323roy

Any one else owns 1 of these on here?
I recently sold my rb5 wr and purchased 1 of these, im still a bit undecided about it, i dont realy know why either because it looks the nuts tinted windows etc 343 horses etc so whats my problem? Im hoping its cause since ive owned it it has either rained or snowed and its not the trype of driving weather i like even in the scooby.
Whats your thoughts guys?

Old_Fart

Interesting. I just got a 996 C4S, 320bhp, 1450 kgs and it leaves me pretty cold except when i'm really caning it. The impreza, being more 'raw', is more fun more of the time in my opinion. Could be the M3 is just too 'sanitised' for you when you are poodling around, also the steering and brakes are less 'feelsome' than a good MY99 (RB5 etc). Once you give it some real stick it should make you smile though, and they sound as good as a scoob when revving the nuts off em
Rgds
Chuck

CodeKey@Lisan

...or could it be the scoob is a turbo charged car with a different power delivery ?

Porsche & BMW don't *feel* as though they're going hard, but they are. Just a smoother delivery than the scoob

NOZZER

I bought one in january after having the P1 for 3 years, i was the same as you at first, not sure of the power delivery, but ive been on a couple of blats with the scoob boys, one of which i have driven with for 5 years, he has a p1 and im with him all the way, this gave me confidence in the performance of the car, and the handling with traction off is nothing short of fantastic. Not quite P1 handling but predictable oversteeer is such great fun and a little easier to control than lift off oversteer in the scoob. I am now really loving the car since i have sorted the brakes and suspension out, just in time for my ring trip in 2 weeks.........Ye---Haaaaaaaaaa

p1virgin

I've often wondered whether forking out all this cash for these newer and 'better' cars really provides the extra driving satisfaction. I love my P1, and would do even more if it had an extra couple of doors! I have had a couple of TVRs before it, but the car I have the fondest memories of was a Cavalier GSi I had about 8 years ago (Don't laugh). I actually had to drive it and it was fun. Too much power and too many 'driver aids', can sanitise the experience sometimes!!

Paul

Wils

Not quite the handling of my P1, but i prefer my M3 to the STI8 PPP i had.

Mmmmm

I'm more familiar with BMWs than Scoobs

The M3 needs thrashing to get the best out it,although it has some torque lower down, it really needs to be kept above 4500 rpm to extract it's full potential, power peak is at 7900rpm, limiter is right after it.





Even driving at 75% in an M3 your not much quicker than 75% in a 330, it's only when you really start to push on and access the top of the rev range.

Have to say I found the handling of the M3 to better than the couple of Scoobs I've driven, a bit better steering, easier to balance the car in a corner, but then I did own an M3 for a year and only got a quick shot in a WRX and an STI.

Could be the tinted windows though, you just can't see well enough out to get an idea of how fast your going :wink:

Fantastic cars

PPPMAT

Mmmmm has hit the nail on the head - think of it as a civic type r but without the obvious cam change.

I had a UK STI for a year and it remains the fastest 'feeling' car I've owned. The M3 is quicker though - particularly over 100 (kph of course)

Beautiful car in every way IMHO which is why I've just bought one

Skittles

Agreed, but you can switch them off (unlike in the S4).

DSC can be switched off, CBC can be switched off by holding the DSC button for a few seconds.

The auto function of the SMG can be switched off, and it will bounce off the limiter without changing up for you (unlike Mercs), the only thing it will not allow is a downshift that would exceed the red line... shounds like a driver aid you wouldn't want to switch off!

Can't think of any other driver aids in the M3...

IanT

The only one I can think of is ABS but it's become a de-facto feature rather than a drivers' aid nowadays.

I'm fairly sure DBC can't be turned off.

CBC is one of the drivers' aids I would definitely leave on under all circumstances because, even on track, it should never need to come on under any circumstances and when you do need it, it will be a godsend (even on track).

Ian.

