[M3Pilot09]

I there going to be an X3M CS? They mentioned it at my dealer.

[Tricky401]

No chance imo

There isn’t enough demand to make one.

I would welcome a lighter, maybe lower more agile x3 but what are they going to do apart from bucket seats out the m3/4?

Won’t be doing lighter wheels, no carbon roof, no two seater, doubtful ceramic brakes

Also it would easily be over 100k

Better to buy an m3 touring

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by M3Pilot09

I there going to be an X3M CS? They mentioned it at my dealer.

Originally Posted by Tricky401

No chance imo

There isn’t enough demand to make one.

I would welcome a lighter, maybe lower more agile x3 but what are they going to do apart from bucket seats out the m3/4? ...

Better to buy an m3 touring

One can always hope, M3Pilot09. Some of us have been advocating this concept for years, as it would essentially take the X3MC construct and make the relatively basic changes many have already done to make a St1 product, only under OEM warranty for many of us on the fence about that.

If M Div can afford to make 1,000 units of a(n) M4CSL (with its host of changes and new production designs required), surely for the X3MCS a CFRP roof, deletion of roof rails and pano with no option for those, 265/295 forged wheels, lowered with a wider stance and more flare to the back side, 50 HP tune, aero package, and titanium exhaust wouldn't break the bank.

And I've got to respectfully disagree with Tricky401 on this one issue - I don't want the M3 Touring as much prefer the X3 form, and I would suggest there is a definite market for one more M step up from the X3MC.

Appreciation to aw305 once again for allowing me to photo-edit his great build (found at: "aw305's F97 X3MC Build", https://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769201 ) which I shared originally back in Sep '20 (in Transfer's "X3M/X4M Random photos thread", https://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showp...&postcount=381 ).

[Kevin_The_Clean1]

We all "wish" they would build this...

[allinon72]

Highly doubt it, the X3M was barely made to begin with, it took a de facto trial run to make it happen. While it has been semi successful, I don't see a business case for it, especially ahead of the flagship X5M.

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by allinon72

... While it has been semi successful, ...

Your take on it, or is there a reference you're using? Being honest in the question, as I've tried to research numbers produced vs other M models and other Mnfrs in this segment and haven't been successful. If you can share, would appreciate the link as am interested.

[Bestle]

Originally Posted by Max Well

Your take on it, or is there a reference you're using? Being honest in the question, as I've tried to research numbers produced vs other M models and other Mnfrs in this segment and haven't been successful. If you can share, would appreciate the link as am interested.

Here's a database of the UK market if you want one datapoint. Seems to be selling fairly well

https://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/

[allinon72]

Originally Posted by Max Well

Your take on it, or is there a reference you're using? Being honest in the question, as I've tried to research numbers produced vs other M models and other Mnfrs in this segment and haven't been successful. If you can share, would appreciate the link as am interested.

This is purely my opinion. Like you I would be interested in sales figures broken down by trim level, but it seems BMW only releases these by model. We know that the X3 is a top seller, but most would agree that the X3M isn't exactly common to see in most cities.

The X3M is more of a parts bin car than most (if not all) M cars and it's possible that it came about in part to be a test bed for the S58; an easy way to kill 2 birds with one stone (again, not provable, just my conjecture). Fascinating indeed.

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by Bestle

Here's a database of the UK market if you want one datapoint. Seems to be selling fairly well

https://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/

Originally Posted by allinon72

This is purely my opinion. Like you I would be interested in sales figures broken down by trim level, but it seems BMW only releases these by model. We know that the X3 is a top seller, but most would agree that the X3M isn't exactly common to see in most cities...

Thanks for the link, @Bestle - interesting data set. I'm attaching a brief summary of BMW M models and the F97/98's competitors (SVR, Macan Turbo and GLC63 and S models) compiled from that site (and appreciate Olly Smith's efforts in sharing this data with the public). The F97 has the most of all the 'X' M group and is higher than the SVR and AMG products. Does fall behind the Macan Turbo but that was out a number of years before the F97/98 were released, and the gap does appear to be narrowing.

Have no idea how these ratios translate across other global markets, but interesting to see at least the UK segment. Apologies for being somewhat tangential to your OP question M3Pilot09, but this is relevant as to whether a case can be made for the X3MCS (and I still maintain one can).

[M3Pilot09]

Good stuff! Hey BMW if your reading this, sign me up for an X3M CS

[danniexi]

no.

X3M has no sort of motorsport/racing/sports car pedigree whatsoever. It's literally a parts-bin special and nothing more.

what BMW really needs to do is give the future X3M some model specific trim/parts to further differentiate it from its lower M40i and M-Sport brethren... maybe some wider arches instead of just bumper/fascia changes.

but lets be honest, BMW is doing the opposite; they're closing the gap between the differences between its M-Performance line and its proper M cars. all the m-performance cars recently share the same wing mirrors. Hell, the new M340i can now be had with a carbon fiber roof... first for a non-M car.

meh.

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by danniexi

no. X3M has no sort of motorsport/racing/sports car pedigree whatsoever. It's literally a parts-bin special and nothing more. ...

Understand your frustration (and share your concerns about M dilution), but have to disagree with your 'pedigree' slant.

M's Engineering and Aero Teams designed these and its their pedigree I'm worried about, not whether the F97/98 models raced in events four decades ago or fit into the small coupe/sedan definition some maintain of what should only be able to perform at a track level. It's been clearly shown what this construct is capable of if properly positioned ( https://www.dinancars.com/blog/post/...ap_of_america/ , as just one example).

