Dissapointing drive in BMW M3
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by ALi-B
IMO the M3 is for the posers...has been and always will be. Which is why the better Beamers actually get ignored because they lack the image.
and even weight! 3 series of late have got rather lardy, whilst the 5 has managed to keep trim. Thus the weight difference between most 3's and 5's is the same as having your mate in the passenger seat.
and even weight! 3 series of late have got rather lardy, whilst the 5 has managed to keep trim. Thus the weight difference between most 3's and 5's is the same as having your mate in the passenger seat.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
M3 vs std STI
http://www.track-challenge.com/main....r1=2%26Car2=18
M3 quicker on both tracks , faster slalom, over 6 seconds faster to 125mph, think you would need a good 300-320+ bhp scoob to match ?
M3 E46 vs Impreza WRX STi
Hersteller BMW M GmbH Subaru
Testdatum 12/2000 5/2004
Motor 3246 cccm, 6 Zyl , 24 V 1994 cccm, 4 Zyl , 16 V
Leistung 343 PS (252 KW) @ 7900/min 265 PS (195 KW) @ 6000/min
Drehmoment 365 Nm @ 4900/min 343 Nm @ 4000/min
Antrieb 0 (6) 0 (6)
Gewicht 1584 Kg 1487 Kg
Leistungsgewicht 4,6 Kg / PS 5,6 Kg/ PS
0 - 100 Km/h 5,2 s 5,9 s
0 - 200 Km/h 18,1 s 25,9 s
0 - 200-0 Km/h 23,2 s 31 s
Höchstgeschwindigkeit
250 Km/h * el. begrenzt 244 Km/h
80 - 120 Km/h 4.Gang 5,2 s 4,5 s
100 - 0 Km/h warm 36,4 m , 10,6 m/s 33,6 m , 11,5 m/s
Querbeschleunigung 1,1 g 1,2 g
Slalom 36 / 110m 123 / 136 Km/h 130 / 133 Km/h
Nürburgring Runde 8.22 min 8.24 min
Hockenheim Runde 1.17,6 min 1.17,9 min
http://www.track-challenge.com/main....r1=2%26Car2=18
M3 quicker on both tracks , faster slalom, over 6 seconds faster to 125mph, think you would need a good 300-320+ bhp scoob to match ?
M3 E46 vs Impreza WRX STi
Hersteller BMW M GmbH Subaru
Testdatum 12/2000 5/2004
Motor 3246 cccm, 6 Zyl , 24 V 1994 cccm, 4 Zyl , 16 V
Leistung 343 PS (252 KW) @ 7900/min 265 PS (195 KW) @ 6000/min
Drehmoment 365 Nm @ 4900/min 343 Nm @ 4000/min
Antrieb 0 (6) 0 (6)
Gewicht 1584 Kg 1487 Kg
Leistungsgewicht 4,6 Kg / PS 5,6 Kg/ PS
0 - 100 Km/h 5,2 s 5,9 s
0 - 200 Km/h 18,1 s 25,9 s
0 - 200-0 Km/h 23,2 s 31 s
Höchstgeschwindigkeit
250 Km/h * el. begrenzt 244 Km/h
80 - 120 Km/h 4.Gang 5,2 s 4,5 s
100 - 0 Km/h warm 36,4 m , 10,6 m/s 33,6 m , 11,5 m/s
Querbeschleunigung 1,1 g 1,2 g
Slalom 36 / 110m 123 / 136 Km/h 130 / 133 Km/h
Nürburgring Runde 8.22 min 8.24 min
Hockenheim Runde 1.17,6 min 1.17,9 min
Scooby Regular
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
From: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Originally Posted by TonyBurns
New one is sub 8 for the nurburgring, so nearly 1/2 min quicker
Tony
Tony
Given that the vast majority of owners of both marques will get no where near the Nurburgring (or any track, for that matter) your comparison is largely irrelevant.
What matters to most is planting it from 60 mph on a dual carriageway/motorway (sad as that may be)
Having said all that, does anyone have a 'ring time for the CSL?
That would be significantly better due to tyres than the standard car.
As for a CSL being noticably more accelarative than a standard car, get a grip people. The performance stats say otherwise....
