60mph in just 5.6secs and up to 100mph in 16.4secs. Above 120mph the German’s vastly superior aerodynamics mean the BMW can start to regain lost ground and pull away from the Morgan. In the gears, too, the Morgan is quicker. Between 50-70mph in fourth the car accelerates in 5.1secs, and in fifth 7.6secs; the BMW requires 6.4 and 9.5secs. It is only on top speed that the Morgan has to give best. Its 122mph cannot live with the BMW’s 144mph.

Driving the cars on public roads shows this performance gap to be even wider than the figures suggest. For much of our two day jaunt the Morgan was simply held up by BMW, at least on straight roads. One event illustrates the point: overtaking a column of dawdling traffic, I dropped the BMW down from fourth to third and powered past on full throttle. The Morgan came too, but requiring neither a gearchange nor a foot on the floor.

It may seem hard to believe that Rover’s ageing pushrod V8 could be a more effective engine than the multi-valve marvel produced by BMW Motorsport, but in these cars there is not contest. First there is the Morgan’s torque. Even with very high gearing – 27.6mph/1000rpm in top – it will pull cleanly from walking pace in any gear. It will continue to deliver a flood of power to the 5500rpm limit we imposed, with no ‘coming onto the cam’ or fall off the power at high revs – it delivers its performance in one clean, solid shove. Then there is the noise. A classic V8 burble at low revs, rising to a deep-chested roar as it is extended. The effect is inspiring.

Taken in isolation, the BMW four is a great engine. It has a tremendously successful track record and in road trim it combines its power with a quality edge that the V8 lacks. But still there are racing traits: below 4000rpm, for instance, there is not much urge. Above this is unleashes its power and the rev-counter will charge to the limiter at 7400rpm with superb response. So you have to work at the BMW, with frequent gearchanges the key to keeping it on the boil Fail to do this and the power disappears from under your feet.

There is not the engine music either. The engine sounds less distinguished than that of a Golf GTI up to 5000rpm and there’s some roughness too – certainly it’s not as smooth as any BMW six cylinder unit. After 5000rpm it issues a mechanical howl to remind you of its racing aspirations, but still it does not seduce like the Morgan.

The BMW waits until the corners before it seduces you. The M3 has as good a claim as any to having the most competent and entertaining front-engined chassis in production. Remarkably, the convertible has lost none of the saloon’s ability. Turn-in is sharp and the grip from the 225-section Michelin MXX tyres is of the very highest order.

The convertible will understeer or oversteer on demand, but its basic cornering stance is one of strong neutrality. Push on harder and it just feels better and better, neutral cornering balance eventually giving way to mild, benign oversteer. The steering, so full of feel, lest you keep the front wheels pointing in the desired direction, without drastic correction, and the car follows this line faithfully. It has no hidden vices, no ghastly secrets.

Driving the same road in the Morgan induces acute culture shock. Grip is not the problem if the road is smooth. With only 2000lb to persuade a change direction, the 205-section Uniroyals allow the +8 to be hustled through well-surfaced corners at a cracking pace. Put it on the pockmarked B roads of the Lake District and the story is very different. The car hops wholesale across the road as soon as look at a bump. The ride is truly appalling.

And the otherwise dead steering can generate the sort of kickback that wrenches the wheel from your hands. You drive this car from the seat of your pants. Do this, and it is not without its reward. Fight the steering, kill the heavy understeer with a bootful of throttle, be ready to catch the inevitable tail slide and you will have one of the most invigorating rides this side of a rollercoaster. Despite the dead steering, the Morgan can be placed accurately, but it takes practice.

On the practical side, the BMW is streets ahead, and Morgan wouldn’t have it any other way. Hood up in the M3 you could be in a saloon up to about 70mph. Engine noise is prominent, and there is a distant rumble from the fat Michelins, but wind roar, though audible at motorway speeds, is very well suppressed.

The refinement is heightened by heated leather seats which are comfortable and supportive. With comforts like these the worries of left-hand-drive soon disappear.

Driving the Morgan roof-up on the motorway is not recommended. The tall gearing keeps engine noise to a minimum but since the wind drowns any attempt to hear anything, it’s rather academic. The wind causes the hood to billow skywards – creating some much needed headroom – and assaulting you from every hole in the ill-fitting side-screens.

The Morgan does do some practical jobs surprisingly well. The seats are comfortable even if the ride is not. The two-stage heater keeps you warm in freezing conditions. The driving position is not terrible, even if it is short on leg room. However, none of this can make the car anything but fatiguing to drive in less than ideal conditions.

