E36 - 328i's power scares me!
Jason R
must say that the raw power and torque this engine produces still
manages to scare me sometimes. I do have a couple of mods such as
exhaust and cold air intake.. but this car is so fast that I'm still
as impressed, or even more impressed, as the day I got it.
My question.. if my 193HP 328i is this fast.. how would the E36 M3
compare on the streets? To be honest.. sometimes I think it's best
that I don't own one because I can just imagine the effect of having
an extra 50 horses under the hood. And to think that some people even
turbocharge their M3's is beyond me!! Guys.. help me put this to
perspective! :-)
daytripper
wrote:
A Subaru will kick your car's boot. How's that for perspective? ;-)
Al Floer
If your have to have teh question, do not drive an M3. It is so much more
car and performance. I dare you not to drive an M3. If you do , your E36
will feel like a small let down. You can add soemthing that will improve
the performace of your E36, but it will never be a M3
Al F
'00 M Roadster
'96 E36
'88 E24
"Jason R" <e36im...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:quraqv4p7jdkfc16v...@4ax.com...
Phil
the M3 is substantially stronger and faster. The engine is strong, but do
not feel it is overwhelming. Sometimes, I wish it had more. It probably is
a perspective thing. I drive around in a variety of vehicles and you get
used to them, but get in a faster vehicle and then the slower vehicle, even
if it was fast, seems not so impressive. The M3 feels strong, but it does
not scare me. I don't drive hard at all. What commands my attention, and
dwarfs the M3 are the two sport motorcycles I have. To equal the
acceleration of the bikes, a BMW E36 would need about 600+ hp to match the
bike 0 - 60 time of 3.0 seconds. The M3 does this in 5.6.
But, my M3 always brings a smile to my face with its strong torque, and I DO
respect it. In the right environment (not in a crowded area), using the
power is not so scary. It has relatively effortless speed, and right now
torque, and can squirt one forward quickly, but it is all quite
controllable.
Go to a track day or driving school and you will learn how to enjoyably use
the power you have. Lotta fun!
- Phil
"Jason R" <e36im...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:quraqv4p7jdkfc16v...@4ax.com...
dizzy
<e36im...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well.. I've been driving my '97 E36 328i for exactly 3 years now and I
>must say that the raw power and torque this engine produces still
>manages to scare me sometimes. I do have a couple of mods such as
>exhaust and cold air intake.. but this car is so fast that I'm still
>as impressed, or even more impressed, as the day I got it.
Apparently you've never been in a fast car.
Dalibor Bauernfrajnd
> My question.. if my 193HP 328i is this fast.. how would the E36 M3
> compare on the streets? To be honest.. sometimes I think it's best
> that I don't own one because I can just imagine the effect of having
> an extra 50 horses under the hood.
150 horses :)
--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
ICQ: 138579247
Jason R
'90 RX7 (non-turbo) ... the BMW is quite a nice change in terms of HP
and Torque. In all honesty.. I'm not sure if I would want to even test
drive an M3.. since I know I would have to get one, no matter the
cost.
Oh well.. since I'm happy with my 328i there's no need to upgrade, for
now. ;-)
Thanks guys.
Jason
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:04:33 -0500, Jason R
<e36im...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
Jason R
??? Quite an impressive car indeed, for the money. Turbo AWD.. I like
that combination.. but in the end, I'll always choose RWD.
Jason R
fbloogyudsr
> > My question.. if my 193HP 328i is this fast.. how would the E36 M3
> > compare on the streets? To be honest.. sometimes I think it's best
> > that I don't own one because I can just imagine the effect of having
> > an extra 50 horses under the hood.
>
> 150 horses :)
He's in Canada - E36 M3 in North America was only 240 HP.
Floyd
Thomas Korth
"Dalibor Bauernfrajnd" <REMOVEco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a0fbfe1a...@news.individual.net...
> In article <quraqv4p7jdkfc16v...@4ax.com>, Jason R says...
> > My question.. if my 193HP 328i is this fast.. how would the E36 M3
> > compare on the streets? To be honest.. sometimes I think it's best
> > that I don't own one because I can just imagine the effect of having
> > an extra 50 horses under the hood.
>
> 150 horses :)
>
Tom
daytripper
wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 22:11:30 GMT, daytripper
><day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:04:33 -0500, Jason R <e36im...@nospam.hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Well.. I've been driving my '97 E36 328i for exactly 3 years now and I
>>>must say that the raw power and torque this engine produces still
>>>manages to scare me sometimes. I do have a couple of mods such as
>>>exhaust and cold air intake.. but this car is so fast that I'm still
>>>as impressed, or even more impressed, as the day I got it.
>>>
>>>My question.. if my 193HP 328i is this fast.. how would the E36 M3
>>>compare on the streets? To be honest.. sometimes I think it's best
>>>that I don't own one because I can just imagine the effect of having
>>>an extra 50 horses under the hood. And to think that some people even
>>>turbocharge their M3's is beyond me!! Guys.. help me put this to
>>>perspective! :-)
>>
>>A Subaru will kick your car's boot. How's that for perspective? ;-)
>I'll buy that. I'm assuming you're talking about the Subaru WRX STi
>??? Quite an impressive car indeed, for the money. Turbo AWD.. I like
>that combination.. but in the end, I'll always choose RWD.
Actually, fwiw, I was referring to the non-STi model...
Dalibor Bauernfrajnd
> A Subaru will kick your car's boot. How's that for perspective? ;-)
Given a nice road, it would kick M3's "boot" too. :)
Jason R
<REMOVEco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <d70bqv4iotp69vdj5...@4ax.com>, daytripper says...
>> A Subaru will kick your car's boot. How's that for perspective? ;-)
>
>Given a nice road, it would kick M3's "boot" too. :)
So what you guys are saying is... my next car, I should definilty
consider getting a Subaru WRX ?? ;)
Is it even a fun car to drive? I ask because in all honesty, I have no
idea.
Andy F
and brash boy racer styling, personally I do not feel the need to sacrifice
my luxury for a bit more thrashy harsh turbo provided power and would rather
have the smooth torque or the 328!!
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d70bqv4iotp69vdj5...@4ax.com...
Chip
news:_qfpb.67965$9E1.292414@attbi_s52...
> Well, I own a stock '98 M3 with 5 speed. Compared to a 328 I have been
in,
> the M3 is substantially stronger and faster. The engine is strong, but do
> not feel it is overwhelming. Sometimes, I wish it had more.
Actually, I was all set to buy a new M3 a couple of months ago... until I
drove one. And I decided it didn't have anything like enough go. Quite
disappointing, to be honest. I guess it could never live up to the hype.
If I were to buy a 3 series, I'd probably go for a 330 and save myself Ł10k.
Chip.
adder
The "evo" version in europe came with a 6 speed gearbox and
321(european)hp and would absolutely blow away any 328, 330 and
probably E46 M3 too.
Hmmmm ..not that I'm part of the "go to a driving school" brigade
(hello cr) but it's quite possible to outrun "lesser" drivers in their
M3 or Scooby in your 328 if you know how to drive it properly.
Dalibor Bauernfrajnd
OMG, I didn't know that. Here in Croatia, Europe it
was first a 286hp then a 321hp version!
Dalibor Bauernfrajnd
It's more fun then any BMW IMHO but lacks the comfort. Let's put it
this way. After a 500km trip, you'll get out of the BMW like you
just got in it, feeling relaxed, but in the Subaru on the other hand, you'll
feel like you just got out of a track race.
