[14] 2006 Bmw M3 Specs At Annually Picture

From the March 2017 issue

A brand that once ruled racing, gave a young Enzo Ferrari his start, and produced bubbly little macchine throughout the 1950s and ’60s is also a company whose cars earned a reputation for electrical malignancies and for dissolving with the speed of an Alka-Seltzer tablet. Plop, plop, fizz, fizz.

M3 and C63 Compared2021 BMW M3 Looks Forward by Looking BackTested: 2008 BMW M3 vs. Audi RS 4 vs. Benz C63 AMG2012 BMW M3 vs. Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG

Those ghosts define Alfa Romeo, simultaneously elevating and haunting the brand as it tries to launch its American comeback tour, attracting and repelling us in equal measure. We will not forget that, in the late ’80s, we had two very charming Milanos fail to complete long-term tests. Two.

So it’s with equal parts skepticism and excitement that we approach the Alfa Romeo Giulia, the beachhead of Alfa’s return to America. Aimed squarely at the usual suspects in the compact-luxury-sedan segment, it starts at $73,595 in Quadrifoglio form, and with 505 horsepower it is equipped to take on some of the world’s best sedans. Engineered and designed in Italy, the Giulia is built on FCA’s new Giorgio rear- and all-wheel-drive platform that will also form the basis for Alfa’s second mooring, the Stelvio SUV.

View PhotosCHARLIE MAGEE

Breaking with our usual comparison-test protocol, we brought back all the players from the last test of this genre. Ordinarily, we’d only invite the test winner, in this case the BMW M3, but we recalled the also-rans from that comparo as well, even though they are unchanged since their last visit. The Cadillac ATS-V still has a twin-turbocharged 464-hp V-6 and Nürburgring-developed moves; the Mercedes-AMG C63 S still has a sugary-sweet 4.0-liter twin-turbo V-8 that pours out 503 horsepower.

Of the returning cast, the M3 has changed the most. BMW now offers the car with a Competition package, a $4750 option that includes 19 more horsepower from the twin-turbo 3.0-liter inline-six, forged 20-inch wheels with wider Michelin Pilot Super Sports, and a retuned suspension with new springs, dampers, and anti-roll bars. It’s a more intense M3 that shifts the sedan toward the track-focused M4 GTS.

View PhotosCHARLIE MAGEE

Inviting the entire group back allows us to give the Giulia the necessary context to accurately place it in the segment. At least that’s the case we made in the editorial meeting. Actually, the truth is we wanted to play with all these cars again. So we headed to the vast emptiness of Death Valley to exercise them and in the course of a few days drove 1100 miles. It took every bit of that distance to find a winner, because superiority in this segment is a game of inches.

Last place is now becoming too familiar to Cadillac’s ATS-V. As before, it proved superior to the German sedans in ride and handling. Cutting up through the mountains that surround Death Valley, the ATS-V is a hero. Cadillac’s magnetorheological dampers balance both wheel control and comfort better than the AMG and the M car. The steering feel earned top marks, there’s big grip from the Michelins, and the brake pedal balances effort and travel, providing the right bite when you misjudge a corner and dive in too deep. We didn’t find a road in our travels that the ATS-V couldn’t master. So why didn’t it finish higher?
We call the 3.6-liter twin-turbo V-6 to the witness stand.

There’s no denying it has the power. In acceleration tests, the Cadillac passed 60 mph in 3.9 seconds and went through the quarter in 12.2 seconds at 117 mph. It’s a snap to launch, too. Simply put your left foot on the brake and your right on the accelerator, raise the revs to 2000 rpm, and release the brake. No need for launch control here.

View PhotosThe ATS-V's chassis tuning and steering are top-notch, even in this group. But it's let down by a cramped interior and an uninspiring, though powerful, engine.CHARLIE MAGEE

Where the six falls short is in the experiential details. At wide-open throttle, there are 83 decibels’ worth of gritty moan. If the ATS-V is the only car you drive, the sound isn’t that offensive, but next to the enchanting Mercedes V-8 that also powers AMG’s GT S or the thundering Alfa V-6 derived from a Ferrari engine, it’s apparent that this engine has humble roots. In another life without turbos, the ATS-V’s six might have lived out its days in a Chevy Colorado. Even though it’s not quite as powerful as the ATS-V’s 3.6, we’d love to see how the Camaro’s 455-hp 6.2-liter small-block V-8 would act in the ATS-V. We’d guess it’d work the same magic in the Cadillac as it does in the Camaro SS.