The M3 convertible is the only BMW to come with an electric hood. Raising or lowering it is a simple matter of pulling two levers and pressing a button. The mechanism required to achieve a taut cover that is both water and air tight is not to be underestimated. The hood has to go through a complex range of manoeuvres, all of which are achieved with absolute millimetre-perfect precision.

The Morgan has a typically belt and braces hood. A skeleton frame provides the basic shape. You have to hang the hood over it and clip it to the top of the windscreen and the back of the car, having already screwed on the sidescreens. The job could conceivably be done inside five minutes. Unfortunately our time with the car was spent in freezing conditions with a howling gale, when the job becomes nigh on impossible.

Both cars are beautifully built. Scuttle-shake, which can reduce a sound saloon into a rattling undesirable, is only apparent in the BMW on badly broken surfaces. Paintwork is deep and lustrous, and body panels fit tightly and evenly.

If anything, the Morgan is more impressive. The test car was Morgan’s demonstrator and even after 40,000 miles of the suspension trying to shake the car to pieces is still felt and looked like new, save for the odd stone chip. Drive one and you will know that this is no mean achievement.

The BMW teaches lessons you never forget. It extends the boundaries which the comprised structure of a convertible has previously had to observe. It is fast and flattering, and as practical a drop top as anyone could wish.

Still, there is something not quite right about this car. It’s partly in the price. A 325i convertible costs £17,000 less. A saloon M3 is nearly £14,000 cheaper. This cannot be justified by leather seats and an electric hood. The car seems to have been conceived as a money-making exercise.

The Morgan has no such problems. Apart from straight-line speed, it is not match for the BMW and now, perhaps, would it want to be. What it offers is an unrivalled tactile experience. You can get out of the BMW, unruffled, after a hard blast down a fell road and marvel at the car’s ability. Do the same in the Morgan and you get out with a real sense of achievement.

Then there is the way the car looks. Beside the Morgan the BMW, for all its flared arches and spoilers, looks anonymous. The Morgan looks classically beautifully. It has a hint of fragility that makes you want to look after it. For all the money it costs, the BMW is much less of an individual.

The Morgan has only one real problem. It is pointless driving it in anything other than ideal conditions. The car’s comprehensive inability to transport its occupants for long distances in anything but severe discomfort is something that only the most die-hard nut will discount. But when the roads are dry and the sun shines, you cannot have too much of it. The Morgan ladles out fun like the BMW never could.

The essence of it is that in the BMW you enjoy the car, while in the Morgan you enjoy yourself.

Related posts:

1. Best Ever! Burkard Bovensiepen's Alpina firm is recognized as a manufacturer, not...
2. Group A Comes to America Group B rally cars, the Killer Bees, were among the...
3. BMW M3 Evolution The Sport Evolution has been honed by serious drivers for...

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...

“BMW is ‘only’ a relatively small manufacturer compared to other companies,” begins the Munich marque’s 1987 motor sport brochure, “but in touring car sport, it ranks among the greatest.” It is hard to think of the name BMW without associating it with a long and successful history in racing which culminated in Nelson Piquet winning the Formula 1 Drivers’ World Championship in 1983 with a BMW-powered Brabham BT52.

Back in 1972 BMW AG decided to form a subsidiary dedicated exclusively to the sport. Thus BMW Motorsport GmbH was born, under the direction of Jochen Neerspach. Since then ‘Motorsport’ has expanded to produce not only racing engines and competition cars, but also the legendary M-range high performance road machines, each car bearing the ‘M’ logo and the distinctive blue-violet-red stripes. Today, the company’s Preussenstrasse base in Munich houses 350 staff under the direction of Wolfgang-Peter Flohr.

This year sees a major shift of emphasis in the company’s racing programme. The Formula 1 turbo project is drawing to a close and the future rests with the company’s remarkable new M3 touring car model, which was homologated for Group A on 1 March this year. In European racing, the car has yet to be beaten on the track.

Why then, has BMW decided to abandon the high-profile Formula 1 programme and switch instead to touring car? “Our role as an engine supplier in Formula 1,” says Flohr, “was that of a manager who had to manage incidents. We could not take over command because we had no influence over drivers, or tyres, or aerodynamics. In order to be successful that was not enough. We could not come to the decision to start our own team and we figured that it was better to leave the field and reconsider where our stronghold was. We consider this be touring cars.”

“We could have financed a Formula 1 team, but the political situation was such that there was uncertainty over the rules and with the enormous cost explosion we felt it would be better for the make to enter a championship which is closer to the cars which we are selling in our showrooms.”

“When you analyse the cost-effectiveness of Formula 1 you see that it takes 40-60m dollars, and then compare that with touring cars; you could not spend that much money on a touring car even if you wanted to!”

