slasha

As i've said on here before i still can't get my head around paying £40k for a highly modded 318i Coupe. Can't see what you get for an extra £20k where as i can see what you get for an extra say £4-5k in a WRX over an Impreza Sport.

Rich and Mini

You're getting a 343bhp, 3.2cc straight 6 engine, massive front and rear discs, 18 or 19 inch wheels, a full bodykit including flared arches on both front and rear wings, different interior, there's so many differences, it's a totally different car really!!

20k doesn't get you many M3 parts. The engine alone is about £10k on an exchange basis, wheels are £4k for a set, the seats are £1.2k a piece etc

Rich

advevo

i have an 330i also next to my evo.

today i have test driven a friends m3 it s a total differant car honest no were near an 330i the look is almost the same but the drive is totally differant.

people who say it s uprated 318i have never driven one.

logix651

Hi Guys

I changed my Scoob for a E46 M3 a couple of months ago.Its really a race car with the trimmings.If you like gadgets then this is one car full of it.
The power is so smooth right up to the 8k Rev limit, and the SMG gear box, man its so addictive , I would never change gear so fast if I had a manaul,I love it.
Its got Class,Image,style,quality,techology,Toys and in the M3, speed.

My Brother has a 318 its no where near the looks of the M3,every body panel of M3 is different except the doors and the roof.

Still waiting for subaru to create a the ultimate car, may be just may be I'll come back to subaru one day
The only thing going for it at the MO is speed,all wheel drive and price.


James

chrisp

What else is there ?

BTW theres the flat four noise as well.

343bhp and 1600kgs or 276bhp and 1240kgs sounds pretty close to me P2W is where its at .

Richie1

Ok, now translate that to PAW to Weight ratio

Duck_Pond

Right then... Insult me while I'm on holiday, why don't you?

Yes I did hit 60 from a standstill in a massive 8 secs (twice ), with 2 people in the car. First run I hit the limiter in first, and had to change up straight-away.

Second attempt I did the reverse, and go caught up in the lag.

What ChinnyBloke fails to mention, is that I'd had the car about 2 days, and wasn't used to it at all. I am quite willing to admit that I am not the world's greatest driver, and in a new car, I'm even worse.

Having had the car for over a year now, I can quite easily get it off the line quickly... when I want to... but having coughed up for the servicing recently on the bugger, I'd rather not dump the clutch and ruin it, just to prove a point.

I won't mention his "slipping clutch" that he got BMW to investigate on the M5.... which seemed to miraculously vanish when he'd become used to the car... Or him stalling a Maserati 3200 GT infront of us all at a driving day... or him reversing backwards through a hedge and ripping the front lights out???

But I do agree - driver ability counts. I'm sure my rally-driving mate Ben Coles would keep way ahead of me in a lesser powered car (like a Saxo ), even if I was in the Scooby... especially if I had to start from a standstill...

chinnybloke

No way! Two days my pants. It was at least one month. I own up to my clutch slipping plus about another 10 foolish things I've done that you've failed to mention like....through a hedge sideways at 60

I admit you are better now though DuckPond, I'm sure you hit 60 in 7.79 seconds last time I was with you

6FOOT6

Whats the std 1/4mile for a new M3??

Cos I'm getting quicker times than they do up Santa Pod at the last RWYB, and I'm in a R5 GTT.

And if you can beat a ££££££ car to a 1/4 I dont care how nice they are or how much they cost, the point has been proven.

6'6"

chinnybloke

According to Quarter Mile Rival figures they are:

0-60 in 4.8s
0-100 in 11.5s
Standing quarter in 13.4 at 107 mph

Duck_Pond

Cheeky bar-steward. Was the Monday after the Friday on which I bought it... and I had the weight disadvantage of your huge nose in the car too. Was like doing a quarter-mile with a caravan on the back!

chinnybloke

Rollocks! We went on holiday the day after you picked it up so no way was it on the Monday afterwards unless you drove it to Orlando.

6FOOT6

13.4 1/4s impressive, shame that the 4 blokes with them never managed to get under 15secs at the pod a few months ago.

This topic is silly though, as at the end of the day its all how big the driver Cahoonas are and how much they want to rag the **** off there car to get the most perfomance out of them.

Over a ton and the M3 would do a std scooby from shere brut force, but mod a scooby a bit / or any big engined Turboed car and they will **** on them. Try getting any more power out of the M3 lump, nigh on impossible with out mega money to do it. Then there is the Image of them...AND the BMW lane on the motorway

Duck_Pond

Dang and blast... I'd have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids...

Slightly straying from the topic aren't we?

Personally reckon that the M3 would beat almost all Scoobies in a straight line, as the power delivery is constant, and there's no lag concerns. You only have to look at the times from Autocar in their 0-100-0 challenge each year. M3 was against an Evo 7, I think, and the Scooby was put against a Skoda!