It’s not only the engine that lets down the Cadillac. The interior elements fail to impress. Too many different materials collide inside; leather, carbon fiber, fake suede, and piano black don’t play well together. And while the CUE touchscreen is now familiar enough not to seem so obtuse, the colors, fonts, and general appearance look low-rent next to the sharper and more sophisticated designs of the others. The ATS-V also has budget analog gauges that would be just good enough for a Chevy Spark, but here they are in a $78,930 sedan. Note to Cadillac: Pick an interior designer who loves watches and you might get better gauges.

It’s also harder to see out of the ATS-V than the other cars. Small rear windows and a high tail might look good to some, but the drawbacks are obvious when you’re trying to determine if that’s a soccer mom or a California Highway Patrol Explorer coming up on your six. There’s less space inside the Cadillac, too. The rear seats are tight enough to trigger a claustrophobic episode. In a game of inches, every fraction counts.

The last time around, the M3 eked out a slight two-point victory over a C63, but now it’s swapped its gold medal for a bronze. The C63 hasn’t changed—so what happened? This would be a good time for the Competition package’s performance review.

Even on the base 18-inch wheels, a regular M3 is firm. In our last go-round, the M3 had optional 19-inch wheels, shrinking the sidewalls and hardening the blows to the suspension. Adding the Competition package’s 20-inch wheels with hockey-puck sidewalls, stiffer springs and dampers, and thicker anti-roll bars degrades the ride even further, increases road noise, and effectively removes the veneer of refinement that makes an M3 tolerable on a daily basis. Part of the M3’s appeal is its ability to fill every need, from track-day toy to romantic-dinner shuttle. The Competition package removes civility, and it even rejiggers the electronic modes, which means that comfort mode isn’t very comfortable anymore. After a stint in the M3, every driver stepped out and commented on the noise. At 70 mph there are 70 decibels of tire and engine racket, the loudest in the group.

View PhotosCHARLIE MAGEE

Adding the Competition package does make this the best-steering M3 of its generation. The forces through the thick-rimmed wheel build naturally in every mode—we liked the lighter efforts of comfort mode the most—and the 0.98 g of skidpad grip improves upon the last M3’s 0.97. Through the slalom, the nimble and reactive M3 tied the Giulia for the fastest speed. The M division exorcised every bit of flab from the chassis; it’s good for track use but annoying in the real world. This is an overstimulated M3, meaning jumpy, amped-up, and eventually tiresome. Where’s the “Settle Down” button?

There’s no faulting the engine’s power, even if we wish BMW would get rid of the silly sound amplification that booms at up to 88 decibels at full throttle. The engine revs hard and fast to 7000 rpm. Throttle response is nearly instantaneous, and there are few signs that this is a turbocharged inline-six. Equipping the M3 with the $2900 dual-clutch seven-speed auto brings launch control. Unfortunately, BMW’s launch control doesn’t get the M3 off the line as well as the others manage. By 30 mph, the M3 is a tenth behind the Mercedes and two-tenths behind the Cadillac and Alfa Romeo. The launch rpm is adjustable to between 2800 and 3900 rpm, and we tried everything in between to lower the time, but its 4.0-second run to 60 is the slowest in the group and slower than an M3 without the Competition package. It did, however, pick up the fuel-economy prize with 20 mpg.

View PhotosThe M3 is the loudest, most hard-core of the bunch. Yet it also has this group's most spacious interior, the best outward visibility, and the greatest fuel efficiency.CHARLIE MAGEE

There’s still plenty to love about the M3. At something closer to its $64,995 base price it offers excellent value, but pumping it up with options until it reaches $88,045 offers diminishing returns. It does remain a practical choice in the segment, bringing interior space that’s lacking in the Cadillac and Mercedes. An upright greenhouse makes it easy to see out of and place on the road, and the lightweight seats from the Competition package fit well and adjust to the perfect driving position behind large and clear analog gauges. On the outside, the sheetmetal still looks fresh, and the Competition package’s additional gloss-black trim is a welcome highlight.

But unless you spend your weekends at the track and your commute involves the Stelvio Pass, we’d skip the Competition package. A base M3 is fun no matter how you drive it. Making an M3 more extreme does make it marginally more exciting, but at the expense of its on-road contentment.

To the test equipment, these cars all look alike. But the test equipment can’t appreciate the sublime nature of AMG’s 503-hp V-8. It’s the defining element of the C63 S and gives it a major advantage in a group of six-cylinders.

