Autocar Drives the BMW M3 Competiton Package

Autocar Drives the BMW M3 Competiton Package
What is it?

The high level of bespoke content and the low production volume of BMW's M cars means they don't get altered a great deal during their life cycle. So what we've got here -­ forthcoming £100k GTS notwithstanding ­- is as altered as the regular BMW M3 is going to get.

The new Competition Pack is a £3315 option that comprises a whole lot of subtlety. So subtle, in fact, that one of the biggest changes is the introduction of stop-start as part of an Efficient Dynamics rollout.

Actually, it's a bigger deal than it first sounds. The M3, with or without Competition Pack, is the first six-cylinder-plus BMW in the UK to get stop-start, and it comes with other ED gubbins such as brake energy regeneration (which activates the alternator to charge the battery on the overrun).

One of the dynamic things supposedly entirely unchanged is the steering. I thought there was a touch more weight and feel than I remembered, which might be down to the lower height and big wheels, but it's a pity it remains on the mute side and still has a steering wheel rim that's thicker than it needs to be.

Shame, because what is actually going on beneath the wheels is usually pretty darned impressive. The M3 is one of those cars that doesn't instantly blow your socks off, but its unchanged 4.0-litre V8's performance is vivid (0-62mph stays at 4.6sec with the optional seven-speed, dual-clutch 'box), and few cars can match the M3's all-round ability to both cast aside long distances with ease, yet entertain to a decent degree on the right road. I think I like it more now than I did at its 2007 launch.

M3 Competition Pack versus RS5 on British roads and somewhere with a bit of sliding space will make for an interesting comparison. Me? I wouldn't be at all surprised if the M3 more than held its own.
Read Article

mclaren428mclaren428 - 5/13/2010 11:55:25 AM
+3 Boost
when it stops at a stop light the engine shuts off to save fuel, when you press the gas it starts back up and you can go.


S1000RRmanS1000RRman - 5/13/2010 3:47:14 PM
+2 Boost
Without completely standardised testing such figures are pretty irrelevant, you've only got to look at the ridiculous arguments that seem to go on here about which magazines are biased just because the posters chosen brand was tested on the day and it didn't fare quite as well as the others. Not to mention the fact that in the real world most performance related data is rendered totally inaccurate by environmental conditions, driver ability, car preparation, instrument calibration, test surface, etc. etc. Performance figures quoted by manufacturers should serve only as a guideline, and those taken by magazines should be taken with a pinch of salt ---- otherwise you end up with 20 people on some internet forum arguing over 0.1s 0-60 time between two cars when tested under totally different circumstances. Even the real basics... like test driver for magazine A weighs 70kg, test driver for magazine B weighs 110kg... thats a 40kg weight difference... thats like having a carbon fibre roof! Not to mention that in the real world I weigh 77kgs.. so neither result would actually be relevant to me, even if ALL other variables remained the same. It's laughable that people take magazine figures so seriously.


daydaydayday - 5/13/2010 11:43:51 PM
+2 Boost
Totally agree with s1000rrman.
The only time magazine tests would be interesting to see is for the comparison tests. Then you really get to see which car is better.


Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC