Skip to main content

2016 BMW M4 DCT Track Review

Photos by: Graham MacNeil & Kevin Doubleday

Imagine a world where only two cars exist and have ever existed; the BMW M4 and the Toyota Corolla. Assuming cost isn't a factor, just about every car buyer who has even a remote interest in high performance driving would take the M4. There would be no complaints about how it well goes, stops, or turns, how it handles, or even how it sounds. All those aspects are better in the M4; miles better, in fact. Next to a Corolla, an M4 is a super car, and a darn good one. But replace the Corolla with another car in this imaginary world, say a Lamborghini Huracan for an instance, and all of a sudden, an M4 becomes pedestrian. Perspective could make or break a car, even a good one. And that, perhaps, is the biggest contributing factor in the impression that the M4 left on me.

I haven't driven any Huracans, unfortunately. But on the same day I drove this BMW M4, I drove an E46 Dinan S1 M3 and a Cayman GT4. Comparisons to the GT4 in my mind were inevitable, but a bit unfair so I will leave those locked up there for now. But Comparisons to the E46 M3? They aren't only fair, they are necessary. After all, what is the point of redesigning and upgrading cars if the replacements are no better? Now, rest assured, the M4 beats that E46 M3 in every measurable way and it does so with ease, probably even the highest Dinan versions of the same vintage. I couldn't find a test of a Dinan S1 M3 but I found a Car & Driver test of an E46 Dinan S2 M3. Here's how it stacks up to an M4, both as tested by Car and Driver. I also included a test of a DCT M4 since the one I drove wasn't a manual.

M4 Manual M4 DCT E46 Dinan S2 M3
425 hp
425 hp
361 hp
406 lb-ft
406 lb-ft
282 lb-ft
3,556 lb.
3,480 lb.
0-60 mph
4.1 s
3.9 s
4.6 s
0-100 mph
9.0 s
8.6 s
11.6 s
0-130 mph
15.1 s
14.6 s
21.1 s
5-60 mph
4.6 s
4.2 s
5.4 s
1/4 mile
  12.4 s @ 117 mph  
  12.1 s @ 119 mph  
  13.2 s @ 107 mph  
300 ft lat-g
0.98 g
0.98 g
0.96 g
braking 70-0 mph  
151 ft
151 ft
163 ft

Both M4's tested had the competition package and the carbon brakes. The M4 I drove had neither, so I expect it to give up some ground in handling and braking compared to test numbers. But the E46 M3 I drove was on Hankook Ventus Evo V12 vs the OEM Michelins, and it was an S1, not an S2 like the one tested, so it would likely give up some braking and grip compared to the E46 test numbers too. From behind the wheel, the M4’s felt like it was a lot more capable - more solid/rigid, higher grip limits, stronger brakes, stiffer. And, of course, it felt faster. A LOT faster.

Although there's a big gap, the numbers alone don't even tell the complete story. The S55 engine is a monster. The Cayman GT4 I drove that same day also had a trap speed of 117 mph in C/D tests, same as the M4 manual. Considering that the GT4 is also manual, that should mean it's basically just as fast between gear shifts as the M4 I drove, with the only advantage in the DCT test numbers attributable to gear shifts. But from behind the wheel, the M4 feels a lot stronger. 425 hp and 406 lb-ft? I don't believe it. No way. Maybe I was intoxicated by the boost and torque hitting early, but it feels so much stronger than those numbers. Saying you need to be careful with the throttle is a massive understatement. I suspect this car has close to 500 crank hp. Full throttle out of turns right at the apex? No, not gonna happen. Forget full throttle out of turns, going WOT in 3rd gear in the back straight, I had traction control light flashing almost the entire way until 4th gear. Nothing in this car, not one thing, leaves as strong an impression as the engine. And this is where things start to disappoint..