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,078
Likes: 310
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Originally Posted by Deep Singh
Erm iirc the M3 is circa 1500kgs and the M5 circa 1700kgs. If your mates weigh 200kgs I would strongly recommend less trips to the pie shop
:
and even weight! 3 series of late have got rather lardy, whilst the 5 has managed to keep trim. Thus the weight difference between most 3's and 5's is the same as having your mate in the passenger seat.
...a fair comparison was taken with a 330 and a 530, both with the same drivetrain and BHP, and an extra beer belly's difference in weight, with the 5 handling better in the process too Switching to the M's.... Bear in mind how much extra BHP the M5 have over the M3 the M5 still wins on PWR: 215bhp/tonne versus 233bhp/tonne for the old M5...and 289bhp/tonne for the new one
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by ALi-B
re-read that quote of my text you made :
I see no "M" infront of that 3 or 5...a fair comparison was taken with a 330 and a 530, both with the same drivetrain and BHP, and an extra beer belly's difference in weight, with the 5 handling better in the process too
Switching to the M's.... Bear in mind how much extra BHP the M5 have over the M3 the M5 still wins on PWR: 215bhp/tonne versus 233bhp/tonne for the old M5...and 289bhp/tonne for the new one
:I see no "M" infront of that 3 or 5
...a fair comparison was taken with a 330 and a 530, both with the same drivetrain and BHP, and an extra beer belly's difference in weight, with the 5 handling better in the process too Switching to the M's.... Bear in mind how much extra BHP the M5 have over the M3 the M5 still wins on PWR: 215bhp/tonne versus 233bhp/tonne for the old M5...and 289bhp/tonne for the new one
215 to 233 is no great leap. The new M5 maybe 289, but the new M3 will be about 265. Given the greater agility due to carrying less weight not such a gulf perhaps.
ps I think you've just got lardy mates
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 2
From: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Originally Posted by Diablo
ROFLMAO
Given that the vast majority of owners of both marques will get no where near the Nurburgring (or any track, for that matter) your comparison is largely irrelevant.
Given that the vast majority of owners of both marques will get no where near the Nurburgring (or any track, for that matter) your comparison is largely irrelevant.
(unless it rains, then the CSL is fooked )Tony
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by TonyBurns
Its a place for comparison, you can say car x gets to 60 in 4.6 and car y gets to 60 in 5.4, but given a distance of equal length, you may find that grip and grunt play a big part in it, it shows the overall performance of the car, not just overtaking ability on a d/c or motorway, but you are also correct in saying that not many people will take these cars on tracks etc, but the manufacturers do, showing that a sub 30k car can be just as competetive as a car that costs nearly 50k (unless it rains, then the CSL is fooked )
Tony
(unless it rains, then the CSL is fooked )Tony
A sub £30k maybe competitive but take into account
1) The sub £30k car you talk of is'nt officially available here. So no matter how good your aftermkt warranty it's not going to match an approved dealer one.
2) It only perhaps matches it on perforamnce, not quality of interior or exterior. The Scoob always feels like its been made from crushed tin cans, with a Fisher Price interior. Take into account other std kit ie leccy heated seats, decent sound system, rain wipers etc etc and the sub £30k tag is not so keen(obviously CSL is a bit different in that respect)
3) The comedy appearance of a Scoob for men of 'a certain age', like me
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 2
From: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Originally Posted by Deep Singh
Hi Tony,
2) It only perhaps matches it on perforamnce, not quality of interior or exterior. The Scoob always feels like its been made from crushed tin cans, with a Fisher Price interior. Take into account other std kit ie leccy heated seats, decent sound system, rain wipers etc etc and the sub £30k tag is not so keen(obviously CSL is a bit different in that respect)
2) It only perhaps matches it on perforamnce, not quality of interior or exterior. The Scoob always feels like its been made from crushed tin cans, with a Fisher Price interior. Take into account other std kit ie leccy heated seats, decent sound system, rain wipers etc etc and the sub £30k tag is not so keen(obviously CSL is a bit different in that respect)
Tony
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0
From: Ireland-The One And Only
Originally Posted by Deep Singh
Hi Tony,
A sub £30k maybe competitive but take into account
1) The sub £30k car you talk of is'nt officially available here. So no matter how good your aftermkt warranty it's not going to match an approved dealer one.