However, as is always the case on here, someone will say "My Scooby has a nitrous kit, afterburner from a Tornado Jet, and develops 10 squillion bhp, so would trounce an M3".

advevo

i had evo runing 1.3bar to 7000 revs it was an RS version which was lighter than a normal evo.
upped turbo pressure and hayward and scott exhaust no cats.

standard evo turbo pressure is 1.1 bar.

i sprinted against an m3 e46 i could not win it the m3 pulled away easy

we both started in 3gear 80km an hour i took a little lead when floored but when comming higher in revs in 3rd the m3 came alongside

we talking an evo here 1320kg and about 315 a 320hp and more than 400nm torque.

you need to mod youre turbo car more than just up the boost a bit and an exhaust.

keep this in mind

m3 is standard full quarantee
highly modded turbo cars zero guarantee

6FOOT6

std Evos are 320BHP (despite the clamed 276)

Must be something seriously wrong with ya car if the M3 pulled away easly.

chinnybloke

The driver makes loads of difference. I was at Santa Pod on Sunday and there was an Evo 6 there (silver) and he was up against a previous model Skyline. I thought whay hey. This one should be good. The Evo won. 16 odd seconds and a terminal speed of 88 MPH!!!! That is poo. But....he might have just been there for a laugh and not wanted to punish his pride and joy.

I've had some decent "wins" in my wagon but only last week I cocked up the gear change and almost got overtaken by a V6 Cougar that tried to race from the lights...now that is shameful!

Now back to the Scooby vs M3 thing....

Scooby is a fast car. It has a reputation for excellent grip and handling and they are relatively cheap - a performance bargain. But...I've been out driving Duck Ponds and I gave it some stick and been out with him loads and he's had it sliding around corners which when it happened for the first time surprised me and him. I remember him saying I didn't think that would happen and neither did I.

IMHO insides of Scoobies are bland and I'd say quite basic but its probably exactly what you'd expect for the money. M3 costs a lot more, is it faster? I'd say yes, especially the new shape ones. They aren't even in same league though so I don't know why all the comparisons. And I don't mean M3 is premier and Scooby is 1st division I mean they are just not made to compete with each other and trying to steal market share from each other. When I had an M3 (previous model) it was a convertible and I raced two Porky 911's. First one I was stuck to his bumper from about fifty to well over the speed limit (me officer?) from normal roads to motorway. I'd say it was virtually identical performance. Second one was a new convertible Porky and I pulled past him (not easily but I did) then pulled away. I was in my R reg with 40k miles 20,000 quid car and his must have been 70 grand ish. So what? Doesn't mean porsches are crap and not worth the money. Its not all about speed, how fast for cash, 0-60, how fast something is in the wet down a country lane and 100% certainly not all about image either. It is just you've got £x to spend...get what you want and what suits best.

I went from M3 convertible, which was my dream car before I had one...but it turned out to be a bit of a let down, to a 1.9 TDi Audi A4 estate but then went back to BM. I would certainly not rule out having a Scooby but I'd want leather, climate control, sat nav, etc, etc because thats what I am looking for in a car with performance and easily fitting 4 or 5 adults in. Everything isn't about getting a bargain for what is perceived as doing the same job either. I don't buy my clothes from the market but a T-shirt from there will do exactly the same job as a Nike one or Next one for much less cash.

Does any of that make sense? If not I don't care because it is far too hot in our office that its turned me into Mr Rambler.....

advevo

well put chinny

it all depends on money and what you want from a car.

say if you have the cash and have to choose from these 3 cars

scoob
evo
m3

and you have to used it everyday and little trackuse i go for m3

for lots of track i pick the evo
RS version for me

chinnybloke

I'd go for the M3 too.

Duck_Pond

Chinnie's right in the comparison statement too. A new Scooby is about £20k, £24k for the STi. A new M3 is nearer £40k. Can't compare really!

Why not look at the performance comparisons of a TVR vs an M3? They are similarly priced cars...

I think that since people in the motoring press discovered Scooby Imprezas about 10 years back, they have become the benchmark to compare any performance car against now, sub-supercar league.

Oh, and if I had secure parking, I'd have an M3 too.

chrisp

Given 40K and that choice and that choice alone I would have an EVO TME and a P1 .

[Edited by chrisp - 7/16/2003 8:30:25 PM]

chrisp

Someone ask about P2W ratios according to EVo an M3 is 219bhp same as a P1. My 1240kg RA slight less weight 50kgs around 225bhp/ton. Yes transmission losses come into it lucky the RA has the lowest of any scoob but its still going to be close but we havent talked about group N spec ratios yet .

john banks

Are your RR losses still lower when you compare your 4th gear to a UK's 3rd gear when you are doing a similar speed?

Although RR figures are very debatable because of losses and double contact patches, a stock M3 can put down 300 RWHP on some dynos.

chrisp

dont know John, at peak power 6600rpm I was getting 60bhp losses. My RA does about 103mph @ 7600rpm in 4th.