That engine comes with a $73,725 price tag, which doesn’t seem too high for a luxury sedan that can clip off 60 mph in 3.7 seconds and hit the quarter-mile in 11.9 seconds at 123 mph. But that’s just the opening bid; our test car came in at an S-class–like $94,770. Some of the extras included 19-inch wheels ($1250), AMG performance seats ($2500), carbon-ceramic front brake rotors ($5450), and the Premium 4 package ($5700), which adds many of the decadent features of the aforementioned S-class—right down to the air perfumer.

View PhotosThe C63's carbon-ceramic front brake rotors cost $5450, but you won't have to clean brake dust off the intricate wheels. Well, not off the front ones, at least.CHARLIE MAGEE

For all the extravagant extras and the S-class details inside, the real luxury flows from the V-8. It rips and pops through the $1250 performance exhaust when you want it to, but in normal use it wafts the Benz without straining or really even trying. Its fuel economy tied the smaller-displacement Alfa and Cadillac at 18 mpg. Every bit as smooth as it is powerful, the engine alone is worth the money, but it wasn’t enough to make the Benz our winner.

A thick coat of refinement makes the C63 drive like a baby S-class. Isolation is ideal for those who never encounter apexes, but when facing a mountain, the AMG finds itself wanting for agility despite a suspension pulled in tight. If anything, AMG might’ve pulled it in too tight. No one lauded the AMG’s ride. While not as manic as the paint-shaker M3, even with the Benz’s dampers locked in their softest setting, the C63’s Michelins sounded like bouncing basketballs as they slammed over pavement cracks. The steering churns with the same syrupy aloofness as an S-class’s, and with 53.8 percent of its 3958 pounds on the front tires, the C63 S lacks the turn-in ambition of the others. Through the slalom, the AMG went the slowest while feeling the most ponderous.

The C63 finishes in second place again. Once again, it proves to be as good a daily as the Wall Street Journal, but there’s now a better choice for those looking for a bit more entertainment.

Fresh out of the box, the Alfa Romeo won us over. We went in skeptical and left in awe of this gorgeous machine.

After rotating through the cars countless times, it became clear that the Alfa is the total package. The twin-turbo 2.9-liter V-6 provides the best acceleration to 60 mph and joins the 11-second club with an 11.9 in the quarter at 121 mph, quicker than Alfa’s own 4C two-seater and quick enough to require a roll cage at some drag strips.

View PhotosCHARLIE MAGEE

A Ferrari 488’s V-8 with two cylinders lopped off, this 90-degree V-6 lacks a balance shaft but sounds great. Above 3000 rpm, the V-6 throbs out a deep, snarly bellow that jeers at the suave manner of the Benz V-8 and points at the coarseness of the Cadillac V-6. Piped-in sound isn’t necessary here; all you hear is the music of the engine behind the instrument panel and the two-mode exhaust. We wouldn’t want it any louder. Under duress, the engine peaks at 80 decibels, a big eight decibels quieter than the M3.

The power builds evenly and without any big surges, which helps keep wheelspin under control during acceleration. The throttle response is precise, no matter the mode, but becomes livelier in the race and dynamic settings. No launch control is necessary; it’s as easy as holding the brake, revving the engine to 2000 rpm, and unleashing the power. We wish there were a manual-transmission option as there is in Europe, but we have to admit that the eight-speed automatic is spectacular. It bangs through shifts with nearly the swiftness of a dual-clutch gearbox, and the giant metal paddles attached to the steering column, which can completely obscure the wiper and turn-signal stalks in normal driving, are suddenly exactly right where you need them when you reach for a downshift.

View PhotosCHARLIE MAGEE

While braking into corners, we did notice an annoying and inconsistent brake pedal. Alfa fits electrically assisted brakes to the Giulia, and they don’t mete out braking forces with much consistency. Creeping to a stop in traffic is made difficult because the brakes keep slipping when you expect them to grab. Emergency stops are no problem, though, as the Giulia stopped from 70 mph in 143 feet. Credit the tires and the expertly calibrated anti-lock system.

Let’s discuss tires for a moment. Alfa equips the Giulia Quadrifoglio with Pirelli P Zero Corsa Asimmetrico 2 rubber. Far more extreme than the Michelin Pilot Super Sports on the other three competitors, the Corsas are track-day numbers that owners will likely need to replace every 5000 to 10,000 miles. We’d call them cheater tires, but there’s no rule stopping the others from offering equally aggressive rubber. Rolling on Super Glue, the Alfa pulled 1.00 g on the skidpad.
With the exception of Porsche’s 911 and 718 Boxster/Cayman, there is no other 1.00-g chassis that rides as well as the Giulia’s. The electronic dampers provide transcendent wheel control and somehow round off bumps that would ring through the BMW and Mercedes. Even in the hardest of the three modes, the suspension remains civil in a way that eludes the German sedans.