Impreza shouldn't be considered as a replacement for M3, it's a different
type of car... it's the type of car that would make me buy a 320d instead
of M3 and buy a WRX or STI for weekends ;)
--
"I think the problem is that it's.. French."
-- Jeremy Clarksons, "Top Gear" Clio V6, Aug '03
Dave Plowman
So an M2.5, really.
--
*If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried *
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
Thomas Korth
"Dave Plowman" <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4c4ba84d47...@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <zr6dnRBDurD...@comcast.com>,
> Thomas Korth <tkorth...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Actually 47, as the E36 M3 had 240 HP in the U.S.
>
> So an M2.5, really.
>
Cute, Dave! Does that make the current U.S. E46 M3 (333 hp) an M 3.3333333?
Tom
dizzy
wrote:
>Actually, I was all set to buy a new M3 a couple of months ago... until I
>drove one. And I decided it didn't have anything like enough go. Quite
>disappointing, to be honest. I guess it could never live up to the hype.
Really? Did you rev it up to the near redline? Obviously, you need
to rev the hell out of it to get the "serious" power...
John Stone
di...@nospam.invalid wrote on 11/3/03 5:19 PM:
It goes like hell even without getting near the redline. What in God's name
was he expecting?
Phil
333 hp. With a 0 - 60 time of 4.8 seconds and a quarter mile of 13.3 at
about 106, I am not sure what will be satisfactory for you, especially if it
does not have "near enough go". What would? Quarter mile in the 12s? The
E46 M3 revs to 8000 and has a relatively little 3.2 liter motor for 3400+
pounds. With a torque peak at around 4700 revs, and max hp at something
like 7000, it will not feel at torquey unless you rev it up. If you don't
like the revs, then perhaps a Z06 Corvette or Viper with a huge engine may
be for you. Or, get a bike like me, such as a Suzuki Hayabusa or Kawasaki
ZX12R. With about 175 hp, 700 lbs. w/rider and a 0 - 100 time of 5 seconds
and 80 mph first gears with 5 more to go, I am sure it will live up to all
the hype
- Phil
"Chip" <AnneOn...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:bo59ij$16j6ku$1...@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de...
Chip
news:BBCC872A.681AA%jms...@comcast.net...
To answer Dizzy's question first, yes I did try revving the hell out of it
and it goes OK at 5000 ~ 8000 rpm. (although the power band is quite narrow
I think). But do you really want to driving around whining away in second,
or having to drop a gear or two just to get the car to pick up? When you
are specifically out for a fun drive, then maybe, but in "normal" use, then
I would say no.
In day-to-day driving, perhaps going to the office in the morning maybe, I
might be in third or fourth at say 2,000 rpm and need some instant pull,
only to find the M3 does really have any in those conditions. I was really
surpised at just how gutless it was.
I won't tell you what I *did* buy, because this is a BMW forum and I will
*inevitably* get into arguments with passionate BMW worshippers who can't
bear it ;-) Been there before!
Chip.
Chip
> Well, since this was a "new" M3, you must have driven the E46 M3, which
has
> 333 hp. With a 0 - 60 time of 4.8 seconds and a quarter mile of 13.3 at
> about 106, I am not sure what will be satisfactory for you, especially if
it
> does not have "near enough go". What would? Quarter mile in the 12s?
The
> E46 M3 revs to 8000 and has a relatively little 3.2 liter motor for 3400+
> pounds. With a torque peak at around 4700 revs, and max hp at something
> like 7000, it will not feel at torquey unless you rev it up. If you don't
> like the revs, then perhaps a Z06 Corvette or Viper with a huge engine may
> be for you. Or, get a bike like me, such as a Suzuki Hayabusa or Kawasaki
> ZX12R. With about 175 hp, 700 lbs. w/rider and a 0 - 100 time of 5
seconds
> and 80 mph first gears with 5 more to go, I am sure it will live up to all
> the hype
Hey Phil,
You hit the nail on the head really. Yes the M3 "goes" if you rev the hell
out of it. The stats don't lie and anything that can do a 0-60 dash in 5
seconds can't really be described as sluggish! For track-days and for going
out specifically for a fun drive, then its probably quite good. But I had
to factor in also what its like for day-to-day use. I don't go to any track
days. Marvellous piece of engineering though that 3.2 straight-six may be,
its really not interested at 2,000 rpm. So if you are pootling around in
3rd or 4th and you need instant pull, then you have to drop a gear or two to
get it to do anything. It makes for quite tiring driving; constantly up and
down the gears to keep it in the power band and the engine screaming away
all the time. Like I said, great for the track, but for going to the office
at 7:00 am? Who needs that?
So I bought something else. It wasn't an easy decision because I have
always wanted an M3. To a certain extent, I still do "want" one - probably
just for what it is, and I do think they look fantastic. But it will now
have to wait another couple of years or so.
Chip.
John Stone
AnneOn...@virgin.net wrote on 11/4/03 3:11 AM:
>
>
> You hit the nail on the head really. Yes the M3 "goes" if you rev the hell
> out of it. The stats don't lie and anything that can do a 0-60 dash in 5
> seconds can't really be described as sluggish! For track-days and for going
> out specifically for a fun drive, then its probably quite good. But I had
> to factor in also what its like for day-to-day use. I don't go to any track
> days. ?
>
You don't have to rev the hell out of an M3 to make it go. I own one and
drive it daily. It is tremendously quick and as easy to drive as the 330i it
replaced. Compared to the 330 it has more pull anywhere in the power band,
and tons more at the higher revs. But you don't need to go up there to make
the car go unless you want to pin yourself into the seat constantly.
> its really not interested at 2,000 rpm. So if you are pootling around in
> 3rd or 4th and you need instant pull, then you have to drop a gear or two to
> get it to do anything.
Chip, just out of curiosity-how old are you and how long have you been
driving stick?
>It makes for quite tiring driving; constantly up and
> down the gears to keep it in the power band and the engine screaming away
> all the time.
Baloney. A total misrepresentation of how the M3 performs. Did you really
test drive this car? Describing an M3 as "tiring" to drive is a major head
scratcher.
>So I bought something else. It wasn't an easy decision because I have
>always wanted an M3. To a certain extent, I still do "want" one - probably
>just for what it is, and I do think they look fantastic. But it will now
>have to wait another couple of years or so.
Ok, so why don't you just tell us what you bought. Trust me, you won't hurt
my feelings.
Chip
> in article bo7qfc$19megl$1...@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de, Chip at
> AnneOn...@virgin.net wrote on 11/4/03 3:11 AM:
>
> >
> >
> > You hit the nail on the head really. Yes the M3 "goes" if you rev the
hell
> > out of it. The stats don't lie and anything that can do a 0-60 dash in
5
> > seconds can't really be described as sluggish! For track-days and for
going
> > out specifically for a fun drive, then its probably quite good. But I
had
> > to factor in also what its like for day-to-day use. I don't go to any
track
> > days. ?
> >
> You don't have to rev the hell out of an M3 to make it go.
Well I say you do. It depends what you mean by "go". Its a relative term.
> I own one and
> drive it daily. It is tremendously quick and as easy to drive as the 330i
it
> replaced.
