sti ade

been thinking of getting an m3 for a change but not sure which one too get ? got about £18,000 to spend but not sure which transmission to go for any advice welcome Cheer's.

john banks

You need to change gear at 8000 RPM with an S54, otherwise you'll find diesels and all sorts of mildly tuned Japanese clutter won't get smaller in the rear view mirror. SMG gearchange is consistent, and helps with making the best use of the minimal torque, if you keep it between 6000 and 8000 RPM it makes some progress, although it doesn't feel quick at all. It doesn't seem to change as quick as you'd think from the claimed shift times which do not cover the entire time where the acceleration is reduced. At lower revs, and for downshifts it isn't as impressive. The gearbox mapping in automatic modes is a bit daft since you have to have it in A5 to get it to change gear quickly and rev high, but then it won't upshift when you want to cruise.

I hated my M3 BTW, but the bits I hated least were the SMG and the interior/exterior.

The 50/50 weight distribution is also a con. It doesn't have enough weight over the driven wheels to have decent traction in poor conditions. 2WD Porsches get out of wet corners far better.

Ignore the hype and the reviews and see what you really think. I found it to be a compromise that did nothing brilliantly, and the brakes are a disgrace if you lean on them a few times.

richie001

iTrader: (3)

I believed all the hype and bought a MY51 M3 last summer and i hated it.to get the best out of the engine i had to chance gear over 5000 revs+ ,The brakes were worse than the 2 pots i had on my old classic,Handles really good in the dry but could be tricky in the wet(i was told some stories by other M3 owners).Anyone who tells you that a M3 is quicker than a Sti/Evo are lying,i couldn't keep up with my brother's classic,and i thought Subaru paint was bad every time i took my M3 out it came back with a new stone chip.I was told by my brothers mate(who works for a dealer)to buy a manual because that SMG can be i pain when pulling out of junctions(can't remember why)but SMG II was a alot better.Mine had H&K sound system and it was the awful and the headunit can't be replaced with a aftermarket unit because it wouldn't fit.After 3 months I'd had enough and sold it and bought another Impreza .

P.S if you buy one make sure its got full service history because there is a service or recall( rod bearing recall)that it must have and the tyres are about £200 a corner.

Spooky Mulder

Someone on here has an M3 from that era and it lunched his SMG box due to a the computer getting a little out of synch with the traction control. I understand it was fixed under warranty BUT has never been the same since and now slips the clutch.

fatscoobfella1

iTrader: (1)

Ive had a couple of M3's.. An e36 and an e46.

Both a good cars in their own right.But dont expect handling or grip factors of a scoob or an evo.Lets have it right,that would be physically impossible..An M3 is harder to drive at a fast pace than an scoob,basically it takes more skill to pedal the BMW.

But at Nat21 says,if you were brought up with RWD Escorts,Capri's,Manta's,Mirafiori's etc etc,then the M3 is really the top of the bunch.

Of course an M3 engine will need to be reved hard,thats what happens when you have to extract 100bhp per 1000cc without the help of a turbo.A huge torque spead cannot be achieved,using the vanos system does help,but will never emulate the big push of a turbocharged car.

Like i say,i owned M3's,M5,B10 alpina's and the like,but have had scoobs and and an Evo too..

Personally a mix of the 2 would be nice,i love the quality feel of the BMW,s,the feel like there built with stone and nut and bolts,whereas the jap stuff feels like tinfoil and paperclips.
But for the all out feeling of speed its hard to beat a turbo jap.

One thing i will say,is that scoob handling is that great IMHO..I had the back step out on mine in places that it shouldnt have had.It was great most of the time,but it let go in some unusual ways..

M3,s are "predictable" in handling,you know where the edge is,then you can decide whether to drive on or beyond it.

sti ade

cheers chaps lots of good info maybe i will have a re think on my plan as said hear ed a lot about them and fancied a changed but if not a step up then poss have a rethink ?

Hoppy

You need to drive one. I felt just like you - certainly wanted a change and preferably a step up. With prices as they are an E46 M3 SMG looked just the ticket. It only took me a mile at the wheel to discover that whatever the magic is in this car, I was not going to find it. I'm sure it's beautifully balanced as a very fast road car, when the conditions suit, but I really couldn't be bothered. (I felt much the same about a Porsche 911 C4 - older ones are about the same price - and that was a real disappointment for me, but I digress.)

It moves when you rev it, but even then nothing like my Scoob's turbo shove, and I can only describe the SMG as crude and clunky when in its sporty mode. Just like banging through the gears manually, but with no opportunity to moderate the clutch as you would during normal driving. I didn't like it.