Phil M

I wouldn't look at it as a type-r.. it isn't that bad,

afterall its a 3.2 so a fairly big lump and is going to give a fair chunk of torque. 269lb/ft at 4500 to be exact. 80% of it is available from 2k rpm (about 215lb/ft which is more or less what the 330 has at peak torque) which is a lot for a 3.2 engine. The only reason it feels like it does is because 343 bhp is a helluva lot for a n/a 3.2. the 330 is only .2 l less and only has 231 bhp.

the only thing to do is drive one and you'll understand, its about the torque curve and lag when comparing it to a turbo car like the impreza.. the std impreza lags to 3000 maybe producing 150lb/ft of torque then BANG in comes the turbo and 220lb ft. this is what makes it FEEL fast.. whereas the M3 has a linear torque curve so there is not sudden changes in acceleration, just one great big surge of power and a 8k red line.. fantastic! and makes it a lot easier to control on corners because when you presss the throttle you know its not gunna suddenly go bang and spit you off the road, (which would probably happen if a scoob was rwd)

Dark Blue Mark

Mmmmm,

Were you red-lining that with the cold warning lights at 4k RPM?

If so, I hope you know they will spot this on the tell tale computer when you service it

MB

Gubbins

Not quite right on the comparison to a 330ci - owned one for 3 yrs, plus driven an e46 M3 for a few months, now got a new STIPPP....

the 330 torque peaks at 221lbs/ft, but 90% is available from 1,900revs or so, so just under 200lbs/ft from not much over launch revs - in a slightly lighter car as well - all in all, feels bugger all difference from take off in 330 vs m3 - only really shows when you extend over 5.5-5K revs, just as the 330 needs a change of gear.

The STI "feels" massively quicker than both...it IS quicker than a 330, suspect it's about the same as the M3 for legal speeds.

Phil M

disagree, because from 2000k the m3's extra hp takes over the 330

PPPMAT

Those are the change up lights. When you approach 8K, the lights progress anti clockwise in amber until you reach the final red light when you reach the optimum time to change up

As you say, they are also used as a warning not to rev hard when the car is cold.

Phil, I agree - my comparison with the type r is unfair and incorrect - it isn't that bad at all

I do agree with Gubbins though. I drove the M3 back to back with the 3.0l Z4 and there did not seem to be a major difference until you hit 4500 to 5000 rpm, when the M3 really takes off. And yes the STI PPP does feel very fast but in reality its about the same as an M3 to 100 but I imagine it would lose out at speeds above this

Gubbins

You're wrong there PhilM - the extra HP does NOT take over - HP is based on torque, revs and gearing. The M3's extra power over the 330 only really shows when over 5K revs. You need to drive em both to see what I mean.

IanT

the 330 torque peaks at 221lbs/ft, but 90% is available from 1,900revs or so, so just under 200lbs/ft from not much over launch revs - in a slightly lighter car as well - all in all, feels bugger all difference from take off in 330 vs m3 - only really shows when you extend over 5.5-5K revs, just as the 330 needs a change of gear.

Not sure any of that stacks up on paper or in the real world (from my experience too).

You need to be careful when comparing torque in two different cars because you musn't forget to consider differences in gearing too (otherwise any calculations are meaningless).

The M3 has 24% shorter overall gearing than the 330Ci (very similar first 5 gear ratios and 3.62 final drive vs. 2.93) so even if the M3 develops only 60% of its maximum torque at 1900rpm it'll still be quicker than the 330 from those revs. Of course, it develops a lot more than 60% of its peak torque low-down, more like 80-90% so bang goes that argument

The reason it probably feels slower at low rpm is because it gets soooo much quicker higher up the rev. range. It certainly isn't slower than the 330 at any speed, in any gear or at any point in the rpm range.

In practice, the in-gear acceleration of the M3 is almost always at least 40% greater than the 330 in any gear, even after you consider the extra weight. And it's definitely no coincidence that the M3 has 40%-plus greater power-to-weight ratio. I love it when the numbers balance so perfectly

Edited to say .... So Phil was right but for the wrong reason

Ian.

Gubbins

Hmmmm....

"You need to be careful when comparing torque in two different cars because you musn't forget to consider differences in gearing too (otherwise any calculations are meaningless)."

Er, that's what I said - torque, revs and GEARING.