Nonetheless BMW’s investment in the touring car world has been substantial. “First of all,” explains Flohr, “we built a racing car for Group A regulations – the M3 – and then we converted it to a saloon car to enable us to build the 5000 models necessary for Group A homologation. Secondly, we spent a substantial amount of money to get a competitive number of drivers and when you add this to the efforts of the various teams and so on and so forth, you can figure that we have spent a total of DM10m.”

This figure does not include any promotion of the project which BMW intends to use to bring about a greater understanding and recognition of touring car racing – for so long the poor cousin of the other major racing championships.

Things have not been easy in recent months for the touring car world. The decision to stage a new World Championship was taken at a very late stage and then, at the opening round of the series at Monza in Italy, there were widespread technical problems which saw the exclusion of all but one of the new M3s, which had finished the race 1-2-3-4-5-6-8 on the track.

For Flohr and the men from BMW this was a huge setback, but he has no worries about the future. “I am sure that within the next few months FISA and the FIA will find a solution. By making cars to the rule book, rather than adapting present saloon cars to the rules, manufacturers have put a great deal of pressure on the scrutineering and the stewards. FISA now has to use today’s methods of measuring and interpreting the rule book.

“The rule book is not strong enough. It leaves too many possibilities. If you say, for example, that component XYZ can be plastic, it is difficult to argue what plastic is. There are so many openings that a lawyer will look at the rules and say that you do comply with the rules as written. The problem is that the rules are meant differently to how they are written. It is a difficult situation, but I am sure that FISA is aware of it.”

“If I had to make a forecast about how touring car racing will go from here, I wold say that after the second race at Jarama the series will recover from Monza and will then become popular through the middle of the year. I see the World Touring Car Championship in the second half of 1987 really gaining and in 1988 it is going to be really interesting an successful. We feel that with Bernie Ecclestone in charge of the promotion, it will end up eventually like Formula 1 and I believe that some of the promotion which took place after Monza on behalf of FISA proves that we are going in the right direction. Of course it will take time; no-one can expect this to happen overnight”

“I think that you have to make an assessment as a businessman. If you want your business to work in the long term you have to invest beforehand. That is what we are doing.”

Although other manufacturers are moving to join BMW in WTCC, at present the men from Munich are enjoying a monopoly of competition. “Absolutely right! To have six or seven MWs at the front is a difficult situation, but I think as soon as the Ford Sierras come in , and the Alfa people get going and the Holdens come back, there will be tough competition and things will look very different. I’m not too happy with the in-house competition.” Some people have asked if BMW has made the right decision to produce a normally aspirated racing car and not a turbo, given the opposition from the turbos of Ford, Alfa Romeo, Nissan and Maserati. “It may look to the outside world as if we have made a mistake,” argues Flohr, “but I believe that the turbos, especially next year when the equivalency factor changes, will find it harder and in the future that touring car racing will move the same way as Formula 1 has towards normally aspirated engine.”

The M3 is undoubtedly the first of a new generation of Group A racing cars. To see the machines on the track beings a whole new horizon to touring car racing, and it must be remembered that the cars have raced only a couple of times and still need a great deal of development before they reach their full potential while the political situation in touring cars needs time to be sorted and the regulations and promotion developed.

The competition will come given time and BMW is keen that it should, but as he says “right now, it isn’t any good complaining. We were a bit disappointed at the decision of what was going to happen in 1987, but this is the year in which we all learn and upgrade the whole thing so that in 1988 the World Touring Car Championship can really be the event we want it to be.”

Related posts:

1. Saloon Racer – F1 Style BMW's Group A M3 saloon racer is designed to bring...
2. Group A Comes to America Group B rally cars, the Killer Bees, were among the...
3. Race Bred and Street Bound 1986 marked the first year all BMWs offered in the...

The launch of the BMW M3 marks an historic moment for the Bavarian manufacturer, since this is the first BMW to be developed by the motor sports division and produced by BMW AG.

The M2 is seen as a successor to the legendary M1 – a competitions inspired machine – but the M2 is much more than a production racer. BMQ has made every attempt to make the car as civilised as possible for everyday driving. It may have all the latest innovations in its make up to ensure highly competitive track performance, but BMW has deliberately not compromised comfort or equipment levels.

The 2.3-litre, 16-valve engine, developing no fewer than 200bhp at 6750rpm, easily puts the M3 at the top of the 3-series performance league.

The general exterior specification which includes distinctive wheelarch flares (desgined to accommodate up to 10ins wheels in full race trim), extended sills, front and rear air dams, plus light alloy wheels and low-profile tyres, ensures a further degree of exclusivity. In addition, BMW has carefully raked the rear screen to give a coupe appearance to the two-door shell. The boot is now slightly shorter and the lid higher.