So as not to bore folks, I will not mention the fact that I drove it back to back with a V6 TT with VAG's brilliant DSG manu-matic

I ended up with an Audi S4 Tip, which was a choice that frankly confused me. It felt really good, but it didn't sit right on paper, even though it's quicker than an M3 round the Top gear track. For various bizarre reasons, I have retained the option to return the car for a full refund, several weeks after purchase. And believe me I've hummed and harred over every possible alternative for my budget (similar to yours) and I'm very happy to be keeping it.

I love the big V8, which drives nothing like the Scoob. If you want a change, and a good dose of seamless power from 2000-7000, then you'll certainly get that. If you want a change but still with the shove, then get a shot of NOS I am And I really like 4WD. Then there's the cabin, and the build quality. Light years ahead of the Scoob. I didn't think that was very important, but it is.

It's quite heavy and the steering does feel a bit remote, but it certainly grips well and handles ok if you hassle it. I quite enjoy the challenge of heaving it around! Brakes are good.

The final thing I can't understand about my choice is the Tiptronic. It's nothing more than a glorified slushmatic on this car (not DSG) which I've always hated in anything I've driven previously, but it's sufficiently glorified - responsive, smooth, quick to shift - with lots of options and I really like it.

richie001

iTrader: (3)

Take one for a test drive and see what you think.

markymark34

Go for a test drive!
Ive had to STIs and then an M3, loved all of them but the M3 is in a different class (It does cost £15k more when new!).
I went SMG and which i had gone manual. SMG will make you feel fantastic cross country but like a total moron through town.
Speed wise it wouldnt be up to a 320bhp STI but is definately quicker than standard STIs (significantly so above 60mph).
Interior quality is excellent not feeling like its going to fall apart like a scooby.

I would definately own another one (PS it has to be the 19" alloys).
Can be a little lively in the wet but that just adds to the fun!

Dont be swayed by other peoples comments go find out for yourself drive an SMG and a manual.
Make sure you get sat nav (Its not the best but makes resale much easier)

Mark

Rorschach

my m8 has an m3 2003 and its a nice car to sit in but lets f8ce it, AWD is gonna beet a rwd car NE day.

LG John

This irks me a little! I mean, how can you consider laying out the kind of money needed to buy an M3 without doing your homework and knowing that. This is a n/a 3.2l engine with 343bhp, producing over 100bhp pre litre. Few production cars do that and nearly all - if not all of them - need worked hard. Case and point; Honda S2000....120bhp per litre. The VERY first thing I did when I drove my mates M3 for the first time was redline it 2nd through 3rd. I didn't prod the gas to see what she was all about.... I kicked the **** out of it!

Secondly, and almost more annoyingly, even though it's not the last word in torque and certainly doesn't feel like a scooby spooling up, between 1500-5000rpm an M3 with easy deep prods of the accelerator will still decimate 95% of the vehicles on the road.

Hoppy

That's a bit harsh. I think the problem is that most folks only look at peak bhp as a performance indicator, it's welded into the public psyche, and indeed that's what you've highlighted first here. When we claim that a 320bhp Scoob is faster than a 343bhp M3, most people would say that your brain had taken a walk.

They do not know or perhaps understand how torque translates into bhp. If they did, they would know that actually a Scoob is more powerful, and produces more bhp, at all times other than peak rpm. Especially so in the mid-range where it is also more accessible and there is no need to change down three gears to get it.

When you combine that with usefully lower weight, the true picture emerges. But this kind of data is not usually highlighted. For example, as a simple indicator of easy over taking performance, I believe it would be very revealing if every car had a published figure for bhp-per-ton at 50% of peak rpm, but I guarantee that if you phoned three random dealerships now they couldn't give you those numbers, and I bet most wouldn't even know how to calculate them, or why on earth you would want to know them. They would even argue it was irrelevant, and that peak power was all that matters.

Also, while I agree that an M3 will decimate most cars without breaking sweat, that actually doesn't make it very fast at all

finchyboy

I had an SMG E46 and never really got on with it then the SMG pump shat itself and it cost me over £2000 to fix it. Do you yourself a favour and get a manual they are a fantastic car for the money !!!