"The M3 has 24% shorter overall gearing than the 330Ci (very similar first 5 gear ratios and 3.62 final drive vs. 2.93) so even if the M3 develops only 60% of its maximum torque at 1900rpm it'll still be quicker than the 330 from those revs. Of course, it develops a lot more than 60% of its peak torque low-down, more like 80-90% so bang goes that argument"

Er, you said it Ian - 1st to 5th about the same gearing, so we can discount it. Therefore, it's down to torque at specific revs. M3 is about 10% higher at 2000 revs, which is about what it "feels" like. Peak torque is 80% at 2000revs, not 80-90 as you say. 330 is 90% at 1900 or so.


"The reason it probably feels slower at low rpm is because it gets soooo much quicker higher up the rev. range. It certainly isn't slower than the 330 at any speed, in any gear or at any point in the rpm range."

Fair enough point in principle, but the difference isn't as big as you state, unless high revs are involved i'm afraid.

"In practice, the in-gear acceleration of the M3 is almost always at least 40% greater than the 330 in any gear, even after you consider the extra weight. And it's definitely no coincidence that the M3 has 40%-plus greater power-to-weight ratio. I love it when the numbers balance so perfectly"

That's just nonsense I'm afraid - at certain increments/revs, I agree the difference is large, at others (esp. from lower revs) there's very little difference in timings. See Autocar review if you don't believe me.

I suggest you drive both before you comment.

IanT

Hmmmm....

"You need to be careful when comparing torque in two different cars because you musn't forget to consider differences in gearing too (otherwise any calculations are meaningless)."

Er, that's what I said - torque, revs and GEARING.

Yes, in a subsequent post.

"The M3 has 24% shorter overall gearing than the 330Ci (very similar first 5 gear ratios and 3.62 final drive vs. 2.93) so even if the M3 develops only 60% of its maximum torque at 1900rpm it'll still be quicker than the 330 from those revs. Of course, it develops a lot more than 60% of its peak torque low-down, more like 80-90% so bang goes that argument"

Er, you said it Ian - 1st to 5th about the same gearing, so we can discount it. Therefore, it's down to torque at specific revs. M3 is about 10% higher at 2000 revs, which is about what it "feels" like. Peak torque is 80% at 2000revs, not 80-90 as you say. 330 is 90% at 1900 or so.

Oops, you missed my reference to the M3's completely different final drive ratio so sorry, no, we can't discount gearing. In actual fact, the M3 has about 40% more torque-at-the-wheels than the 330, even at 2000rpm. Read more carefully next time.

"The reason it probably feels slower at low rpm is because it gets soooo much quicker higher up the rev. range. It certainly isn't slower than the 330 at any speed, in any gear or at any point in the rpm range."

Fair enough point in principle, but the difference isn't as big as you state, unless high revs are involved i'm afraid.

On paper I'm afraid it is. See above.


"In practice, the in-gear acceleration of the M3 is almost always at least 40% greater than the 330 in any gear, even after you consider the extra weight. And it's definitely no coincidence that the M3 has 40%-plus greater power-to-weight ratio. I love it when the numbers balance so perfectly"

That's just nonsense I'm afraid - at certain increments/revs, I agree the difference is large, at others (esp. from lower revs) there's very little difference in timings. See Autocar review if you don't believe me.

On paper it's not nonsense. See if you can find anything wrong with my numbers then come back and tell me if it's nonsense As I said, perception counts for a hell of a lot. At 2000rpm my Golf TDi 130 "feels" much quicker than my M3 ever did but it most certainly isn't.

I'm sorry to say that the Autocar in-gear acceleration figures also support my view. e.g.

20-40mph in 5th ... 330Ci: 9.8s M3: 6.5s (approx. 1000rpm - 2000rpm)
30-50mph in 5th ... 330Ci: 9.3s M3: 6.6s (approx. 1500rpm - 2500rpm)
40-60mph in 5th ... 330Ci: 8.7s M3: 5.4s (approx. 2000rpm - 3000rpm)

Still nonsense?

(Were you hoping I didn't have the Autocar road test figures to hand?)

I suggest you drive both before you comment.

Sigh ... do you think I'd post something like that without having driven both? I owned an E46 M3 for nearly 2 years, have driven a 330Ci, 330 saloon, have driven my M3 on 20-odd trackdays and have passengered in a friend's 330Ci on trackdays too. I know both cars rather well I'm afraid, and I've driven enough types of performance car to know how to distinguish between perceived performance and actual performance.