And if I get a shaft from the M5, fine. If I have an engine or suspension elements from another M model, not a problem so not understanding the recurring 'parts-bin' theme. I could care less if they designed the F97 from the ground up - if M Design Team knows what they're using from other lines works exactly how they need them to in this model, without wasting time and cost to 're-invent the wheel'...

I just want my next F97 to have CFRP without rails or pano, wider-stance and lowered, 265F/295R, titanium exhaust, improved aero and mild tune, all OEM from the factory. Could care less what it's named as I'll debadge it...

[allinon72]

Some major trademark M characteristics are missing from the F97: carbon roof, flared wheel arches, bespoke hood. Not a lot of M specific suspension parts either. Driveline and brakes from the M5. Proportionally, there aren't as many parts specifically designed for the F97, that's why it gets its reputation as a parts bin car.

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by allinon72

Some major trademark M characteristics are missing from the F97: carbon roof, flared wheel arches, bespoke hood. Not a lot of M specific suspension parts either. Driveline and brakes from the M5. Proportionally, there aren't as many parts specifically designed for the F97, that's why it gets its reputation as a parts bin car.

Yeah, understood, and I'd appreciate some of those on our next F97 (except a bespoke hood unless it serves a purpose other than aesthetic). But that 'parts-bin reputation' doesn't necessarily reflect end-result performance and handling. What if the brakes and shaft had been totally re-designed and cost/delays incurred and MSRP increased, yet no gains achieved? To what end is my point - how much R&D cost is justified for new parts if current inventory meets/exceeds stated goals? Just seems to be a superficial negative critique which doesn't add much to the equation.

[danniexi]

let's be real. the entire M lineup basically share all parts with each other... gearbox, engines (S58 or S63), drivetrains, certain brake components, etc.

It all comes down to costs. I just don't see the additional amount of time or money being invested in this platform when the returns don't compare to the M3/M5 platform. It's not only the X3M; the same applies for the X5M.

As "capable" as these cars are, when it comes down to it, they are SUVs. They have the aerodynamic properties of a brick and the weight of a couple of elephants. These are people carriers that happen to be really really fast, and are made for customers who want the highest trim in its segment. They fill a small niche and BMW figured that it'd be profitable to take advantage of it to make a few extra bucks on top of the non-stop growing SUV market.

CFRP roof? wider tires? Exhaust? All extra development costs for BMW that won't yield any significant benefit to its performance or, more importantly, to their financials.

As a current owner, sure it'd be nice to have, but overall not of great importance. Coming from an M3, I knew going into this platform would be DOA since there aren't enough "enthusiasts" in the market (I mean seriously, how do you stay enthusiastic over driving a soccer mom car)... the state of the forums show that as well as the lack of support from the aftermarket.

Gotta take what we can get as of this point.

[Edgar_FriendlyX3M]

Originally Posted by danniexi

let's be real. the entire M lineup basically share all parts with each other... gearbox, engines (S58 or S63), drivetrains, certain brake components, etc.

It all comes down to costs. I just don't see the additional amount of time or money being invested in this platform when the returns don't compare to the M3/M5 platform. It's not only the X3M; the same applies for the X5M.

As "capable" as these cars are, when it comes down to it, they are SUVs. They have the aerodynamic properties of a brick and the weight of a couple of elephants. These are people carriers that happen to be really really fast, and are made for customers who want the highest trim in its segment. They fill a small niche and BMW figured that it'd be profitable to take advantage of it to make a few extra bucks on top of the non-stop growing SUV market.

CFRP roof? wider tires? Exhaust? All extra development costs for BMW that won't yield any significant benefit to its performance or, more importantly, to their financials.

As a current owner, sure it'd be nice to have, but overall not of great importance. Coming from an M3, I knew going into this platform would be DOA since there aren't enough "enthusiasts" in the market (I mean seriously, how do you stay enthusiastic over driving a soccer mom car)... the state of the forums show that as well as the lack of support from the aftermarket.

Gotta take what we can get as of this point.

You make a valid point. I don't see a big desire from the public wanting a CS version of the X3 M. If you're looking to shave maybe 100-150lbs off this thing I think the priorities are focused on the wrong things. To me, the competition is probably about as much as you could expect from a vehicle in on this platform. Sure there is a big move towards the masses having SUV's or SAV's but not something race inspired.

[spta97]

I never felt the "parts bin" term to be a bad thing. If you look at "bespoke" cars (Aston Martin, Maserati, etc.) they are riddled with reliability issues (and plummeting resale vales as a result). Not only do you lose the economies of scale when every model has something different, but you also lose the ability to produce products in a consistent fashion which, in turn, fosters reliability.

This is what main stream (i.e., BMW, Toyota, Honda, etc.) manufacturers do and their products are much more reliable as a result.

I love the fact that the "flagship" M3/M4 shares the same engine and drivetrain as my X3MC rather than the X3M having something unique which might not get as much attention if a problem arose.

As far as the the X3M CS, I probably would not be willing to pay for lighter weight and a few tenths of a second faster. I recall the E46 M3 CSL with no air conditioning ( ), power seats, radio, or navigation!

Sure it was faster, but I would not be willing to sacrifice any of those things.

All that said, I would really love for the X3MC to have fender flares and a bulging hood.

My reasons for buying this platform is I wanted something comfortable to drive but was also a monster when I wanted. I have never had anyone in the back seat (except my dog) so I could have gotten a sports car but realized crawling in/out ruins the fun for me.

Oh and I think Max Well should be designing cars for BMW