Under the steel shell and composite body add-ons, BMW has paid particular attentions to good directional stability. Wheel castor is increased threefold, the anti-roll bars are a larger diameter and the steering modified to give increased feel.

Apart from the tuned shock absorbers and rear springs, the rear axle assembly is the same as other 3-Series BMWs. The brake system, however, is not. Both front and rear discs are bigger and thicker with reinforced callipers. Larger 5-Series size wheel bearings are incorporated on special front stub axles for increased durability.

Inside, equipment levels are high with central locking, electric windows, door mirrors and slide and tilt steel sunroof as standard. There’s also a leather-rimmed steering wheel and gearknob, hide-trimmed seats front and rear, plus a Blaupunkt radio/cassette player with four speakers and electric aerial.

Standard safety items include ABS anti-lock brakes and a limited slip differential, designed to operate with 25 per cent locking action.

BMW does not offer any extras with the M3 (although metallic paint is a no-cost option). The high standard spec goes some way to justifying the £22, 750 price tag, £5000 more than the next most expensive model in the 3-Series, the 325iX four-door.

PERFORMANCE

With 200bhp to play with in a car weighing under 25cwt, performance is naturally one of the M3’s strong suits. Our mean maximum speed of 139mph was achieved in driving rain on a very wet track, and there would certainly be another couple of mph to come in ideal conditions – BMW in fact claims 146mph. At the best one-way speed of 140mph the engine is spinning at 6600rpm, just 150rpm below the power peak which demonstrates near-ideal gearing.

The Bosch Motronic management system incorporates a rev limiter set at an indicatied 7300rpm as the limit four our in-gear figures, and this equates to maximum speed in the gears of 40, 62, 84 and 118mph.

Standing starts were conducted on a still-damp track and yielded a mean 0-60mph time of 7.1sexs. 0-30mph still came up in 2.8secs though, with perhaps only another 0.3sec to come off that on a perfectly dry surface. This compares well with BMW’s quoted 6.7 secs to 62mph and shows the superior traction of tear-wheel drive in the wet – a powerful front-wheel drive car would have been lucky to get within a second of its potential in such conditions.

The close-ratio Getrag five-speed gearbox has a dog-leg first, and the gearchange is sprung to the centre 2^nd/3^rd gear plane. The gate is rather vague and it was all too easy to find fourth instead of second when going for a quick ratio swap. Obviously the box was designed with competition use in mind, where first used only on the starting grid, but for normal road use it does require some care.

The M3’s 200bhp from a 2.3-litre normally aspirated engine might seem like the recipe for a very peaky power delivery, but this is far from the case. The 16-valve unit is in fact extremely flexible, and will pull without hesitation from well below 1000rpm.

Its mid-range punch is very impressive indeed, as a glance at the in-gear acceleration figures will confirm, and the power is, of course, delivered without any troublesome turbo-lag. In third gear for example, the M3 will accelerate from 50-70mph in 4.1secs, and in top gear each 20mph increment from 20-90mph takes less than 10 seconds.

ECONOMY

For a car offering this sort of performance, an overall fuel consumption figure of over 20mph is very good indeed. Our figure of 20.3mph includes the speed-testing sessions and is a tribute to the efficiency of the 16-valve engine and its Bosch management system. The average owner could certainly expect over 22mpg, giving a range of 300 miles from the 15.4-gallon tank.

REFINEMENT

Given that the M3 is an homologation car, on sale to ensure the BMW’s inclusion in Group A saloon car racing, you might expect it to have a few rough edges. But as 5000 examples have to be produced BMW obviously needed to make the M3 an acceptable road car to avoid a huge financial loss on the project. As a result the car has been built to provide the standards of luxury that a BMW owner expects, and that includes the levels of refinement.

The engine, although it can’t match the smoothness of BMW’s six-cylinder units, is still remarkably civilised. There is the characteristic rasp that many sporting 16-valve powerplants produce, but the noise levels in the cabin are very well controlled  – when accelerating hard there is just enough noise to get the adrenalin pumping.

On the motorway both wind and type noise are very subdued, so that the dominant noise is from the engine. The motor is turning over at almost 4000rpm at 80mph, but that’s the price for the sporting nature of the overall gearing. In fact because fifth gear is where fourth would normally be, there is a great temptation to change up another gear to the non-existent sixth.

Although tyre noise is well suppressed, the suspension is definitely on the sporting side of firm. At high speeds the ride is very good, even on very badly surfaced corners, but at lower speeds most surface irregularities are transmitted to the interior. The very comfortable seats and driving position more than make up for this thorough, and the M3 is a surprisingly relaxing high-speed cruiser.