I don't want to get into a big flaming session here, but I would like to
express my opinion so I do hope we can keep it civilized. Yes, the M3 is
probably as easy to drive as a 330, I wouldn't disagree. But to drive it
*fast* from my experience you have to rev it hard and change gear often. I
guess it all depends on what you mean by "fast", and "often". But anyway,
its not a *relaxing* drive at any speed. Heck its not supposed to be! If
you want relaxing, get a Jaguar.
> Compared to the 330 it has more pull anywhere in the power band,
> and tons more at the higher revs.
Of course I would agree with that.
> But you don't need to go up there to make the car go unless you want to
pin yourself into the seat constantly.
Its all relative, isn't it. A 320 is a very quick car to someone who's only
driven vw beetles. But really, at 2,000 rpm *compared to other fast cars*
the bimmer doesn't have a lot of oomph. (But please don't be offended, its
only a car. Its not like I am calling your wife ugly ;-)
> > its really not interested at 2,000 rpm. So if you are pootling around
in
> > 3rd or 4th and you need instant pull, then you have to drop a gear or
two to
> > get it to do anything.
>
> Chip, just out of curiosity-how old are you and how long have you been
> driving stick?
I am 41. Driving a "stick" since I was 17 when I passed my test. I don't
claim to be any driving ace, but I am reasonably competant I guess. I used
to drive circa 50,000 miles per year in my sales rep days and I have driven
just about every common car you can think of in the UK, so I have "been
around" a bit.
> >It makes for quite tiring driving; constantly up and
> > down the gears to keep it in the power band and the engine screaming
away
> > all the time.
>
> Baloney. A total misrepresentation of how the M3 performs. Did you really
> test drive this car? Describing an M3 as "tiring" to drive is a major head
> scratcher.
Yes, I test drove it extensively. I have wanted one for years and I really
tried to convince myself that it was OK really.... and it was "OK". But it
just didn't float my boat like the car I bought did.
Don't get me wrong John. The M3 is a *fine* car, beatifully engineered,
excellent build quality, great handling, feel etc. To criticise it I am
being very picky. I would say its a better car than the 330 in every
respect and if you loved the 330, how could you not love the M3.
But I am somewhat puzzled by you being puzzled, if you know what I mean.
For all of the M3's +ve attributes (and there are many, as I say), I
wouldn't have thought anyone could consider it a "relaxing" drive! Yes I do
think it is quite tiring to drive it hard. Its full-on, in-yer-face stuff.
Every bump, every twist and turn of the road is transmitted through to the
driver whilst the engine's roaring away under the hood. And round the bends
driving it hard its real "twitchy" and demands *all* your attention. Anyone
who says otherwise hasn't driven it hard! God knows how you'd keep it out
of the ditch if you turned the ASC off. These are great qualities for a
sports car on the track. But not for on the way to the supermarket.
(Actually I am rambling here, but I just thought of something. By your
"stick" reference, I assume you are in the US? Seriously, I cannot
emphasise enough the *vast* difference between the quality of the roads you
guys have and the sheer trash we have to put up with. You'd be better off
with a 4x4 on some of our dreadful roads. I think the M3 on your average
smooth, flat american road would be a *whole* lot more appealing a
proposition.)
> >So I bought something else. It wasn't an easy decision because I have
> >always wanted an M3. To a certain extent, I still do "want" one -
probably
> >just for what it is, and I do think they look fantastic. But it will now
> >have to wait another couple of years or so.
>
> Ok, so why don't you just tell us what you bought. Trust me, you won't
hurt
> my feelings.
Its not really appropriate for me to comment. This is a BMW board after
all, and I am not here to promote competitors' product. I prefer to only to
make my personal comment about my experiences with M3's.
FWIW I am a bimmer fan, and that's why I am here. I've owned several,
including my previous favorite car which was a 1997 540i - fabulous,
fabulous car.
Chip.
John Stone
AnneOn...@virgin.net wrote on 11/4/03 12:47 PM:
>
> "John Stone" <jms...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BBCD05AC.681F1%jms...@comcast.net...
>> in article bo7qfc$19megl$1...@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de, Chip at
>> AnneOn...@virgin.net wrote on 11/4/03 3:11 AM:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You hit the nail on the head really. Yes the M3 "goes" if you rev the
> hell
>>> out of it. The stats don't lie and anything that can do a 0-60 dash in
> 5
>>> seconds can't really be described as sluggish! For track-days and for
> going
>>> out specifically for a fun drive, then its probably quite good. But I
> had
>>> to factor in also what its like for day-to-day use. I don't go to any
> track
>>> days. ?
>>>
>> You don't have to rev the hell out of an M3 to make it go.
>
> Well I say you do. It depends what you mean by "go". Its a relative term.
I don't do street drags, and I don't nail the car for the hell of it. It has
enough "go" to easily pass and out accelerate the vast majority of cars on
the road without having to work very hard. To dust the heavy hitters, you
probably do have to move it up the rev range, but that's not my driving
style. Still, it's nice to know that it's there.
>
>> I own one and
>> drive it daily. It is tremendously quick and as easy to drive as the 330i
> it
>> replaced.
>
> I don't want to get into a big flaming session here, but I would like to
> express my opinion so I do hope we can keep it civilized. Yes, the M3 is
> probably as easy to drive as a 330, I wouldn't disagree. But to drive it
> *fast* from my experience you have to rev it hard and change gear often. I
> guess it all depends on what you mean by "fast", and "often". But anyway,
> its not a *relaxing* drive at any speed. Heck its not supposed to be! If
> you want relaxing, get a Jaguar.
>
>> Compared to the 330 it has more pull anywhere in the power band,
>> and tons more at the higher revs.
>
> Of course I would agree with that.
>
>> But you don't need to go up there to make the car go unless you want to
> pin yourself into the seat constantly.
>
> Its all relative, isn't it. A 320 is a very quick car to someone who's only
> driven vw beetles. But really, at 2,000 rpm *compared to other fast cars*
> the bimmer doesn't have a lot of oomph. (But please don't be offended, its
> only a car. Its not like I am calling your wife ugly ;-)
I'm not offended. Chip, there's a lot of territory between 2000 and 8000
rpm. The engine may not be a stump puller V8 from a Corvette, but it's
nowhere near the peaky monster you make it out to be. Now, a Honda S2000, or
a Mazda RX8, there we are talking an angry bees nest of an engine. Why don't
you offer counter examples?
>
>>> its really not interested at 2,000 rpm. So if you are pootling around
> in
>>> 3rd or 4th and you need instant pull, then you have to drop a gear or
> two to
>>> get it to do anything.
>>
>> Chip, just out of curiosity-how old are you and how long have you been
>> driving stick?
>
> I am 41. Driving a "stick" since I was 17 when I passed my test. I don't
> claim to be any driving ace, but I am reasonably competant I guess. I used
> to drive circa 50,000 miles per year in my sales rep days and I have driven
> just about every common car you can think of in the UK, so I have "been
> around" a bit.
>
Ok
> Don't get me wrong John. The M3 is a *fine* car, beatifully engineered,
> excellent build quality, great handling, feel etc. To criticise it I am
> being very picky. I would say its a better car than the 330 in every
> respect and if you loved the 330, how could you not love the M3.
>
> But I am somewhat puzzled by you being puzzled, if you know what I mean.
> For all of the M3's +ve attributes (and there are many, as I say), I
> wouldn't have thought anyone could consider it a "relaxing" drive! Yes I do
> think it is quite tiring to drive it hard. Its full-on, in-yer-face stuff.