2) It only perhaps matches it on perforamnce, not quality of interior or exterior. The Scoob always feels like its been made from crushed tin cans, with a Fisher Price interior. Take into account other std kit ie leccy heated seats, decent sound system, rain wipers etc etc and the sub £30k tag is not so keen(obviously CSL is a bit different in that respect)
3) The comedy appearance of a Scoob for men of 'a certain age', like me
A sub £30k maybe competitive but take into account
1) The sub £30k car you talk of is'nt officially available here. So no matter how good your aftermkt warranty it's not going to match an approved dealer one.
2) It only perhaps matches it on perforamnce, not quality of interior or exterior. The Scoob always feels like its been made from crushed tin cans, with a Fisher Price interior. Take into account other std kit ie leccy heated seats, decent sound system, rain wipers etc etc and the sub £30k tag is not so keen(obviously CSL is a bit different in that respect)
3) The comedy appearance of a Scoob for men of 'a certain age', like me
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,078
Likes: 310
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Originally Posted by Deep Singh
Yes mate but the whole thread is about M cars, read the title. Who cares about the pwr of a 530d to a 320d, not me.
215 to 233 is no great leap. The new M5 maybe 289, but the new M3 will be about 265. Given the greater agility due to carrying less weight not such a gulf perhaps.
ps I think you've just got lardy mates
215 to 233 is no great leap. The new M5 maybe 289, but the new M3 will be about 265. Given the greater agility due to carrying less weight not such a gulf perhaps.
ps I think you've just got lardy mates
I give up. The point being the 3 series chassis is too narrow and too heavy - its more compromised. The 5 CHASSIS is wider and marginally longer, with little expense in weight...The point is it's a far better chassis and suspension setup. Which means its capeable of accepting far more powerful engines (look at alpina) without turning it into a twitchy death trap. You can't directly compare M5 weight and M3 weight because the M5 engine is so much much larger, and thus heavier - thus the comparison of chassis weight with the two Identical engine and gearboxes to prove the 5series chassis (e39) chassis isn't as lardy as people naturally guess it is. And harp on about the (supposed) greatness of the 3 series, including the M3; which is the topic of this thread...is it not?
I did not compare diesels either (why would I want to)
Last edited by ALi-B; Jun 12, 2005 at 11:47 AM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 1
From: 32 cylinders and many cats
Would like to have a test drive of M3 or E39 M5, went to the dealer and they basically said I couldn't because they were all sold before they were available to drive. Maybe I looked wrong 
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by john banks
Would like to have a test drive of M3 or E39 M5, went to the dealer and they basically said I couldn't because they were all sold before they were available to drive. Maybe I looked wrong
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 1
From: 32 cylinders and many cats
An 05 STi of a friend's father. Wouldn't go in mine because it doesn't look the part and the gearbox was duff But why does turning up in a 5 year old rice rocket mean you wouldn't be a serious M3 purchaser? How do they make these decisions? Do they like losing potential sales?
Salesman also told me that the new 325i has 240 BHP and the 330i has 290 BHP PMSL.
But why does turning up in a 5 year old rice rocket mean you wouldn't be a serious M3 purchaser? How do they make these decisions? Do they like losing potential sales?Salesman also told me that the new 325i has 240 BHP and the 330i has 290 BHP PMSL.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by john banks
An 05 STi of a friend's father. Wouldn't go in mine because it doesn't look the part and the gearbox was duff But why does turning up in a 5 year old rice rocket mean you wouldn't be a serious M3 purchaser? How do they make these decisions? Do they like losing potential sales?
Salesman also told me that the new 325i has 240 BHP and the 330i has 290 BHP PMSL.
But why does turning up in a 5 year old rice rocket mean you wouldn't be a serious M3 purchaser? How do they make these decisions? Do they like losing potential sales?Salesman also told me that the new 325i has 240 BHP and the 330i has 290 BHP PMSL.
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
So there you go folks,
you heard it here first.
Let me draw conclusion from this thread so far.
1) 90% of Subaru owners do not have a clue and think their cars are the best in the whole wide world.
2) Some think slapping a bit of carbon on the roof of a car and giving it 20bhp more make it transmogrify from a sports saloon into a supercar.
3) And who the hell cares if Mr Tony Burns can drive faster than an M3 in his Jap import stripped out bean can.
The point is thus:
The M3 costs more because it is BETTER.
It is faster than any unmodified UK scoob. (not Tony's though because he is really fast and great, oh and he is not standard or UK)
The M3 is more of a drivers car than the scoobs will ever be, not enough feel in the steering admittedly, but RWD heaven.
I am a scoob owner, but I am tuned to reality, unlike some of the people on this thread it seems.