An M4 where the most memorable aspect is overwhelming power? "M4" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.. but that's an M3 as far the last four BMW 3-series generations are concerned. It's just not right. A friend of mine had a C7 Corvette with the Z51 package. He sold it and got an M4 because he often needed to take his other car (which had back seats) instead of the Corvette so that he can take his kids to school in the morning and rarely drove the Corvette as a result. On track, he found the Corvette to be more manageable and it was easier to modulate (and use more of) the throttle in it. We are talking about a Corvette here having a better power/chassis balance than an M3/M4.. it's sacrilege. The way the car feels is also all wrong.

Compared to the E46, there's such a big disconnect between what you feel and what is going on outside. It's an odd feeling, because the suspension feels stiffer, which is typically associated with more body movement and NVH, but the driving feels numb. Climb out of an E46 M3 after a track session and jump into an M4, you'll be blown away by the progress in performance but you'll wonder if you've just got into a simulator.. the last little bit may be an exaggeration, I admit, but it's necessary to make the point. I think I read that the F80/F82 M3/M4 have solid rear subframe mounts. That should transmit a whole lot of NVH and feedback to your seat of the pants, but it doesn't seem to. The rear axle should feel like it's glued to your butt. It doesn't.

The steering weight and feedback also feel 100% artificial compared to the E46. Steering feel has been a sore point for BMW's for a generation or two now across the range - 3-series and 5-series, for both M and non-M cars. Here's what I think is happening: BMW takes all the forces coming back from the front wheels through the steering and filters out what you don't want. Things like vibrations, kick-back, responses to bumps and dips, etc. Then, it adds weight based on what the computer thinks the front tires are doing. In theory, it's great. You get rid of the stuff you don't want and get the information you do, but the end result is a very synthetic feel. It's almost like playing a video game with a really (really) good steering wheel controller.

I can't quite put my finger on why it feels wrong overall. I test drove a 335i xDrive M-sport a while back and found the same issues with steering and feel compared to the E46. I did a little bit of digging into some chassis specs/dimensions in that article to try and figure out why it doesn't feel like the E46, but I'm not sure if those differences alone explain all that is lacking. They do shed some light on the issues, though. As far as steering goes at least, I read multiple articles/interviews with BMW engineers who said the way the steering is now is what their customers want. Pity.

Fortunately, if you can get past some of the missing intangible essence that used to make an M3 what it is - the power/chassis balance and excellent feel - there is a really good car underneath. It is a lot of fun to drive. Responses are sharp. It's very predictable and never feels like it's going to bite, the latter a magnificent feat given the overwhelming power. Braking is very good and easy to modulate. There is power everywhere in the rev range. Comments about the noise are generally left unsaid.. but there is a narrow slice high in the rpm range that, at WOT, reminds you that there is an excellent BMW M straight six behind the turbos and the noise through the speakers. And the traction control system is very good. It doesn't feel reactive as it does in a lot of cars (including the E46 M3). You don't get the sense that you've overdone it and it is reining you back, it's just seamlessly working in the background to limit spinning.

But at the end of the day, it was very difficult for me to love it. I was very impressed by the capability and I definitely enjoyed driving it. I would never dream of turning down another opportunity to drive one, especially on track. But would I buy one, with my own money? The M3 would be extremely tempting if I were shopping in that price range. Not many sedans in that range that offer what it does and BMW seems to still do some things really well - combine practicality, usability, and performance in a really fun package. But if I were shopping for a coupe, there are many better options IMO than an M4, including its ancestor; the E46 M3.

Follow Ram's Eye The Track Guy on Facebook and Instagram!


  1. This is nice content man, you deserve the top spot in google search if im totally honest with you. Why the fuck doesn't google rank this higher?

    Such piece of gold can't be found everywhere I tell you that, I got chills just from reading the second paragraph and by the fourth one I was almost in tears. My only recommendation, though, this site right here expands a lil bit more on the N55 engine used in the M4, it also has a nice setup for those interested. You might want to check it out, but all in all, incredible man, hats off to you, have a good day.


Post a Comment

Does An Aftermarket Grille Really Increase Airflow?
I put a Saleen S281 grille to the test to answer that question.