> Every bump, every twist and turn of the road is transmitted through to the
> driver whilst the engine's roaring away under the hood. And round the bends
> driving it hard its real "twitchy" and demands *all* your attention. Anyone
> who says otherwise hasn't driven it hard! God knows how you'd keep it out
> of the ditch if you turned the ASC off. These are great qualities for a
> sports car on the track. But not for on the way to the supermarket.
Well, I wouldn't drive any car to the supermarket at that level. So we are
obviously talking about different things here. I just think that your
description of the car as "tiring" to drive is not accurate. Exhilarating?
yes. Tiring? not at all. I can put that description on a lot of cars that
are far less extreme than an M. As for ride, yes, the suspension is firm,
but it isn't harsh. And the engine isn't really that loud. Coming from a
540i, though, I can see your point. A very different car. Much more
insulated, and touring oriented. A fine car for sure, but steering is too
numb and the car itself is too big and insulated for me. Did you have the
sport suspension?
>
> (Actually I am rambling here, but I just thought of something. By your
> "stick" reference, I assume you are in the US? Seriously, I cannot
> emphasise enough the *vast* difference between the quality of the roads you
> guys have and the sheer trash we have to put up with. You'd be better off
> with a 4x4 on some of our dreadful roads. I think the M3 on your average
> smooth, flat american road would be a *whole* lot more appealing a
> proposition.)
Yes. I'm in USA. Some roads are better than others, but I'm really not
bothered at all by the ride unless the road is literally coming apart.
>
>>
> Its not really appropriate for me to comment. This is a BMW board after
> all, and I am not here to promote competitors' product. I prefer to only to
> make my personal comment about my experiences with M3's.
Ok, but your opinion seems well informed. So I'm curious about your
alternative. You could e mail my privately, and I promise not to post or
reveal you choice to anyone else.
dizzy
wrote:
> Marvellous piece of engineering though that 3.2 straight-six may be,
>its really not interested at 2,000 rpm. So if you are pootling around in
>3rd or 4th and you need instant pull, then you have to drop a gear or two to
>get it to do anything. It makes for quite tiring driving; constantly up and
>down the gears to keep it in the power band and the engine screaming away
>all the time.
I'm not sure you're being fair. This is not a Corvette with a 5.7L
engine and peak torque at 3600 RPM. The M3 is fast because A) it's
engine is capable of high-RPM operation B) it breathes well-enough to
take advantage of said high-RPM operation and C) since it's engine
spins faster than most, the gearing can be shorter, giving more torque
to the wheels for any given engine RPM.
2000 RPM? Come on, that's just not fair. You haven't re-calibrated
your thinking to an exotic engine like this. What you call "screaming
away" is simply higher-RPM operation than what you're used to. If you
don't like it, it's clearly not the car for you.
>Like I said, great for the track, but for going to the office
>at 7:00 am? Who needs that?
Well, what cars ARE fun to drive while slogging through rush-hour
traffic?
Thomas Korth
>
>
> (Actually I am rambling here, but I just thought of something. By your
> "stick" reference, I assume you are in the US? Seriously, I cannot
> emphasise enough the *vast* difference between the quality of the roads
you
> guys have and the sheer trash we have to put up with. You'd be better off
> with a 4x4 on some of our dreadful roads. I think the M3 on your average
> smooth, flat american road would be a *whole* lot more appealing a
> proposition.)
>
suburban Washington, DC, where 3 of my E46 wheels were damaged within
15,000 miles & my wife has replaced two wheels on her Saab in as many
years - all due to potholes on our average American roads!
Tom
Chip
I can agree with all of the above. Don't you find though, that the more
power a car has, the more you want? I do. I now have a car that will do
0-60 in around 5.2 and its still not enough. If I went back to my old 328i
(for example) I'd think I was driving a bus.
John I didn't say it was a monster! I said it was a brilliant piece of
engineering excellence. And I didn't say it was peaky either. The power is
smooth and progressive and winds up nicely as the revs build. At least
that's what I found. All I said was that the low-end doesn't pull as much
as I might have expected for a car with *such* a reputation. I was
expecting more, that's all. With regard to your comments about the S2000
and RX8, I agree completely. My last car was an SLK 320. Before I bought
it, I tried the S2000. I had more or less convinced myself I would get one
and just went for a test drive to be sure. Jeez, what a let down. Very,
very harsh, raw and thrashy. And the marvellous Honda engine that everyone
raves over? Noisey, unrefined and really weak at anything less than about
5000 rpm. Literally!
I'm surprised. My car is a bit less on the edge than yours, and even mine I
find a bit wearing on longer journeys. I would have thought the M3 would be
worse, but I've never owned one, so I can't tell for sure.
> I can put that description on a lot of cars that
> are far less extreme than an M. As for ride, yes, the suspension is firm,
> but it isn't harsh. And the engine isn't really that loud. Coming from a
> 540i, though, I can see your point. A very different car. Much more
> insulated, and touring oriented. A fine car for sure, but steering is too
> numb and the car itself is too big and insulated for me. Did you have the
> sport suspension?
Sports suspension: yes. Its standard on 540's in the UK. (Damned well
should be for $75,000!) You'd be really amazed at how well the 540 handles
(don't know about the new one). It was really "chuckable", and once you got
to know it you can really drive it wildly fast and on the edge. But on the
other hand I could cruise 300 miles at 85~90 in it, get out and feel like
I'd just popped down the road on a 20 minute run. The *only* problem I had
with it was reliability, which wasn't great. And a new one was looking like
a *lot* of money. Other than that, I might have bought another.
> >
> > (Actually I am rambling here, but I just thought of something. By your
> > "stick" reference, I assume you are in the US? Seriously, I cannot
> > emphasise enough the *vast* difference between the quality of the roads
you
> > guys have and the sheer trash we have to put up with. You'd be better
off
> > with a 4x4 on some of our dreadful roads. I think the M3 on your
average
> > smooth, flat american road would be a *whole* lot more appealing a
> > proposition.)
> Yes. I'm in USA. Some roads are better than others, but I'm really not
> bothered at all by the ride unless the road is literally coming apart.
> >
> >>
> > Its not really appropriate for me to comment. This is a BMW board after
> > all, and I am not here to promote competitors' product. I prefer to
only to
> > make my personal comment about my experiences with M3's.
>
> Ok, but your opinion seems well informed. So I'm curious about your
> alternative. You could e mail my privately, and I promise not to post or
> reveal you choice to anyone else.
You've got mail.
Cheers,
Chip.
Andy F
>
nospam wthwm2@hotmail.com CT
wrote:
>"John Stone" <jms...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:BBCD9DFA.683D5%jms...@comcast.net...
>> in article bo8s7i$1a4uat$1...@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de, Chip at
>> AnneOn...@virgin.net wrote on 11/4/03 12:47 PM:
>>
>> > "John Stone" <jms...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:BBCD05AC.681F1%jms...@comcast.net...
>> >> in article bo7qfc$19megl$1...@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de, Chip at
>> >> AnneOn...@virgin.net wrote on 11/4/03 3:11 AM:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> You hit the nail on the head really. Yes the M3 "goes" if you rev the hell
>> >>> out of it. The stats don't lie and anything that can do a 0-60 dash in 5
>> >>> seconds can't really be described as sluggish! For track-days and for
>> > going
>> >>> out specifically for a fun drive, then its probably quite good. But had
>> >>> to factor in also what its like for day-to-day use. I don't go to any track
>> >>> days. ?