Next to the competition, the Giulia’s steering is on the light side, but that lightness and the chassis’ agility helped it ace the slalom test and made the Giulia the go-to car for leading the group through unfamiliar corners. It’s not until you step into the other cars that you fully appreciate how well the Giulia changes direction.

View PhotosThree-quarters of a Ferrari V-8 is enough to make the Giulia the quickest car to 60 mph. Beyond 100 mph, though, the C63's full V-8 takes the lead.CHARLIE MAGEE

There are a few things the Giulia doesn’t do well. Apparently, no one thought of making it possible to disable the automatically backtracking driver’s seat when you turn off the car. Alfa promises to fix that for 2018. The bottom cushions are a bit short, and the hard B-pillar trim is an elbow poker. Despite that, we did find a comfortable seating position. The interior design blends a lot of Mazda cues with some Ferrari flair. It’s familiar and attractive, but not as rich as the AMG’s interior. A leather-topped dashboard looks and feels expensive, but the lower you look here, the harder and cheaper the materials become. The audio-system controls and displays are easy to decipher, but the sound from the optional stereo lacks the depth of the other systems. In a world of Google Maps, every new car should have a sharp and clear navigation system. The Alfa’s is years behind the Germans’, although the map view that makes houses into little Italian villas is a charming reminder of the Alfa’s roots.

Another reminder that we were in an Italian car hit us when we briefly warmed up the Giulia using the remote-start feature. After we entered the car and pushed the start button, the Alfa died. A quick restart illuminated the check-engine light and brought up two messages: “Service Electronic Throttle Control” and “Service Engine.” The Giulia still drove, but it wouldn’t move out of its low-boost advanced-efficiency mode. Fortunately, at the next stop, our always prepared assistant technical editor, David Beard, plugged in his OBD II scanner and cleared the codes. It cured the Alfa, but the fault returned when, in the interest of science, we tried remote-starting the car again. Alfa should include an OBD II scanner as standard equipment, and customers should consider themselves part of the development team.

We are willing to overlook this hiccup, but it’s a reminder that Italian cars are part comedy and part tragedy. In the Giulia’s case, the comedy far outweighs the tragedy, at least for now.