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's
What you need to fit a proper size square tire setup.

How Limited Slip Diffs Make You Faster on Track
What you need to know about how they put power down and pros and cons.

Can Telemetry Explain Schumacher's Talent?
A comparison between Schumacher's and then team mate Herbert's data.

Cayman GT4 Track Review
The first Cayman with proper (911-challenging) power.

Is an EcoBoost Mustang any good on Track?
Two days at the track in a Mustang short 4 cylinders.

2016 BMW M4 DCT Track Review
It's quick (properly quick). But is it fun?

Can a stock Golf Diesel handle a Track Day?
Not your every day track beater.

🔥 Most Visited This Week

Michelin Pilot Super Sports vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 - Street Review

I've been a huge fan of Michelin PSS tires and exclusively bought them for the Mustang over the last four years. So how did I end up here? This year, I was hugely interested in trying an "R-comp" tire. I had my eyes set on Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's for two simple reasons: price and reputation. Although not a true "R-comp" tire on paper, it performs like one by the account of every single test and review I've read (down to wear rates...). They seem like they're easily the most affordable (from a big brand) R-comp tire and combine that with a reputation for having tons of grip, it was an easy top contender. I had my concerns, though. For one, I'm told and have read that they are an autox tire, not really designed for high speed, pressure, and temps associated with open track. For another, the Mustang is a heavy car (as far as track cars are concerned) being roughly 3,800 lb. (including driver), which will amplify the unwanted open track load

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's

If you've had any doubts about whether or not they will fit, fear not! You absolutely can run square 305/30/19's. I had a lot of doubts before pulling the trigger, even more so when the wheels where on the car. The tires do poke out a bit and I figured rubbing is all but guaranteed at full compression but I couldn't be happier I trusted APEX and those on here who have run it. Here's what you need: 1. Camber plates: I have MM C/C plates and they are maxed out at -2.3 deg with the stock struts. I have been running them for years with many track days without issue. 2. 1"/25 mm spacer: I have Motorsport-tech 1" spacers and they look like high quality units. There is maybe a 1/4 inch clearance in the back so you can't go any narrower than 25 mm. and you want Design 2. Motorsport Tech 1" Mustang Hub-centric Spacers 3. Elongated studs: your best bet is to get the FPP hubs with elongated studs

Michelin PSS vs Firestone Indy 500 - Track Review

A couple of weeks ago, I posted my first impressions of Michelin's PSS vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 tires. I've run PSS's for several years on the Boss, but I'm trying the Indy 500's for the first time. In short, I was worried about the narrower tires (I was running 285/35/18 PSS but could only find the Indy 500 in 275/35/18) and tread squirm, but I was happy with them up to that point just driving on the street. I had the chance to drive on them for three track days now. So what were they like? After my first session, they made an impression that basically persisted for the rest of track sessions on them. Phenomenal, unmatched value. Now, if value is something that stands out above all else, it typically means the compromise between qualities you want and those you don't is less than ideal, but the value is attractive. This is no different. I'll start with the bad, which really boil down to two: ultimate grip and grip longevity. Grip is noticeably l

GTR vs Evo X vs STI: which has the best AWD system?

A few weeks ago, I made a post explaining  mainstream AWD system types and how they compare , pros and cons, etc. including some simple diagrams to show where the power goes and how much. As promised, this post will focus on specific cars and what AWD systems they use, especially ones that that have more or less been defined by their AWD systems, and the best place to start may be with a bombshell; the Nissan GT-R. Nissan GT-R (R35) The GT-R has built a reputation around having monster traction and very approachable performance, thanks to its AWD system - Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-Terrain (ATTESA) - and what it can do for you. But the GT-R doesn't actually use the most mechanically sophisticated type of AWD systems discussed in the previous article, namely a "true" AWD with a centre differential. Instead, it uses a clutch pack to transfer power. RWD-based clutch-type AWD schematic - Rams Eye The Track Guy © The R32, R33, and R34 Sky