>> >>>
>> >> You don't have to rev the hell out of an M3 to make it go.
You do in comparison to a 540i, I would equate driving an M3 to
driving a Porsche 911 in terms of the power delivery and flexibility.
>> > Well I say you do. It depends what you mean by "go". Its a relative
>term.
>>
>> I don't do street drags, and I don't nail the car for the hell of it. It
>has
>> enough "go" to easily pass and out accelerate the vast majority of cars on
>> the road without having to work very hard. To dust the heavy hitters, you
>> probably do have to move it up the rev range, but that's not my driving
>> style. Still, it's nice to know that it's there.
That's a good description of it...a 540i is even easier, especially
the models with the VANOS engine.
>I can agree with all of the above. Don't you find though, that the more
>power a car has, the more you want? I do. I now have a car that will do
>0-60 in around 5.2 and its still not enough. If I went back to my old 328i
>(for example) I'd think I was driving a bus.
>
>> >
>> >> I own one and
>> >> drive it daily. It is tremendously quick and as easy to drive as the
>330i
>> > it
>> >> replaced.
I usually find the M cars a bit more of a hassle than the standard
models to drive, the gates aren't as fluid and the clutch takeup isn't
as fluid at low revs. Ditto for 5-spds for 6-spds (eg: E39 530i vs.
540i). The M cars seem to be easier to hit high rev shifts than the
non-M cars. If found the E46 M3 really nice in that respect. My
540i's are much better since I got rid of the CDV's on them.
>> > I don't want to get into a big flaming session here, but I would like to
>> > express my opinion so I do hope we can keep it civilized. Yes, the M3
.
.
.
>John I didn't say it was a monster! I said it was a brilliant piece of
>engineering excellence. And I didn't say it was peaky either. The power is
>smooth and progressive and winds up nicely as the revs build. At least
>that's what I found. All I said was that the low-end doesn't pull as much
>as I might have expected for a car with *such* a reputation. I was
I was very impressed with it, albeit for a 3.2l engine.
>expecting more, that's all. With regard to your comments about the S2000
>and RX8, I agree completely. My last car was an SLK 320. Before I bought
>it, I tried the S2000. I had more or less convinced myself I would get one
>and just went for a test drive to be sure. Jeez, what a let down. Very,
>very harsh, raw and thrashy. And the marvellous Honda engine that everyone
>raves over? Noisey, unrefined and really weak at anything less than about
>5000 rpm. Literally!
Yes, Honda performance VTEC engines are not that comfortable to drive
on a regular basis. I've seen some really ugly cases of driveline
lash in some of them too, really pathetic. I've driven manual Jeeps
with less driveline lash than some of them. That in my books is
unforgivably bad engineering or sloppy quality control on any car that
you hope to use as a daily driver.
>> >>> its really not interested at 2,000 rpm. So if you are pootling around
>> > in
>> >>> 3rd or 4th and you need instant pull, then you have to drop a gear or
>> > two to
>> >>> get it to do anything.
.
.
.
>> > Don't get me wrong John. The M3 is a *fine* car, beatifully engineered,
>> > excellent build quality, great handling, feel etc. To criticise it I am
>> > being very picky. I would say its a better car than the 330 in every
>> > respect and if you loved the 330, how could you not love the M3.
>> >
>> > But I am somewhat puzzled by you being puzzled, if you know what I mean.
>> > For all of the M3's +ve attributes (and there are many, as I say), I
>> > wouldn't have thought anyone could consider it a "relaxing" drive! Yes
>I do
>> > think it is quite tiring to drive it hard. Its full-on, in-yer-face
>stuff.
>> > Every bump, every twist and turn of the road is transmitted through to
>the
>> > driver whilst the engine's roaring away under the hood. And round the
>bends
>> > driving it hard its real "twitchy" and demands *all* your attention.
>Anyone
>> > who says otherwise hasn't driven it hard! God knows how you'd keep it
>out
>> > of the ditch if you turned the ASC off. These are great qualities for a
>> > sports car on the track. But not for on the way to the supermarket.
The 540i is a lot more versatile in terms of being sporty when you
want to and utterly relaxing when you want to be nice to your
passengers or take an extended cruise. The frustrating part about the
car is that unless you are flogging it near redline, the engine is not
very audible except on perfect roads. The price to pay for no exhaust
drone while cruising, and somewhat the opposite of the M3 experience
which in comparison I didn't see as very usable for productive work
during the day.
>> Well, I wouldn't drive any car to the supermarket at that level. So we are
>> obviously talking about different things here. I just think that your
>> description of the car as "tiring" to drive is not accurate. Exhilarating?
>> yes. Tiring? not at all.
Definitely tiring in comparison for anyone who's owned a 540i before.
>I'm surprised. My car is a bit less on the edge than yours, and even mine I
>find a bit wearing on longer journeys. I would have thought the M3 would be
>worse, but I've never owned one, so I can't tell for sure.
>
>> I can put that description on a lot of cars that
>> are far less extreme than an M. As for ride, yes, the suspension is firm,
>> but it isn't harsh. And the engine isn't really that loud. Coming from a
>> 540i, though, I can see your point. A very different car. Much more
>> insulated, and touring oriented. A fine car for sure, but steering is too
>> numb and the car itself is too big and insulated for me. Did you have the
>> sport suspension?
As for the steering comment, I find most of the recent power steering
renditions to be too jumpy for my tastes, I prefer the feel of the
E36's. The accuracy may be better at low speeds, but I find the
steering perfect for high speed cruising. I guess I'm willing to
compromise the low(er) speed feel and a bit more effort during parking
for the high speed feel, which to me is when I need it most. On the
other hand, I won't tolerate exhaust and engine drone that annoys me 5
days of the week but is fun when I'm not working. But then again,
this is the perspective of someone who drives many times through my
workday, not just for fun on weekends.
>
>Sports suspension: yes. Its standard on 540's in the UK. (Damned well
>should be for $75,000!) You'd be really amazed at how well the 540 handles
>(don't know about the new one). It was really "chuckable", and once you got
>to know it you can really drive it wildly fast and on the edge. But on the
>other hand I could cruise 300 miles at 85~90 in it, get out and feel like
>I'd just popped down the road on a 20 minute run. The *only* problem I had
>with it was reliability, which wasn't great. And a new one was looking like
>a *lot* of money. Other than that, I might have bought another.
I'd definitely agree on this, once you learn how to handle a 540i,
it's very agile but you can't throw it around with reckless abandon
like a lighter car, or one with less torque. I learned my lesson
after a spinout powering out of a hard corner (ASC disabled in the
rain on a rough corner) and a fishtailing episode accelerating up a
hill after a light rain (ASC on with LSD). Luckily I pulled out of
them both without any serious issues and learned to respect the car a
bit more and corrected my mistakes. I have had a 97 540i for a few
years and was planning to replace it with an M3, but I wasn't
convinced by the M3 either.
I was not impressed by the exhaust on the new M3, whereas I love the
sounds of E36 inline sixes, on both standard and M forms. The low end
power of the 540i makes it a phenomenally easy car to drive in slow
traffic, unlike smaller engines. I drove three different E46 M3's and
found the clutch to be more work and the torque band of the engine,
although very impressive, not as tractable as a 540i.