2017 Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio2017 BMW M32017 Cadillac ATS-V2017 Mercedes-AMG C63 SVehiclePrice as Tested$79,195$88,045$78,930$94,770Base Price$73,595$64,995$61,690$73,725DimensionsLength182.8 in184.5 in184.0 in187.2 inWidth73.2 in73.9 in71.3 in72.4 inHeight56.1 in56.3 in55.7 in56.1 inWheelbase111.0 in110.7 in109.3 in111.8 inFront Track61.2 in62.2 in60.6 in63.3 inRear Track63.3 in63.1 in60.5 in60.8 inInterior VolumeF: 53 cu ft
R: 41 cu ftF: 54 cu ft
R: 42 cu ftF: 50 cu ft
R: 34 cu ftF: 50 cu ft
R: 42 cu ftTrunk13 cu ft12 cu ft10 cu ft13 cu ftPowertrainEnginetwin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve V-6
176 cu in (2891 cc)twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve inline-6
182 cu in (2979 cc)twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve V-6
217 cu in (3564 cc)twin-turbocharged DOHC 32-valve V-8
243 cu in (3982 cc)Power HP @ RPM505 @ 6500444 @ 7000464 @ 5850503 @ 6250Torque LB-FT @ RPM443 @ 2500406 @ 1850445 @ 3500516 @ 1750Redline / Fuel Cutoff7000/7250 rpm7500/7500 rpm6500/6500 rpm7000/7000 rpmLB Per HP7.68.28.37.9DrivelineTransmission8-speed automatic7-speed dual-clutch automatic8-speed automatic7-speed automaticDriven WheelsrearrearrearrearGear Ratio:1/
MPH Per 1000 RPM/
Max MPH1 5.00/5.0/36
2 3.20/7.8/57
3 2.14/11.7/85
4 1.72/14.6/106
5 1.31/19.1/138
6 1.00/25.1/182
7 0.82/30.6/191
8 0.64/39.1/1851 4.81/4.6/35
2 2.59/8.6/65
3 1.70/13.1/98
4 1.28/17.4/131
5 1.00/22.3/163
6 0.84/26.6/163
7 0.67/33.3/1631 4.56/5.7/37
2 2.97/8.7/57
3 2.08/12.4/81
4 1.69/15.3/99
5 1.27/20.4/133
6 1.00/25.9/168
7 0.85/30.4/189
8 0.65/39.8/1891 4.38/6.1/43
2 2.86/9.4/66
3 1.92/14.0/98
4 1.37/19.7/138
5 1.00/26.9/180
6 0.82/32.8/180
7 0.73/36.9/180Axle Ratio:13.093.462.852.82ChassisSuspensionF: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll barF: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar
R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll barF: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar
R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll barF: control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar
R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll barBrakesF: 14.2-inch vented, cross-drilled disc
R: 13.8-inch vented, cross-drilled discF: 15.8-inch vented, cross-drilled ceramic disc
R: 15.0-inch vented, cross-drilled ceramic discF: 14.6-inch vented disc
R: 13.3-inch vented discF: 15.8-inch vented, cross-drilled ceramic disc
R: 14.2-inch vented, cross-drilled discStability Controlfully defeatablefully defeatable, competition mode, launch controlfully defeatable, traction off, competition mode, launch controlfully defeatable, competition mode, launch controlTiresPirelli P Zero Corsa Asimmetrico 2
F: 245/35ZR-19 (93Y)
R: 285/30ZR-19 (98Y)Michelin Pilot Super Sport
F: 265/30ZR-20 (94Y)
R: 285/30ZR-20 (99Y)Michelin Pilot Super Sport
F: 255/35ZR-18 (94Y)
R: 275/35ZR-18 (99Y)Michelin Pilot Super Sport
F: 245/35ZR-19 93Y
R: 265/35ZR-19 98YC/D Test ResultsAcceleration0–30 MPH1.6 sec1.8 sec1.6 sec1.7 sec0–60 MPH3.6 sec4.0 sec3.9 sec3.7 sec0–100 MPH8.1 sec8.6 sec8.8 sec8.1 sec0–160 MPH24.2 sec26.7 sec28.8 sec22.5 sec¼-Mile @ MPH11.9 sec @ 12112.2 sec @ 12012.2 sec @ 11711.9 sec @ 123Rolling Start, 5–60 MPH4.2 sec4.3 sec4.3 sec4.2 secTop Gear, 30–50 MPH2.5 sec2.1 sec2.3 sec1.9 secTop Gear, 50–70 MPH2.8 sec2.8 sec2.7 sec2.9 secTop Speed191 mph (drag ltd, mfr's claim)163 mph (gov ltd, C/D est)189 mph (gov ltd, mfr's claim)180 mph (gov ltd, mfr's claim)ChassisBraking 70–0 MPH143 ft155 ft150 ft156 ftRoadholding,
300-ft-dia Skidpad1.00 g0.98 g0.99 g0.97 g610-ft Slalom46.1 mph46.1 mph45.5 mph44.5 mphWeightCurb3822 lb3662 lb3839 lb3958 lb%Front/%Rear52.6/47.452.3/47.752.6/47.453.8/46.2FuelTank15.3 gal15.8 gal16.0 gal17.4 galRating91 octane93 octane91 octane91 octaneEPA Combined/City/Hwy20/17/24 mpg19/17/24 mpg20/17/25 mpg20/18/24 mpgC/D 1100-Mile Trip18 mpg20 mpg18 mpg18 mpgSound LevelIdle48 dBA46 dBA50 dBA52 dBAFull Throttle80 dBA88 dBA83 dBA79 dBA70-MPH Cruise68 dBA70 dBA65 dBA68 dBA
Tested by Tony Quiroga and David Beard in California City, CA

Final ResultsMax Pts. Available2017 Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio2017 Mercedes-AMG C63 S2017 BMW M32017 Cadillac ATS-VRank1234VehicleDriver Comfort109899Ergonomics108886Rear-seat Comfort53342Rear-seat Space55552Trunk Space55554Features/Amenities1051059Fit and Finish1081097Interior Styling109886Exterior Styling109887Rebates/Extras50011As-tested Price2020161820Subtotal10081818073Powertrain1/4-mile Acceleration2020201819Flexibility54444Fuel Economy1088108Engine NVH1081076Transmission1010877Subtotal5550504644ChassisPerformance2020181919Steering Feel109889Brake Feel107989Handling1010889Ride1010869Subtotal6056514955ExperienceFun to Drive2524232123Grand Total240211205196195
These objective scores are calculated from the vehicle's dimensions, capacities, rebates and extras, and/or test results.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io