ROAD BEHAVIOUR

The true benefits of the substantially uprated and refined chassis are best exploited on the track. In such an environment a driver cannot fail to be impressed by the M3.

Handling is very predictable in both wet and dry conditions with mild understeer generated at moderate cornering speeds with a very gradual transition through to mild oversteer on a suddenly closed throttle. The overall feel is of a very well-balanced car, one which can be turned through corners deceptively quickly and one which also feels very safe at the limit of adhesion.

The uprated steering and revised front suspensions geometry allows a driver to feel precisely what the wheels are doing and though the rack is still a little low geared for a true competition machine (with 3, 6 turns lock to lock) it received universal praise for both response and feel. The power-assisted system is well weighted especially at speed and not excessively heavy round town.

High speed cornering is accompanied by minimal body roll and in the dry the M3 hugs the road surface, generating very high forces in the process. Also worthy of note is the M3’s ability to run arrow straight, even in very windy weather. This particular aspect was experienced when circulating the high-speed banked track at maximum speed in the wet, where the M3 tracked perfectly straight and was unfussed by the less than perfect road surface and side winds. BMW’s attention to aerodynamic refinements has obviously paid off.

Of the homologation specials that have passed through our hands recently, and the list includes the Mercedes-Benz 190 2.3-16 and Ford Sierra Cosworth, the BMW M3 is without a doubt the most well mannered from a handling point of view. There are no quirks to take into consideration, not is there any tendency for the car to move about on uneven road surfaces or tramline in the ruts often found on well-used motorway sections.

You might expect something of a compromise in terms of ride quality and though the suspension is uprated all round, and the M4 rolls on low-profile 55-series rubber with their low shoulders, the sacrifice in ride comfort is marginal. At speed the car feels well composed and is able to soak up even quite severe irregularities without complaint. It is only when negotiating road imperfections at low speeds that a driver begins to notice the increased stiffness, though to be fair, the ride quality is no less competent than that of most current sports cars.

The much improved, servo-assisted, four-wheel disc braking system (ventilated up front), provides a reassuring degree of stopping power with a progressive and well-weighted pedal action. The M3 came through the fade tests unscathed – there was a slight and predictable rise in pedal pressures through the 10 high-speed stops.

The standard equipment ABS system came into operation with a 50lb effort during retardation tests, thereby limiting the deceleration figures to a maximum of 0.80g. This figure is not outstanding for a car of this type, but when you consider the figures were taken in the wet, it doesn’t look bad at all.

AT THE WHEEL

The driver is greeted by a predominantly black interior layout. The facia, doors and surrounding areas are all moulded in a black grain plastic finish. The leather-trimmed seats are stitched in a similar shade, while the carpet material is a charcoal colour. The test car with its pristine interior certainly looked the part but we would imagine that it could look quite grubby in a very short space of time unless looked after.

The driver sits in a sports seta with plenty of lateral support and good location. The front squab is adjustable in length while the seat itself has a tilt facility and separate rake control. There is no adjustable lumbar support but the seat does not suffer for the lack of this; you sit in, rather than on, the seat and this adds the overall feeling of being “at one” with the car.

A leather-bound three-spoke wheel is provided, through which a driver can easily read the large 160mph speedometer and matching rev counter with its red line marked from 7000rpm. Set into the rev counter is an additional oil pressure gauge occupying the spot normally filled by the economy gauge in lesser BMWs. In all other respects the instrument layout is similar to most other 3-Series cars.

That includes column stalks either side of the wheel. The right-hand item handles wash/ripe if pulled, single flick wipe if pushed down, plus intermittent and two-speed wiper settings if lifted up. The left stalk takes care of indicators and dip/mainbeam settings with the actual lights switched sited in the dash at the extreme left.

The driving position feels just right; the wheel position is sensible and there is enough seat adjustment to cater for most sizes. The deals are well placed for heel-and-toe changes and when the clutch is dormant there is a large footrest tot eh left of the pedal. Headroom is adequate for drivers up to 6ft in height but not for those taller than this. You can tilt the seat slightly to gain more clearance but at the expense of spoiling the driving position.

Ergonomically speaking there is not much wrong with the M3’s layout – all the major controls are within easy reach, the door pulls are conveniently angled so a user does no have to strain to close the door, and the interior handles are flush fitting with no nasty sharp edges to rub against.

CONVENIENCE

Arguably this is the only area where the M3 falls down, with its boot space restricted by the more raked rear window, which also leads to a smaller load aperture with the bottled raised. Like other 3-Series BMW models the M3 does not have much in the way of rear passenger space. Headroom is at a premium and with the front seats well back on their runners there is virtually no legroom despite the fact that the front seat backrests are cut out to help.

The rear seats are individually shaped and the M3 is clearly intended as no more than a four seater at most.