LG John

Hoppy, I realize that by responding there is a high risk of turning this into yet another classic scoobynet "torque vs bhp" argument. Let's agree not to do that. My views are clearly articulated in many other threads. Probably best to search for "S2000" and poster="Saxo Boy" to read those views

No matter which way you cut it though peak BHP is and will probably always be the easiest, best and IMHO most relevant measure of a car's abilities. The bottom line is it indicates the maximum power output of the engine and therefore allows you to understand the true maximum potential of the engine. The fact that you or I might or want a chunk of driveability elsewhere is irrelevant. I mean, to draw a silly analogy....how would you respond if you went into a tool hire establishment and asked for a 10kv generator and the guy said, "sorry, we've only got this 7.5kv jenny but it's effortless and quiet because of it"

You'll get no arguments that nearly any 320bhp (even lardy ones) are, generally across most tests faster than an M3. However, with the exception of light/short-geared classics most are not faster in the one test of maximum potential, being absolutely flat out through the gears. I don't have an M3 nor a particular bee in my bonnet about them. However, my mate recently got one and I'm insured to drive it and have had two classic scoobys. A 275bhp MY99 Turbo 2000 and an STI 5 with circa 315bhp. The STI would be quicker 30-70 but not buy much, and obviously quicker 0-60. It could probably hold the M3 60-100. However, if you lined them up and gunned it from say 40-140mph which I regard as a fair test as it negates the STI's 4wd advantage but doesn't run either of them out to near vmax, then my money is firmly on the BMW every single time. Why, because it puts more power onto the road when it's full potential is utilized.

However, this all comes down to personality and needs/wants as usual. I've never been afraid to wring every drop of performance out of pretty much anything. That's just the way I am. I've blown up two engines and tuned and subsequently blown up my r/c nitro car. I revved the S2000 to the limiter in every gear when I was pressing on and wouldn't hesitate to hold her at 8000rpm for extended periods looking for an overtake simply because she was quicker across the last 900rpm+gearchange than starting a gear higher out of vtec. I'm a sicko like that!

All that said, my next car will likely be the in £5-7k range and must be semi-comfortable and semi-practical. There are a fair few zingy cars in there but I'll probably plump for something with more mid-range guts because I'm getting lazier as I get older

Hoppy

No argument from me! I'm agreeing with you.

I was just saying that, from the commonly published performance figures, it is quite easy to conclude that an E46 M3 is a Scoob beater in every respect. Normal numbers don't reveal the mid-range power hump (and low weight) which propels Scoobs and turboed cars in general at disproportionate speed.

The more I think about it, I like the idea of a "50% peak revs bhp per tonne" figure as a shorthand for everyday rapid progress potential. Peak power figures mean very little here, and the relatively common in-gear times, like 50-70mph in 4th which is supposed to indicate overtaking power, are rendered completely useless by different ratios.

I just think that a figure like this, which shows power, adjusted for weight, at half way through the available rev range, would say a lot about the way a car goes. Of course it's very far from the complete story, and it might ask more questions than it answers, but it's a revealing performance snapshot.

I've just done a few guesswork figures in my head (Help Hank!!! I need some facts!) which show what I mean. These are not facts! But my best guess at "bhp per tonne, at 50% of red line rpm." Starting my Audi S4 since I have the numbers, we have 121, then the M3 at 113, and Scoob WR1 at 143. Only educated guesses and they won't be dead right apart from the Audi, but the difference between the three cars is clear, and it is not what the peak power numbers might lead you to believe (which are S4 339, M3 338, and WR1 320 - all bhp, not PS). Figures calculated like this would work well for diesels, too.

john banks

Perhaps the reason I like the tiny 2.0 in my Evo IX with very basic mods is that it accelerates at half of red line RPM like the M3 does at red line.

Hoppy

Exactly! Which you might not suspect just from the headline bhp.

BTW, I saw an Evo 9 today with TT500 Turbo Technics written all over the side. It looked quite fast...

LG John

The problem with that though is think how favourably diesels would come out though. Nobody denies diesels are great in the mid-range and there are many very quick diesels these days. However, taking for example an S2000 with peak 240bhp vs an older style 204bhp 330d. Using your system the 330d would appear as good or possibly better than the Honda but in the real world the Honda is considerably faster in a straight-line.

Well it would, it's 1400kg with 400bhp!!

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Can you get a 335i for 18 grand ?

306 bhp standard, 360 plus when remapped with some torque as well.

Plus you don't look like an M3 owner, which appears to be about the most hated car by other motorists, not me, its just an impression I get.

Hoppy

That's not a problem. That's entirely my point. I'm not suggesting for a minute that bhp at 50% of red line tells the whole story - far from it. But with so many different engine configurations out there (petrol, diesel, turbos and SC) with entirely different power deliveries, we need something more than just peak power to get an idea of what they're like to drive.