Ian.

Gubbins

Dear Ian

A few points before I go home My comment/qualification on revs/gearing was posted before your reply to either - you ignored it just to make your point, which was in fact the same as mine.

as for..."the in-gear acceleration of the M3 is almost always at least 40% greater than the 330 in any gear". You can pick out the best-case autocar figures if you like (as I said (but you ignored for your own arguments sake), there are increments that show the M3 as much faster - and yes, I suggested you look at Autocar as it's the one of the most popular mag for us car-fans and I assumed you'd have it), but...take this as an example...330 30-50 2.8, 40-60 2.9, m3 not 40% better than that.

My general point is this - a lot of M3 drivers I've spoken to tend to be a little disappointed with their car's performance - as I was, and as the orginal poster implies. The CSL is more like the jump in performance you'd want over a 330, but you've got to pay around twice the price for it.

On your final point...

"Sigh ... do you think I'd post something like that without having driven both? I owned an E46 M3 for nearly 2 years, have driven a 330Ci, 330 saloon, have driven my M3 on 20-odd trackdays and have passengered in a friend's 330Ci on trackdays too. I know both cars rather well I'm afraid, and I've driven enough types of performance car to know how to distinguish between perceived performance and actual performance."

Likewise Ian. Very similar background and experience, although I'm sure you'll agree that on a typical a/b-road, there's v.little in it between a 330 and m3, unless you've got long straights to really make the BHP difference count.

Off home now. Enjoyed the discussion.

IanT

Dear Ian

A few points before I go home My comment/qualification on revs/gearing was posted before your reply to either - you ignored it just to make your point, which was in fact the same as mine.

No I didn't. You posted it while I was still typing my first comment on the subject

Unfortunately, I had to correct your point when you said the actual torque at 2000'ish rpm was only about 10% adrift (rather than 40%) so just quoting the word "gearing" doesn't necessarily prove you understand it.

as for..."the in-gear acceleration of the M3 is almost always at least 40% greater than the 330 in any gear". You can pick out the best-case autocar figures if you like (as I said (but you ignored for your own arguments sake), there are increments that show the M3 as much faster - and yes, I suggested you look at Autocar as it's the one of the most popular mag for us car-fans and I assumed you'd have it), but...take this as an example...330 30-50 2.8, 40-60 2.9, m3 not 40% better than that.

You're right, not 40% ... they respectively indicate the 330 being more like 47% and 45% slower (1.9s and 2.0s for the M3). Sorry

If you're going to be rude enough to accuse someone of being so disingenuous as to ignore certain figures for the purposes of (comprehensively) winning an argument, then I suggest you don't make yourself look even sillier by picking the wrong figures

Just for completeness (and to save you a little time), the solitary best that the 330 manages against the M3 is 20-40mph in 2nd (33% slower), which is about the only time it manages to dip below the "40% slower" mark. It doesn't do so well 20-40mph in 4th (64%) or 40-60mph in 5th (61%). The rest of the results are somewhere between 40-50% slower.

(For the purposes of defining % "a" is slower than "b" I've used (a-b)/b ... feel free to debate lol)

My general point is this - a lot of M3 drivers I've spoken to tend to be a little disappointed with their car's performance - as I was, and as the orginal poster implies. The CSL is more like the jump in performance you'd want over a 330, but you've got to pay around twice the price for it.

And my point was that it's due to driver perception rather than actual performance. I seem to recall you saying my 40% figure was "nonsense". Do you still think that? You may eventually admit you were wrong but I have a feeling you're not going to.

[snip]

Likewise Ian. Very similar background and experience, although I'm sure you'll agree that on a typical a/b-road, there's v.little in it between a 330 and m3, unless you've got long straights to really make the BHP difference count.

What would count, in order of importance on a typical a/b road would be (in broad terms):

- driver skill (for the twisties)
- handling (for the twisties)
- power to weight ratio (for the straights)
- etc.

... but we're talking about straight-line performance now, aren't we?

(Apologies for the sarcastic tone throughout but I don't like being accused of deliberately omitting information )

Ian.

Phil M

Ditto everythin Ian has said.