In other respects convenience levels match those of the standard 3-Series models and includes adequate cubby space with reasonably sized door pockets, glove box an the odd moulded tray in the centre console. The heating and ventilation controls include turn wheels for the four-speed fan and temperature adjustment, with three additional sliders for direction. On the most powerful setting the fan delivers a very impressive blast for quick demisting of rapid changes in temperature. On the first two settings it also works unobtrusively enough not to detract from the overall refinement levels. The standard equipment electric windows take just four seconds to lower and five seconds to raise via the push buttons mounted conveniently in the centre console. The roof mounted controls for the powered sunroof are a little more awkward to find and require a driver to look up from the road to operate. The small controls for the powered door mirrors are more conveniently placed atop the drivers door pull. Mirrors, washer nozzles and the driver’s door lock are all heated to prevent icing up in wintry conditions.

Under the bootlid there is adequate space for two medium sized suitcases, but available space is hindered by the inclusion of boxed either side, one for the battery, the other for the jack. The spare wheel is hidden under the carpeted load compartment floor.

The forward hinging bonnet lifts to reveal the very impressive sight of the powerful 2.3litre four and routine servicing looks straightforward enough, although the air box need to be removed to get at the oil filter. Spark plug removal is far easier and the oil dipstick and fluid levels in various reservoirs are easily checked.

SAFETY

Besides aiding the aerodynamic qualities and reducing the drag coefficient to cd 0.33, the wraparound body add-ons are also designed with safety in mind. The three piece front bumper is a composite structure comprising an energy-absorbing foam impact block and a skin of glass-fibre reinforced polyurethane foam. The rear bumper, integrated into the undervalance, is made in the same way and of similar materials. Thanks to this design just one single bumper is required to fulfil all legal standards and regulations worldwide, including the very strict US standards.

The light alloy wheels feature hidden studs behind the removable wheel centre and thereby adding a degree of security against theft.

VERDICT

Steeping into the BMW M3 is a bit like pulling on a well fitting glove, one of those rare occurrences when a driver instantly feels at home behind the wheel. The driving position is right and when you begin to use the power and experience the handling you begin to feel part of the car.

The M3 is perhaps the most successful homologation inspired road/racer offered by a manufacturer to date. The car is as docile in town traffic as any driver could wish and easy to manoeuvre due to its compact proportions. Then when you hit the open road and pour on the power the chassis handles all the demands a driver makes upon it, whatever the road surface. In this respect BMW has arrived at an excellent compromise in suspension settings bearing mind the car’s raison d’etre.

The fact of the matter is that the M3 makes a very sensible road car; it looks the part with its decidedly sporty styling, is not over the top but very purposeful.

In road trim the M3 may not have the legs of the Sierra Cosworth but what it lacks in performance it more than compensates for with its easier road manners and better directional stability at speed. The Mercedes 190 2.3-16 can match the BMW in this respect but its engine of similar specification is less responsive, thanks to the larger and heavier body shell. Nor is the Mercedes as nimble as the BMW.

Related posts:

1. Winning! Performance Car's two runners in Britain's only 24-hour race had...
2. Storm Force There's a power struggle in Germany. Mercedes began the strife...
3. BMW M3 Track Test The M3, old news or not, is so well balanced...

Bill Nathan, service director of BMW dealer Hexagon of Highgate, wears a John Watson lookalike helmet when he’s racing, and therein lies a clue about the company’s past. Those who followed motor sport in the 1970s will undoubtedly recall that Hexagon has fielded cars as diverse as a Trojan 101, Brabham BT42 and BT44 and for such drivers as Willie Green, Carlos Pace, Derek Bell, Damien Magee and John Watson himself.

The cost of participating at this level, however, became prohibitive even for someone with the enthusiasm for motor sport of Hexagon’s chairman, Paul Michaels. As a result, the company quietly withdrew from its motor racing commitments. As anyone who has been bitten by the bug will know, however, racing circuits are inexplicably addictive places and after several years’ absence, the Hexagon name reappeared. Initially it was on the flanks of a BMW 320i, taken straight off the second-hand car lot and plunged into a season of production saloon racing. In 1986, this became a BMW 325i, which evolved into 325i Sport specification by the end of the year.

This season the company is fielding its most potentially competitive “tin-top” to date; an immaculately presented BMW M3 which will be driven by Nick Atkins in the Monroe Championship and Nathan in the Uniroyal Championship. The two will team up for the prestigious Willhire 24-hour race at Snetterton with additional driving strength coming from Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason. On paper, at least, the BMW M3 in Group N guise looks to be a strong contender for production saloon Class B honours, but does theory translate into practice in this case?

