The G82 BMW M4 Competition - Why The Most Controversial M Car Is Also One Of My Favourites

BMW M4 Competition (G82) — Review Summary

Main features

• Engine: S58 3.0-litre twin-turbo straight-six producing 503 hp (510 PS) and 479 lb-ft (650 Nm), with a 7,200 rpm redline.
• Drivetrain: The reviewed car is rear-wheel drive; xDrive is also available. In the UK, the standard M4 and a manual gearbox were not offered.
• Transmission: An eight-speed ZF automatic replaces the previous generation’s dual-clutch gearbox.
• The test car has steel brakes, Tanzanite Blue paint, Silverstone leather, and Driver Pro and Comfort packs. Carbon-ceramic brakes and a carbon-fibre pack are optional.

What the reviewer liked

The controversial front end looks better in person than in photos, and the reviewer thinks it suits the M4 better than the M3. He also likes the rear and the interior overall.

The S58 delivers strong acceleration and torque, while remaining rewarding when revved towards the redline. The reviewer sees this as a notable improvement over the previous engine, which he felt lacked interest above about 5,000 rpm.

Despite its power, the rear-wheel-drive car feels more progressive and confidence-inspiring than earlier M3s and M4s. It grips well on damp roads, and the traction control helps rather than intrudes. The steering is relatively light but provides useful movement and road information, making the car easy to place.

Ride quality is good, even on rough roads and in Sport suspension mode. The standard steel brakes feel capable, with decent pedal feel and ample stopping power in the test.

The M4 is also easy to drive in everyday conditions. It has good visibility, useful 360-degree cameras on the test car, a spacious boot, respectable rear-seat room, and reported fuel economy of around 30 mpg.

The automatic is smooth and well behaved in normal driving. The reviewer considers a conventional automatic more natural and comfortable than a dual-clutch gearbox for routine use. Overall, the car feels more mature than its predecessor but can still deliver performance when asked.

Criticisms and compromises

The large grille remains divisive. The reviewer thinks it is unnecessarily large, with parts deliberately blocked off. The side profile also reminds him of a Ford Mustang.

The car weighs a claimed 1,725 kg—roughly 100 kg more than the previous generation, depending on the comparison. The reviewer notes that independent measurements broadly support BMW’s weight claim.

The front strut brace is a disappointing replacement for the previous generation’s striking carbon-fibre item; the new part looks cheap to him. The eight-speed automatic lacks the sharp response of the old dual-clutch unit and does not improve much in its most aggressive setting. The lack of a manual option in the UK is also regrettable, though the reviewer doubts a manual would suit this engine particularly well.

The engine sound inside the cabin is largely artificial or augmented, and the exhaust note is not especially exciting. The reviewer says aftermarket exhausts are available but wouldn’t personally bother with one.

Some cabin materials—such as the scratchy plastics, vinyl and headliner—feel disappointing for the price. The gloss-black controls are hard to distinguish by touch, and the reviewer criticizes the unnecessarily grabby brake setting.

The optional carbon seats and exterior carbon trim are divisive; the owner of the test car chose not to have them. The reviewer likes the carbon pack and would seek it out, noting that it cost under £7,000 in this case. Carbon-ceramic brakes can also be very expensive to replace: the reviewer says BMW’s replacement discs were almost twice the price of the equivalent Ferrari item.

The car is expensive. The test car’s list price is about £80,000, while a highly optioned example can approach £90,000. The reviewer feels BMW could include more leather and equipment at that price. Discounts were more available when the model was first announced than at the time of filming.

Comparisons

• Previous M3/M4: The older cars were more unruly and could feel frightening, particularly on damp roads. The new car is smoother, more composed and more confidence-inspiring while remaining fast. The reviewer prefers the new car overall, though he allows that the E92 may be an exception.
• M2: The M2 has become the more accessible, smaller and less expensive choice for many former M3/M4 buyers.
• Porsche 911 Carrera S: Traditionally more expensive, the 911 was regarded as the better-built and more polished driver’s car. At current prices, the reviewer says he would choose the M4 Competition as a daily over a 992 Carrera S.
• Audi and Mercedes rivals: The review says the M4 is lighter than equivalent Audi and Mercedes models. The reviewer also finds its steering more informative than that of some recent Audis.
• Weight comparisons: The M4 is said to be only marginally heavier than an Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio, despite that car’s lightweight components, and marginally lighter than the original Nissan GT-R.
• Engine comparisons: The M4’s torque exceeds that of a recently driven McLaren GT V8. The regular B58 engine, used in cars such as the Supra and BMW 40i models, is already popular with tuners; the reviewer expects the S58 to attract tuning attention too.

Verdict

The reviewer’s view changes from expecting to dislike the controversial M4 to liking it more than any other M4 generation he has driven, with the possible exception of the E92. Its price, materials and less engaging gearbox are real drawbacks, but its strong engine, capable handling, comfortable ride and improved composure make it a convincing performance daily.

He considers rear-wheel drive adequate for much of southern England; xDrive may suit buyers who need extra traction.

Speaker perspectives

• Reviewer: Provides the driving impressions, criticisms, comparisons and overall recommendation.
• Owner, Rich: Supplied the test car and reportedly achieved about 30 mpg on the journey. He ordered it before xDrive was available and later had the option to upgrade.