Mmmmm

M3 has been tested by Road and Track in US trim 333 bhp and so has the Scoob STI 2.5 300bhp, and the std wrx 227 bhp

The M3 is a wee bit quicker to 60, 80 and 100 same over the qtr mile but the qtr mile is due to the scoobs good start as speed the m3 gets the edge and above 100 the M3's gearing would make more of a difference, the M3 has a fraction more grip. I'll pull away from my friends STI on the motorway in my lardy cab , I've also had a run at speed with a Ev0 V11 where the chap could't catch me with the roof down on the motorway and been competitive with a fairly well driven one round Oulton Park (well he had a race suit on anyway :wink

Scoob STI 300 BHP
Time to speed, sec
0–20 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.7
0–40 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5
0–60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.9
0–80 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.0
0–100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.6
Time to distance
0–1320 ft (1⁄4 mile) . . . . . . . . .13.3 @ 103 mph
Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .front engine/awd
Lateral accel (200-ft skidpad) . . .0.88g
Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .moderate understeer

M3 333 bhp
Time to speed Seconds
0–30 mph.......1.7
0–40 mph.......2.8
0–50 mph.......3.7
0–60 mph.......4.7
0–70 mph.......6.2
0–80 mph.......7.8
0–90 mph.......9.4
0–100 mph.......11.6
Time to distance
0–100 ft.......2.8
0–500 ft.......7.3
0–900 ft.......10.4
0—1320 ft (1⁄4 mile).......13.3 @ 106.8 mph
Lateral acceleration
(200-ft skidpad).......0.91g
Balance .............mild understeer

UK M3s have 10 more bhp

Scoob WRX 227 bhp
Time to speed Seconds
0–30 mph.......2.0
0–40 mph.......3.1
0–50 mph.......4.4
0–60 mph.......5.7
0–70 mph.......7.8
0–80 mph.......9.8
0–90 mph.......12.3
Time to distance
0–100 ft.......2.9
0–500 ft.......7.8
0—1320 ft (1⁄4 mile).......14.4 @ 95.4 mph
Lateral acceleration
(200-ft skidpad).......0.84g
Balance .............moderate understeer

Scoob WRX is a bit off the pace and there is a noticeable difference in grip.

Here's an M5 (400bhp) test they did
Time to speed, sec
0–20 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.2
0–40 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.0
0–60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.8
0–80 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.7
0–100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.3
Time to distance
0–1320 ft (1⁄4 mile) . . . . . . . . . . . .13.3 @ 108.5 mph
Lateral accel (200-ft skidpad). . . . . .0.85g
Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .moderate understeer

At higher speed as you would expect the m5 starts to come a wee bit better, but the grip is a bit lower. I've been round the track with them at silverstone and the M3 is better for the track and twisties.

All lovely cars, I'll have the M5 for the transcontinental bash from the uk to germany. I'll do the south of france in the m3 cab and I'll have the STI for some rallying in the scottish highlands

advevo

nice test figures

i take an m3 as daily driver
and evo for the gravel roads.

that s a nice garage.

RapidJ

Had a BMW M Series... sold for a P1 now have an STI with too many Prodrive upgrades... Prefer the Price and handling of the Scoobs especially living in the UK countryside. Wouldn't go back to a M series, well not in this country...

chrisp

I know its difficult to compare older cars with newer ones but my RA is over 200kgs lighter than a 2.5 STi and only down about 20bhp (if that). Gears 1 to 5 on the STI are similar ratio to the RA (of course the STI has a 6th). If you can only just pull away from a new STi you would have problems with a classic STi.

droid42

I'd go for the M5, in the real world with a driver they have about 25% higher torque to weight ratio.

Torque to weight ratio is a meaningless figure. In-gear acceleration is related to torque-at-the-wheels to weight ratio, which is affected by gearing (OK, it's a function of force-at-the-contact-patch to weight ratio but let's not get too technical)

The M3 has much shorter overall gearing than an M5 (same gearbox, higher final drive) and so its in-gear acceleration is only about 8-9% shy of the M5's.

In practice, the M5 is an easier car to drive lazily, but that's more to do with its peak torque coming in lower than the M3's and not how much of it there is. M5 runs out of torque quickly at higher revs which doesn't really apply to the M3. M3 much better on track, M5 much better on the road (IMHO).

Ian.

john banks

If you have longer gearing you merely put it in a lower gear for the same effect, so the torque to weight is relevant.

If you are at 4000 RPM in both cars at say 70 mph the car with the highest torque to weight ratio at 4000 RPM will be more accelerative (assuming lots of other minor variables are similar which they are in this case).

The M3 needs shorter gearing because it does not have much torque because the engine is too small and normally aspirated and therefore relies on revs (IMHO).

Shorter gearing does not always make a quicker car, you spend time changing gears and this is time off the power (quick sequential shifts excepted which is a trick some M3s have although most don't like it).

25% shorter gearing does not give you 25% faster acceleration going through the gears.

I'd still take the M5, but they are both good cars, even if the M3 is torqueless.

M5 engine still has more torque at its power peak of 6600 RPM than the M3 engine ever has, so I don't know how this is considered to be lacking at high RPM

[Edited by john banks - 7/17/2003 4:13:27 PM]