To answer that particular question, we brought M3 and racing driver James Weaver together at a wet and windy Silverstone. By the end of the day, we had the most graphic evidence of the car’s potential for in the course of a dozen laps of the Club circuit in treacherously slippery conditions, Weaver had achieved a best lap of 69.0secs, 0.1secs inside the Class B lap record presently held by Ian Taylor in a Mercedes 190E 2.3-16. Regular driver Nathan, who was present for the exercise, predicted that in more favourable conditions it should be possible to shave at least a further 2secs off that time.

Until the car has turned in that sort of lap time in competition, however, it remains a hypothetical target. Nonetheless, there seems ample evidence that the M3 is going to be a really competitive production racer, particularly bearing in mind that it is only at the beginning of what Nathan envisages as a two-year development programme.

There are two ways to build an M3 race car. One is to purchase a “kit car” from BMW and the other is to strip out a road-going M3 and rebuild it to the desired specification. The former, which is to Group A specification. The former, which is to Group A specification, includes a body shell fitted with roll cage, engine modified to produce 300bhp at 8000rpm and 199lb ft of torque at 7000rpm, uprated springs, four-pot callipers, 9ins modular wheels and Pirelli tyres. It also costs DM 150, 000, or approximately £52, 000.

The other route to M3 racerdom is the one followed by Nathan and his dedicated crew at Hexagon – convert a road car to competition use. It also makes more sense as far as production racing is concerned since the rules require the inclusion of much of the standard car’s trim, which is simply not available with the Group A kit.

In theory, Group N rules allow very little in the way of modifications over the standard car, and a closer perusal of Hexagon’s racer bears that out. There are the obvious stickers which adorn the car, but take those away and about the only clue to the car’s weekend warrior lifestyle is the ride height. The combination of low-profile BF Goodrich TA2R (produced in “shaved” form by the American type company) radials and lins shorter springs has wrought this change in the M3’s stance. Shock absorber choice is free under production rules and at the time of our track test, the BMW was fitted with Konis, the main drawback of which is that they cannot be adjusted in place on the car. Hexagon has commissioned Sachs to produce an externally adjustable set of shock absorbers and they will be fitted just as soon as they are available. The M3 already has anti-roll bars at the front and rear and these are retained in their standard diameters.

The engine is so far untouched, apart from the rev limiter being reset from the standard car’s 7300rpm to 8000rpm, which is an indication of just how well the standard engine is assembled at the factory. Nathan’s plan is to do two more races on the engine – it’s done three to date – and then strip it down and re-blueprint it in the Hexagon workshops. Even so, he isn’t expecting the sort of power increase which might be available from carrying out this exercise on other, less well assembled power units. Although the M3 has not yet had a session on the rolling road, it is estimated that the power output is presently about 220bhp (the road car is rated at 200bhp at 6750rpm), a figure which will eventually rise to perhaps 235bhp. This compares favourably with the outputs for the Mercedes 190E 2.3-16 and Escort RS Turbo, the two main rivals to the BMW in Class B. The Sierra Cosworth engine, by comparison is estimated to produce 260bhp with inlet restrictor in place and 285bhp without. It is therefore fairly clear that, at least as far as production racing is concerned, the BMW is unlikely to be an outright race winner, although it will remain the car to beat in its class.

In any event, the under-bonnet scene is virtually the same as for the standard car, with the exception of a robust looking strut brace to provide the engine compartment with a little extra torsional rigidity.

As far as the interior is concerned, modifications are really limited to safety-related items. These include a full roll cage, Corbeau competition seat, six-point harness, fire extinguisher, electrical master cut-out switch and additional warning lights. Carpeting has been removed, but otherwise the interior trim is retained.

The boot is devoid of a spare wheel (production rules allow the road car’s weight of 1200kg to be reduced by five per cent) but contains a full-size battery plus additional fuel tank fitted immediately behind the rear bulkhead. This is in addition to the two standard tanks situated under the boot floor. The braking system which include ABS, remains to standard specification and is perhaps a little suspect on circuits like Donington, with its “bus-stop” chicane, and Mallory Park with its famous hairpin. Only further testing, however, will reveal if there is a problem in this department.

The question we wanted answered, though, was just how good a production racer is the M3 in its present state? In best race commentator fashion, we thrust the tape recorder microphone up James Weaver’s left nostril as soon as he stepped from the BMW and asked him for his initial impression. His response could best be described as enthusiastic.

“The main thing is that the car is just enormous fun. Normally the trouble with Group N cars is that they won’t put the power down. In cornering, they understeer when you turn in and because they spin the inside rear wheel, you can’t hold a slide. As a result, they can be very tedious to drive. This, on the other hand, is terrific.”