Yes, diesels come out well in this, and if all you want to do is potter about efficiently - as most people do, including the likes of us if we're honest - then a diesel is the way to go for sure. But if, like us, you really want to fly now and again, then a petrol car is better, and a turboed one even better still.

Nobody denies that the S2000 is very quick when you max it out, but why is it slower than a good diesel in the mid-range? Or put it another way, why are most turbo diesels so nippy in everyday driving? The answer of course is torque, which everybody talks about but often doesn't understand. And that's not surprising because until it's put into the context of time and speed, it's meaningless. In other words, you need to convert it to bhp.

For example, the S2000 has 153lbs-ft while the BMW 330d can push out double that. So the Beemer has twice the power then? Well, no, because it only revs to 5,000 when the Honda hits an amazing 9k! And then the BMW is heavier, so what about bhp-per-tonne? (I know you know all this Kenny, just making the point )

So let's try and make sense of all that, with a single meaningful number which, when set alongside peak power, explains why an M3 goes so well when you rev it, but if you don't want to stir the stick all the time, then a Scoob is faster. To get back to where this started, if the poster you picked up on for swapping his M3 as gutless was in full knowledge of a 50% revs bhp-per-tonne figure, maybe he wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

I reckon a Golf TDi would have your Honda

LG John

They did. At 70mph in 6th gear up a slight hill on the bypass a Golf TDI or Ford TDCI type car could ease away slightly. However, there was a solution to that problem.....<clutch in, blip, snick 3rd, clutch out, mash gas, bye-bye>

I personally still prefer to know the maximum capabilities of any product I'm buying. If I want a fuller understanding of how that product performs at less than maximum attack then I'll read up about it or test it. I don't think that will ever change tbh. Taking my generator analogy as an example, people simply want, and often need to know what the maximum available output is.

Tracking back to my original comment though: I know when I bought the S2000 that it needed to be worked hard in the same way I'd know if i bought a 335d that it wouldn't. Similarly, if buying an M3 I'd be well aware that with such a highly strung na engine it's power would all be at the top end whereas an Evo or Scooby is usually going to pull hard from 3000rpm-redline. To buy an M3 and complain that it doesn't have V8 like guts seems pretty short-sighted to me. I'd also question why it's a problem; as we've already agreed, on half-throttle in the mid-range the M3 will walk away from 95% of traffic on the road even if that traffic is trying fairly hard. If Johnny M3 is coming off a roundabout side by side with Evo, S4, DC5, 911, whatever and expects to keep up or beat any of them on part commitment then he's pretty delusional. You are either racing or your aren't IMHO. If you aren't then the M3 potters around nicely and pulls well. If you are then red-line every gear and change gear as quick as you can manage otherwise it's driver fail not car fail

LG John

Lol, I was reading your post again and that final line reminded me of a funny incident from a few years ago.

I was driving in the S2000 in the hooring rain (shock, scottish weather) and there was a fair bit of traffic. It was dual carriageway and both lanes were moving at roughly the same pace. Next to me was a Volvo D5 diesel and at the same time both the driver of said Volvo and I became aware of an opportunity to 'get ahead' slightly. We both gunned it to take advantage and I was pottering along in 5th so he pulled away. I banged it into 3rd and floored it but the back end kicked out hard. I ended up flying past the Volvo driving in a straight-line but somewhat sideways. Happy days

Dark Blue Mark

Hey up Kenny

What you driving now, and are you a pro poker player yet?!

john banks

Kenny, I never lifted and changed gear at 7900-8000 RPM in the most aggressive SMG mode. The "340" BHP Scooby came past where everyone thinks the M3 should come past the Scooby. I made him work for it, but M3 = fail

LG John

Yeah, but it was a classic driven by a nutter with a minimum of 340bhp, probably less than standard weight and perhaps the 6spd box at the time

LG John

Just scrapped my run-around Mark so only got the Puma which the wife uses. Been playing poker for a living for around a year and a half now. Slow/tough start but things picking up a little now. Currently saving for a saloon car that is reasonably quick, well equipped, comfortable and ideal for longer journeys (mondeo st220 is front runner). After that, maybe a sports car again

Hoppy

LOL

And I'll see you with a <clutch in, blip, force 3rd, crunch, clutch out, lurch, clutch in, big blip, clutch out, lurch, curse, mash, where'd he go?>

john banks

More than standard weight because of the 6 speed which was slowing him down - it was only when he could hold a longer gear that he came past. I thought they'd be even because of the hype and papers stats, should have trusted my feeling that is was slow. It was worth using a silly word like "pwnage" or whatever the young people say now