Sometimes you just have to grow up a bit and appreciate everything that the BMW has to offer. It is a marvellous feat of engineering.
Or you could continue to quote figures and lap times.
Different cars, fulfilling different needs.
The best comment was Diablo's by the way. He seems a sensible lad.
Bob.
you heard it here first.
Let me draw conclusion from this thread so far.
1) 90% of Subaru owners do not have a clue and think their cars are the best in the whole wide world.
2) Some think slapping a bit of carbon on the roof of a car and giving it 20bhp more make it transmogrify from a sports saloon into a supercar.
3) And who the hell cares if Mr Tony Burns can drive faster than an M3 in his Jap import stripped out bean can.
The point is thus:
The M3 costs more because it is BETTER.
It is faster than any unmodified UK scoob. (not Tony's though because he is really fast and great, oh and he is not standard or UK)
The M3 is more of a drivers car than the scoobs will ever be, not enough feel in the steering admittedly, but RWD heaven.
I am a scoob owner, but I am tuned to reality, unlike some of the people on this thread it seems.
Sometimes you just have to grow up a bit and appreciate everything that the BMW has to offer. It is a marvellous feat of engineering.
Or you could continue to quote figures and lap times.
Different cars, fulfilling different needs.
The best comment was Diablo's by the way. He seems a sensible lad.
Bob.
Scooby Newbie
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
I struggle with the BMW flat torque curve thing too. However not many of you appear to have driven or passengered in the M3 nevermind the CSL. I had a go in the CSL last year at Le Mans. Nothing was faster that we met other than the odd Ferrari, Ultimas couldnt live with it either. Only my mates Noble. Both topped out at 175. Also this thing about the trick tyres in the wet seems a bit OTT- the run down last year was really wet for a while but the Beemer was OK at 150 going down into Dover. CSL is also a top donut machine and the launch control was very popular at BurnOut Alley !
So if you want to see what can be done in a Beemer, stay sober the night before the race and get on the track before the marshals close it all off - you havent lived until you've been sideways round Arnage at 2 in the morning whlst the Noble fires 2 foot flames out its pipes
So if you want to see what can be done in a Beemer, stay sober the night before the race and get on the track before the marshals close it all off - you havent lived until you've been sideways round Arnage at 2 in the morning whlst the Noble fires 2 foot flames out its pipes
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 13,628
Likes: 0
From: Gone for Good
Originally Posted by robguide
I struggle with the BMW flat torque curve thing too. However not many of you appear to have driven or passengered in the M3 nevermind the CSL. I had a go in the CSL last year at Le Mans. Nothing was faster that we met other than the odd Ferrari, Ultimas couldnt live with it either. Only my mates Noble. Both topped out at 175. Also this thing about the trick tyres in the wet seems a bit OTT- the run down last year was really wet for a while but the Beemer was OK at 150 going down into Dover. CSL is also a top donut machine and the launch control was very popular at BurnOut Alley !
So if you want to see what can be done in a Beemer, stay sober the night before the race and get on the track before the marshals close it all off - you havent lived until you've been sideways round Arnage at 2 in the morning whlst the Noble fires 2 foot flames out its pipes
So if you want to see what can be done in a Beemer, stay sober the night before the race and get on the track before the marshals close it all off - you havent lived until you've been sideways round Arnage at 2 in the morning whlst the Noble fires 2 foot flames out its pipes
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,662
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by ALi-B
IMO the M3 is for the posers...has been and always will be. Which is why the better Beamers actually get ignored because they lack the image.
The bigs boys have the M5 - that is the king of fast beamers...it always has been. With the recent exception of the CSL which I haven't driven (yet...not likely either
). the m3 has always been left gasping by its big brother in both handling, performance, brakes, and even weight! 3 series of late have got rather lardy, whilst the 5 has managed to keep trim. Thus the weight difference between most 3's and 5's is the same as having your mate in the passenger seat.
The bigs boys have the M5 - that is the king of fast beamers...it always has been. With the recent exception of the CSL which I haven't driven (yet...not likely either
). the m3 has always been left gasping by its big brother in both handling, performance, brakes, and even weight! 3 series of late have got rather lardy, whilst the 5 has managed to keep trim. Thus the weight difference between most 3's and 5's is the same as having your mate in the passenger seat. King of fast beemers??? Never seen a Bi turbo B10 then??