I have had my share of fixing to do on the 97 540i as well,
experiencing most of the E39 540i issues but I expect this type of
thing on a first year model anyway. In the end I picked up a 2003
540i, swapped my LSD to it (which probably biases my opinion of the
handling of the 540i as well) and am even happier than I was with the
97. I was also considering an S4, but I wasn't really confident in
Audi's engineering after seeing a few service horror shows on recent
models doing fairly basic maintenance, and seeing the cost of doing a
lot of routine maintenance down the road if I kept the car long-term.
But finally they are offering a nice manual sport model without the
turbo lag that I can't stand in ay form...
>> > (Actually I am rambling here, but I just thought of something. By your
>> > "stick" reference, I assume you are in the US? Seriously, I cannot
>> > emphasise enough the *vast* difference between the quality of the roads
>you
>> > guys have and the sheer trash we have to put up with. You'd be better
>off
>> > with a 4x4 on some of our dreadful roads. I think the M3 on your
>average
>> > smooth, flat american road would be a *whole* lot more appealing a
>> > proposition.)
>
>> Yes. I'm in USA. Some roads are better than others, but I'm really not
>> bothered at all by the ride unless the road is literally coming apart.
I'm on the West Coast of Canada in BC, and luckily we have lots of
nice secluded roads on which to frolic with good hardware, although we
do get more than our fair share of rain and the occasional bit of
snow. We are probably blessed here with better maintained roads than
the US, with less traffic and views competitive with the best spots in
the US. Needless to say I love it and I am constantly on road trips
;-)
>> > Its not really appropriate for me to comment. This is a BMW board after
.
.
>Chip.
>
John Stone
wth...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/6/03 4:55 AM:
>> "John Stone" <jms...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:BBCD9DFA.683D5%jms...@comcast.net...
>>> in article bo8s7i$1a4uat$1...@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de, Chip at
>>> AnneOn...@virgin.net wrote on 11/4/03 12:47 PM:
>>>
>>>>> You don't have to rev the hell out of an M3 to make it go.
>
> You do in comparison to a 540i, I would equate driving an M3 to
> driving a Porsche 911 in terms of the power delivery and flexibility.
An M3 and a 540 are two completely different cars, both excellent. The M is
faster, more agile, more raw. For me, a 540 is too "civilized", too heavy,
too big. Basically, I prefer the size and feel of the 3 series over the 5.
For the time being, the M fits my style. I can't say it always will, but for
now, I really enjoy it. I don't take long trips in it. I've got another car
for that. But, what a blast on the back roads of Wisconsin, a quick 100
miles on the interstate, or that 2 mile drive to the nearest Starbucks. I
smile a lot when driving this car-something I can't say about the previous 2
BMW's I owned.
>>>>> I own one and
>>>>> drive it daily. It is tremendously quick and as easy to drive as the
>> 330i
>>>> it
>>>>> replaced.
>
> I usually find the M cars a bit more of a hassle than the standard
> models to drive, the gates aren't as fluid and the clutch takeup isn't
> as fluid at low revs. Ditto for 5-spds for 6-spds (eg: E39 530i vs.
> 540i). The M cars seem to be easier to hit high rev shifts than the
> non-M cars. If found the E46 M3 really nice in that respect. My
> 540i's are much better since I got rid of the CDV's on them.
I must disagree on this. My M is much better from launch than either the
528i or 330i I owned prior to it. I really hated the clutch in both those
cars. Very abrupt take-up coupled with a light pedal that made smooth
launches from first really difficult. Many have complained about this in
later BMW's. My old E36 and E30 325is models were far better in this
respect. By comparison, the M clutch is very linear with a nice broad
engagement point and no grabbing or lurching. The shift gates are also less
notchy, the throw is much shorter, and it shifts quicker. As for removing
the CDV on the standard models, I hear this helps. But I have to wonder at
what cost to the health of the driveline? I mean, BMW put the CDV in there
for a reason, no?
> The 540i is a lot more versatile in terms of being sporty when you
> want to and utterly relaxing when you want to be nice to your
> passengers or take an extended cruise. The frustrating part about the
> car is that unless you are flogging it near redline, the engine is not
> very audible except on perfect roads. The price to pay for no exhaust
> drone while cruising, and somewhat the opposite of the M3 experience
> which in comparison I didn't see as very usable for productive work
> during the day.
Regardless of the "versatile" nature of the 540, it will never match the
sportiness of the M3. Regardless of the back seat, trunk, and other
amenities of the M3, it will never be near as versatile as a 540. It's all
about tradeoffs.
>>> Well, I wouldn't drive any car to the supermarket at that level. So we are
>>> obviously talking about different things here. I just think that your
>>> description of the car as "tiring" to drive is not accurate. Exhilarating?
>>> yes. Tiring? not at all.
>
> Definitely tiring in comparison for anyone who's owned a 540i before.
To each his own, I say.
>
> As for the steering comment, I find most of the recent power steering
> renditions to be too jumpy for my tastes, I prefer the feel of the
> E36's. The accuracy may be better at low speeds, but I find the
> steering perfect for high speed cruising. I guess I'm willing to
> compromise the low(er) speed feel and a bit more effort during parking
> for the high speed feel, which to me is when I need it most.
To me, the steering was one of the few faults of the 540i, along with the
clutch. It just felt numb to me. My 528i with the rack and pinion vs the
540's recirculating ball was better. I agree that the E36 steering is a
kind of benchmark for BMW, with the E46 M coming very close. I don't find
the M steering the least bit "jumpy". In the 330i, absolutely you are right.
But the M is more composed, more deliberate.
On the
> other hand, I won't tolerate exhaust and engine drone that annoys me 5
> days of the week but is fun when I'm not working. But then again,
> this is the perspective of someone who drives many times through my
> workday, not just for fun on weekends.
In 6th, at 85mph, the dominant noise is wind and tire noise, not the engine.
At cruising it is no louder than my 330 was, but of course, the 5 is much
quieter than either. I could barely hear the engine in the 528. Shame, since
I love the sound of those sixes. The M exhaust is raspy on the outside. But
inside the car, I absolutely love the sound the engine makes on boil. What I
really disliked about my 330 was the whine from the rear end between 70 and
85. And no, there was nothing wrong with the car. It's just a characteristic
of that differential.
> I'm on the West Coast of Canada in BC, and luckily we have lots of
> nice secluded roads on which to frolic with good hardware, although we
> do get more than our fair share of rain and the occasional bit of
> snow. We are probably blessed here with better maintained roads than
> the US, with less traffic and views competitive with the best spots in
> the US. Needless to say I love it and I am constantly on road trips
> ;-)
>
Lucky you! I love BC. A really beautiful place. Will be in Canada this
weekend. Unfortunately the M is staying home.
adder
something about M3s and 540is
I've just got a E46 M3 and I find for city traffic the close ratio
gearbox is a pain - you hardly go anywhere and it's time to change up
gear - either that or people look at you funny as your doing 6000rpm
down the road!
The clunky gear changes and diff are annoying too but don't affect the
driving too much.
There's NO WAY I'd ever drive the car without the sport mode on. It's
not really a sport mode but an ultra economy go nowhere mode when it's
off. Anyone who comes out with a way of enabling this as on by
default could make a lot of money....