“It’s so nicely balanced and has sufficient power and traction that you can drive right through the understeer. If you lift off a bit, it will just settle down, and if you apply more power it will go into a beautifully controlled tail slide. You can just steer it on the throttle and it gives you bags of confidence.”

The chassis was therefore clearly a strong point, but what of the engine? Once again, Weaver had nothing but praise for the BMW. “It’s fabulous. It’ll pull up to 8000rpm without any bother, but then again, the road car revs beautifully as well. In fact, about the only difference between that and the racer in terms of power delivery is that the racer seems to rev on a little bit better – the road car feels just as smooth.”

All these superlatives were undoubtedly deserved, but we have yet to hear of the perfect race car. Did the M3 have any obvious weak points, we wondered? Weaver felt there was a couple of areas where improvements could be made, one of the most important being the choice of final drive. Presently the M3 is homologated with only one final drive for Group N competition, a 3.25 crown-wheel and pinion, which results in overly high gearing for a track like the Silverstone Club circuit. Weaver explained: “The engine will pull about 7500rpm in fourth gear for the braking point at Woodcote, whereas it should be about 8000rpm and then into fifth. At the same time, second is too short for Becketts and third is too high. Third is good for Woodcote but a little short for Copse. To race it here in the UK, you definitely need a short rear axle.”

Bill Nathan had warned Weaver that the shock absorbers were set at their maximum stiffness and could not be adjusted without removing them from the car. After his stint at the wheel, Weaver concurred: “The car does feel a fraction too stiff at the back and, as a result, it doesn’t seem to put its power down quite as well as the road car when I tried it this morning. For me, the race car could be a little bit stiffer at the front and then you could almost trick it into turning in. Then you could get the power on just a fraction earlier, drive through the understeer, and I think you would be just that little bit quicker.”

“Overall, though, the car is very good. The ABS brakes are terrific – you just get a lot of pedal thump, although that may be because the discs are a bit warped on this one. I think the limited-slip differential might also have lost a bit of its preload, which could explain why this car isn’t putting its power down as well as the road car.”

“The other two items which merit comment are the steering and roll stiffness. In the normal course of events, the race car runs with the power steering pump connected. There isn’t any assistance today simply because the belt is broken. Even so, the steering is very light and helps make the car very easy to control. Bear in mind, too, that the pump does soak up power.”

“As for roll stiffness, my feeling is the car doesn’t have quite enough. Driving the road car around the circuit, it is obvious that it rolls a fair bit. This one doesn’t roll as much, but it still needs more roll stiffness. You can tell by the way it just flops around a little in some of the corners. The problem is, they have to retain the standard anti-roll bars in production so there may not be a lot that can be done. The level of grip is quite high and that, in combination with a fair amount of body roll, is what can make a car break away abruptly. Quite a lot of cars have a high base level of grip and then when they get away from you, they just get so out of shape, you become frightened to use the grip. With the M3, that is not the case – you can use it to the full because it remains progressive at all times.”

So much for the detailed appraisal. What was Weaver’s overall verdict of the BMW M3 in production racing guise? His answer was decisive: “I haven’t driven that many group n cars, but it is the nicest one I’ve driven by a long way. I raced a Capri in the 1984 Willhire race and it was so frustrating because you just could not put the power down and therefore drive through the car’s natural understeer. You can learn to drive it quickly, but with the M3, you can drive it like a racing car – brake, turn in, and accelerate – and that makes it very satisfying. It handles very, very well.”

As a parting shot, we couldn’t help but ask Weaver for his verdict on the road-going M3. “Given that this is a car which has been produced for Group A homologation purposes, it is a very civilised road car – far more so, for instance, than the Sierra Cosworth, which seems to bang and crash and jump all over the road at times.”

“I’m very much into O-cars at the moment and I think the ultimate form of this for road use would be something which looked like a standard 3-Series – maybe with a deeper front spoiler or something, to make it a bit more stable – with all the M3 running gear. For me, the rear wing and flared wheel arches are just too outrageous for the road; it looks fabulous in Group A trim, as does the Sierra, but it’s a bit over the top for the road. I would happily have that package in a standard-looking 3-Series shell with a 318 badge on the bootlid.”

The verdict to emerge from the day’s activities at Silverstone? The M3 makes a refined, civilised road car while providing the basis for a tremendously competitive racer. BMW would look to have a sure winner on its hands both in the showrooms and on the circuits.

Related posts:

1. Saloon Racer – F1 Style BMW's Group A M3 saloon racer is designed to bring...
2. Flooring the Opposition Wolfgang-Peter Flohr is the man behind BMW Motorsport. We talk...
3. Winning Combination For an homologation special, BMW's M3 offers a remarkable combination...