1998 Bmw Z3 M Roadster Trade Or Sell 3.2l Fast on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Totally uncovered BMW M3 caught by helmet cam

Sure, we've seen - and even ridden in - the 2015 BMW M3 before, but always under the cover of camouflage. Proving that it's always nice to be in the right place at the right time, a motorcyclist managed to capture a completely undisguised 2015 M3 (codenamed F80) on video during a closed-road photo shoot.
Road & Track has the helmet cam video, which shows the bright blue M3 doing a three-point turn as it follows a camera car possibly for an upcoming commercial or launch video. While the images are grainy, we do get to see some of the styling details for the next-gen M3. Aside from the extra set of doors, this M3 looks a lot like the Concept M4 Coupe we met a few months ago, including the bulging hood, oddly shaped door mirrors and the wide, vented front fenders. The aggressive fascia, big wheels/low-profile tires and quad exhaust outlets all but confirm this is the production M3 we'll be seeing at the Detroit Auto Show in a couple of months.
We've put together a gallery using screen shots from the video, but check out the video posted below to see the new M3 in motion.

What would you drive in 1985?

Bereft of live baseball games to watch, I've turned to the good ship YouTube to watch classic games. While watching the 1985 American League Championship Series last night, several of the broadcast's commercials made its way into the original VHS recording, including those for cars. "Only 8.8% financing on a 1985 Ford Tempo!" What a deal! That got me thinking: what would I drive in 1985?  It sure wouldn't be a Tempo. Or an IROC-Z, for that matter, despite what my Photoshopped 1980s self would indicate in the picture above. I posed this question to my fellow Autobloggists. Only one could actually drive back then, I was only 2 and a few editors weren't even close to being born. Here are our choices, which were simply made with the edict of "Come on, man, be realistic."  West Coast Editor James Riswick: OK, I started this, I'll go first. I like coupes today, so I'm pretty sure I'd drive one back then. I definitely don't see myself driving some badge-engineered GM thing from 1985, and although a Honda Prelude has a certain appeal, I must admit that something European would likely be in order. A BMW maybe? No, I'm too much a contrarian for that. The answer is therefore a 1985 Saab 900 Turbo 3-Door, which is not only a coupe but a hatchback, too. If I could scrounge up enough Reagan-era bucks for the ultra-cool SPG model, that would be rad. The 900 Turbo pictured, which was for auction on Bring a Trailer a few years ago, came with plum-colored Bokhara Red, and you're damn sure I would've had me one of those. Nevermind 1985, I'd probably drive this thing today.   Associate Editor Byron Hurd: I'm going to go with the 1985.5 Ford Mustang SVO, AKA the turbocharged Fox Body that everybody remembers but nobody drives. The mid-year update to the SVO bumped the power up from 175 ponies (yeah, yeah) to 205, making it almost as powerful (on paper, anyway) as the V8-powered GT models offered in the same time frame. I chose this particular car because it's a bit of a time capsule and, simultaneously, a reminder that all things are cyclical. Here we are, 35 years later, and 2.3-liter turbocharged Mustangs are a thing again. Who would have guessed?

2015 BMW M3 Sedan

BMW's all-new M3 Sedan is dynamically nearly identical to its two-door M4 Coupe sibling: a stopwatch reveals that both are sub-four-second cars to 60 miles per hour, a racetrack proves that the mechanical twins are equally as adept on a road course and a full afternoon of driving on public roads demonstrates that each possesses talented everyday adaptability.
Yet after driving both BMW models back-to-back over two full days in Portugal, it's clear there are a few noticeable differences, both objective and subjective, that don't require instrument testing to reveal. All it takes is a few hours behind the wheel of both cars to conclude that one is slightly more agile, and the other a bit more twitchy. One has better outward visibility, while its counterpart is unquestionably more convenient.
It is the little things - subtleties attained through seat-of-the-pants observations - that eventually allow me to choose a favorite.