I find the steering surprisingly easy for such a big tyred car,
compared to the E36 but I've gotten used to it now and it's alright.
As for the 911 comparison - I find the 996 without the sport
suspension to be a much more city traffic friendly car to use.
Steve
John Stone
adde...@yahoo.co.uk wrote on 11/6/03 8:53 AM:
> CT <cbj nospam wth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<5h7kqvkciqg1rtvm5...@4ax.com>...
> something about M3s and 540is
>
> I've just got a E46 M3 and I find for city traffic the close ratio
> gearbox is a pain - you hardly go anywhere and it's time to change up
> gear - either that or people look at you funny as your doing 6000rpm
> down the road!
Doesn't bother me, as I enjoy shifting the car, and try to avoid city
traffic like the plague-in any car.
> The clunky gear changes and diff are annoying too but don't affect the
> driving too much.
Is your car new? It does smooth out over time. And I'm beginning to think
that there is considerable variability in the trannies of these cars. The
demo I drove was much more balky than the one I ultimately bought. Maybe I'm
lucky, but my shifter is really smooth. The diff clunk is there, but my 330
also clunked, so I just consider it a "BMW trait"
>
> There's NO WAY I'd ever drive the car without the sport mode on. It's
> not really a sport mode but an ultra economy go nowhere mode when it's
> off. Anyone who comes out with a way of enabling this as on by
> default could make a lot of money....
But, in sport mode, you've got a real revenue generator for the local
authorities.
> I find the steering surprisingly easy for such a big tyred car,
> compared to the E36 but I've gotten used to it now and it's alright.
I like the steering; slightly light effort, but with good feedback and not
over responsive or twitchy.
>
> As for the 911 comparison - I find the 996 without the sport
> suspension to be a much more city traffic friendly car to use.
Interesting. Any reason why you went for the M instead, other than price?
dizzy
wrote:
>>
>> Definitely tiring in comparison for anyone who's owned a 540i before.
>
>To each his own, I say.
Well, not much doubt about that. Sports cars demand more attention,
more work, to drive. Obviously, that's a big part of their appeal.
Phil
It may surprise many here, but I am not all that surprised by your opinion
of the E46 M3 if you are looking for instant lunge at modest rpm, which IS
useful and fun in normal street driving. Note that the E46 M3, compared to
the E36 M3, does have more torque, but is also heavier and makes that torque
at higher rpm. And, it is geared taller. It would not surprise me if the
old M3 pulled harder at low rpm.
Having grown up on motorcycles, I too tired of high revving engines that had
to scream to make any power. The only solution is engine displacement. My
latest bike has just that, and it is fun to have just a few thousand revs
showing and have your eyeballs flattened, no matter what gear you are in.
My current M3, with low top gear gearing, and generous torque (peak at 3800
revs), is also pretty strong at any rpm. Nice.
Having to live with a car day to day is certainly an important
consideration, and here my M3 disappoints in a few departments. One, the
ride, on the terrible California roads in my area, is pretty rough. I blame
the roads more than the car for this. Out here, you almost NEED a truck or
Humvee to navigate the horrific asphalt trails they call roads. The seats
are too narrow and hard, and get quite uncomfortable after a few hours. I
have heard the same complaint from others (my car is a 4 dour w/different
seats than the 2 door). My wife complains as well. No adjustment fixes it.
Lastly, the car is geared pretty low in 5th, and 3500 revs cruising seems
too busy, even if that is near 80 mph. 75 - 80 is not uncommon out here,
when traffic permits. The clutch throw is too long and the shift lever
travel too long as well, making shifts slow. Nonetheless, I like the car,
but honestly, probably would not buy another. A bit too hard edged.
Someone once said the a car like the 330i is a sporty luxury car, while the
M3 is a luxurious sports car. That is accurate.
If I had to buy a car to replace the M3, I'd want something with effortless
lunge, pretty much at any rpm (2000 revs up), and would opt for either the
Audi S4 4.2, Mercedes C32, BMW 540i, and believe it or not, possibly a
Corvette. The Corvette has an ancient engine, and a GM cheapish interior,
but a few things can not be denied. It DOES handle well, it reputedly has a
much more comfy ride than the M3, is as fast or faster, gets good fuel
mileage, has instant power with a solid 50% more torque than the M3, and
gives loads more standard features. And one other thing, the Corvette has
been immune from the rampant weight gains other cars seem to have. The
Corvette is about 200 lbs. heavier than it was 40 years ago, and is a few
hundred pounds under the E46 M3. The Audi is also a nice place to live, day
to day, with a punchy V-8, and the M-B is the same. I know one thing, for
my environment, going to work, the occasional trip, the E46 M3 is not best
for me. Too bad, because it is an excellent car. But, may have to check
out a used M5...
- Phil
"Chip" <AnneOn...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:bo7qfc$19megl$1...@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de...
Donovan Colbert
and well-mannered than my '96 Mustang GT... which drove more like a truck
than a sports car...
I test drove a C class, the 328i and an M3...
The M3 had gobs of power... but it also was real hard over bumps, had wide
tires that wanted to follow ruts in the road, had a lot more road noise, and
just generally felt more unruly.
They're incredible cars, but it wasn't what I was looking for.
Now, on the other hand, I have a buddy who has an M3 and another who has an
S4. At Intel in Folsom, there is a huge, reducing radius sweeper getting
onto 50 from Prarie City Road. One evening, I had made it to this corner
first, and was flying through it at a perfectly unreasonable rate of speed,
when I spied my buddy coming behind me in his M3, following my line, and
closing the gap quickly.
About that time, the OTHER buddy came absolutely FLYING around the corner,
in the outside lane, in his S4, and blew by both of us. The guy who drives
the M3 is an AMA racing dude, so he knows how to take a line. The technology
in the S4 is just incredible, while keeping the car a very civil daily
driver... But, in my experience, the S4, it is the technology doing most of
the driving, not the driver... I don't think I would enjoy THAT, either.
My point is... know what you want from a car and then try a few of them
within your price range. You may find you're right where you want to be.
"Al Floer" <cybe...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vqb0k9n...@corp.supernews.com...
> Jason,
>
> If your have to have teh question, do not drive an M3. It is so much more
> car and performance. I dare you not to drive an M3. If you do , your E36
> will feel like a small let down. You can add soemthing that will improve
> the performace of your E36, but it will never be a M3
>
> Al F
> '00 M Roadster
> '96 E36
> '88 E24
>
> "Jason R" <e36im...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:quraqv4p7jdkfc16v...@4ax.com...
> > Well.. I've been driving my '97 E36 328i for exactly 3 years now and I
> > must say that the raw power and torque this engine produces still
> > manages to scare me sometimes. I do have a couple of mods such as
> > exhaust and cold air intake.. but this car is so fast that I'm still
> > as impressed, or even more impressed, as the day I got it.
> >
> > My question.. if my 193HP 328i is this fast.. how would the E36 M3
> > compare on the streets? To be honest.. sometimes I think it's best
> > that I don't own one because I can just imagine the effect of having
Fred W.
"Donovan Colbert" <don...@nospam.thecolberthouse.com> wrote in message
news:3fab440e$0$82697$45be...@newscene.com...
>
> Now, on the other hand, I have a buddy who has an M3 and another who has
an
> S4. At Intel in Folsom, there is a huge, reducing radius sweeper getting
> onto 50 from Prarie City Road. One evening, I had made it to this corner
> first, and was flying through it at a perfectly unreasonable rate of
speed,
> when I spied my buddy coming behind me in his M3, following my line, and
> closing the gap quickly.
>
> About that time, the OTHER buddy came absolutely FLYING around the corner,
> in the outside lane, in his S4, and blew by both of us. The guy who drives
> the M3 is an AMA racing dude, so he knows how to take a line. The
technology
> in the S4 is just incredible, while keeping the car a very civil daily
> driver... But, in my experience, the S4, it is the technology doing most
of
> the driving, not the driver... I don't think I would enjoy THAT, either.
I don't believ the S4 is superior to the M3 in taking a corner. That friend
was just more willing to pres down the accelerator than the one in the M
car. Otherwise, you would see a bunch of S4's eating up the M3's at the
race tracks, and that just ain't so...
-Fred
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003
E.R.
none other than John Stone:
>Lucky you! I love BC. A really beautiful place.
Well, most of it. :}
--
E.R. aka S.J.G. aka Ricardo - Xlate & correct for e-mail reply
Watch this space! :)
daytripper
wrote:
>
>"Donovan Colbert" <don...@nospam.thecolberthouse.com> wrote in message
>news:3fab440e$0$82697$45be...@newscene.com...
>>
>> Now, on the other hand, I have a buddy who has an M3 and another who has
>an
>> S4. At Intel in Folsom, there is a huge, reducing radius sweeper getting
>> onto 50 from Prarie City Road. One evening, I had made it to this corner
>> first, and was flying through it at a perfectly unreasonable rate of
>speed,
>> when I spied my buddy coming behind me in his M3, following my line, and
>> closing the gap quickly.
>>
>> About that time, the OTHER buddy came absolutely FLYING around the corner,
>> in the outside lane, in his S4, and blew by both of us. The guy who drives
>> the M3 is an AMA racing dude, so he knows how to take a line. The
>technology
>> in the S4 is just incredible, while keeping the car a very civil daily
>> driver... But, in my experience, the S4, it is the technology doing most
>of
>> the driving, not the driver... I don't think I would enjoy THAT, either.
>
>I don't believ the S4 is superior to the M3 in taking a corner. That friend
>was just more willing to pres down the accelerator than the one in the M
>car. Otherwise, you would see a bunch of S4's eating up the M3's at the
>race tracks, and that just ain't so...
Context is everything.
A B5 S4 will out hustle a North American market E36 M3 under almost any
conditions, and especially exiting a corner. In that match up the S4 has
significantly more torque and hp than the M3 while the weights are very close,
and with four contact patches to transmit thrust the Bimmer will be seeing the
Audi's tail feathers for the duration.
otoh, a B5 S4 would have its figurative hands full against a Euro-market E36
with a skilled driver in the pilot seat keeping the wheel spinning tail
sliding to a minimum...
/daytripper
'00 s4 6spd, and still unchipped at that ;-)
Fred W.
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6boqv45ei6261bht...@4ax.com...
You are right about context. I was thinking of a modern E46 M3 not the
E36...
-Fred W
remove yourself from my address to reply
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/10/2003
Donovan Colbert
the S4, and watched it just bury a "regular" WRX. The guy drove up at the
next turn and said, "That would have been a different story if it were
raining". I suggested he should carry water balloons with him. He didn't
think it was amusing.
Now, the regular WRX against an e36 328i... I'm not sure... that might be a
different story. But, with all that cheap plastic and those "cruise ship
confetti colored" cloth seats, who *cares*...
It *is* all about context, after all. Whinin' out a turbocharged 4 with AWD
to barely beat an e36 328i, for about the same price, I think I'd rather
have the used 3 than the new Suby. Not to mention that the WRX has initials
which phoentically spell "WRECKS" and looks like a Neon on steroids.
:)
Anyhow... as far as the M3 versus S4 contest is concerned, I'd have to say
that the M3 guy had more gonads. I managed to unseat the S4 a couple of
times just by having bigger 'uns than he did... But we were all basically
equal drivers, with the M3 guy having the decided edge. I dunno WHAT it was
(the M3 guy later claimed he was driving on balding tires... :) But it
convinced me that the Quattro *is* good for *something* other than adding a
few hundred more pounds to the car.
And yeah... the E40 M3 is a different beast all together. Not really fair
to compare it to these with a base price of $55k...
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hpfbqvonjj9s6o9jr...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:16:38 -0500, Jason R
<e36im...@nospam.hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 22:11:30 GMT, daytripper
> ><day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:04:33 -0500, Jason R
<e36im...@nospam.hotmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Well.. I've been driving my '97 E36 328i for exactly 3 years now and I
> >>>must say that the raw power and torque this engine produces still
> >>>manages to scare me sometimes. I do have a couple of mods such as
> >>>exhaust and cold air intake.. but this car is so fast that I'm still
> >>>as impressed, or even more impressed, as the day I got it.
> >>>
> >>>My question.. if my 193HP 328i is this fast.. how would the E36 M3
> >>>compare on the streets? To be honest.. sometimes I think it's best
> >>>that I don't own one because I can just imagine the effect of having
> >>>an extra 50 horses under the hood. And to think that some people even
> >>>turbocharge their M3's is beyond me!! Guys.. help me put this to
> >>>perspective! :-)
> >>
> >>A Subaru will kick your car's boot. How's that for perspective? ;-)
>
> >I'll buy that. I'm assuming you're talking about the Subaru WRX STi
> >??? Quite an impressive car indeed, for the money. Turbo AWD.. I like
> >that combination.. but in the end, I'll always choose RWD.
>
> Actually, fwiw, I was referring to the non-STi model...
Donovan Colbert
"Dalibor Bauernfrajnd" <REMOVEco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a0fd0322...@news.individual.net...
> In article <d70bqv4iotp69vdj5...@4ax.com>, daytripper
says...
> > A Subaru will kick your car's boot. How's that for perspective? ;-)
>
> Given a nice road, it would kick M3's "boot" too. :)
>
> --
> Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
> ICQ: 138579247
Donovan Colbert
It isn't a Porsche Carerra 911 turbo, for God's sake, but it is also a lot
less painful on your pocketbook, speaking in relative terms.
Smells like trolling to me.
"John Stone" <jms...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBCC872A.681AA%jms...@comcast.net...
Donovan Colbert
10,000 *pounds* more than a 330i, as well... so expect a lot of points on
your license, mate...
;)
"Phil" <p.m...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yVHpb.73205$mZ5.470017@attbi_s54...
> £10k.
> >
> > Chip.
> >
> >
>
>
Donovan Colbert
And, honestly, his argument is sound. I think I touched on it already. The
S4 is a FWD grocery-getter that has been tuned up to incredible race like
performance. The M3 is a race car that has been civillized to incredible
daily-driver like performance. Depends on which way from center you lean...
His arguments about the M3 seem honest, as well. All 3 series have had a
reputation for their twitchy rear end (although anyone who thinks ANY 3 is
twitchy, with or WITHOUT ASC on should try cruising around in a Mustang GT
for a weekend)... and the M3 has a sport tuned suspension. It is a less
civilized car than the S4, and probably The C class AMG as well (although I
wouldn't know, I've never had the opportunity to drive an AMG).
"Chip" <AnneOn...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:bo8s7i$1a4uat$1...@ID-185713.news.uni-berlin.de...