Dissapointing drive in BMW M3
09 June 2005, 11:41 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What car are you running now Tony ?
Originally Posted by TonyBurns
Yup they are a bit over rated, though nice cars, ive not come across one (e46) yet that can keep up with my "standard" scoob (ok i do have a panel filter 
)
But like any NA engine, your not going to have the same sort of power delivery that a turbocharged engine does, though most scoobs will be left for dust (i had an SMG leave me standing in my last 260bhp scoob) some will do the opposite
Tony
)But like any NA engine, your not going to have the same sort of power delivery that a turbocharged engine does, though most scoobs will be left for dust (i had an SMG leave me standing in my last 260bhp scoob) some will do the opposite
Tony
10 June 2005, 12:08 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by john banks
Since when was "8" a few
Classic example of that for you John:
"Its alright luv, I'm just poppin down the road for a few swift ones with the lads..."
Part of her rant hours later includes exactly what you said.......
Cheers,
Grant
10 June 2005, 09:49 AM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Wales
Posts: 680
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. J
10 June 2005, 09:53 AM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you've missed the point of the M3.
It is a very fast car, being normally aspirated the power is progressive without lag then a sudden kick (that FEELS fast) in a turbo.
The standard M3 is considered by some as a little soft for track use, but it's straight line performance is more than capable, and quicker than any whooosshhh chiiisshhhing Impreza.
It is a very fast car, being normally aspirated the power is progressive without lag then a sudden kick (that FEELS fast) in a turbo.
The standard M3 is considered by some as a little soft for track use, but it's straight line performance is more than capable, and quicker than any whooosshhh chiiisshhhing Impreza.
10 June 2005, 10:02 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gone for Good
Posts: 13,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went from 02 STi (decatt Remap) > M3 > CSL
M3 is a much nicer place to be, it was definatly quicker than my STi, but not by much. (0-100, after 100 M3 is away)
CSL, erm!!!! JESUS! Differant league, CSL is just amazing
M3 is a much nicer place to be, it was definatly quicker than my STi, but not by much. (0-100, after 100 M3 is away)
CSL, erm!!!! JESUS! Differant league, CSL is just amazing
10 June 2005, 10:06 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ex'e'er
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CSLMan
Mark,
About the only bit of your observations that is accurate is that the other cars (Scoob, EVO) FEEL faster. Feeling faster is not the same as being faster.
The torque curve of the M3 is totally flat - there's no "nothing-nothing-nothing-EVERYTHING OH MY GOD-change gear"
I'm surprised you didn't realise this to be honest.
The M3 is basically as fast as most Scooby's / EVOs in a straight line drag - assuming the odd tenth of a second represents very little visible difference on the road.
About the only bit of your observations that is accurate is that the other cars (Scoob, EVO) FEEL faster. Feeling faster is not the same as being faster.
The torque curve of the M3 is totally flat - there's no "nothing-nothing-nothing-EVERYTHING OH MY GOD-change gear"
I'm surprised you didn't realise this to be honest.
The M3 is basically as fast as most Scooby's / EVOs in a straight line drag - assuming the odd tenth of a second represents very little visible difference on the road.
I must be driving a different car....if I want to press on I don't get "nothing" at any point......let alone 3 nothings!!!!
When pushing you're never out of the turbo's torque or power band.
I'm suprised you don't realise this to be honest (your words)
10 June 2005, 10:19 AM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Scoobless :(
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have driven my mates M3 Evo that has been remapped for 350bhp/260lbsft (rr proven btw) and against my tuned sti2 (rr proven 320bhp/320lbsft) it feels way slower.
Back when i had 270bhp/240lbsft and he had standard 321bhp/259lbsft (again both rr proven) i was about 0.5 secs quicker on the quarter mile but only because i could get all my power down and he could only wheelspin. He was starting to catch me at the end after we had passed the 1/4 mile line and kept going.
It is the linear power delivery that suggests it is slower and is until it gets moving and then everything changes. Although it cant touch me on a back road with whatever power as the back likes to kick
Just my opinion on them. For your info the M3 Evo has always been my dream machine for years.....now i am glad i didn't get one (couldn't afford it!!)
Stuart
Back when i had 270bhp/240lbsft and he had standard 321bhp/259lbsft (again both rr proven) i was about 0.5 secs quicker on the quarter mile but only because i could get all my power down and he could only wheelspin. He was starting to catch me at the end after we had passed the 1/4 mile line and kept going.
It is the linear power delivery that suggests it is slower and is until it gets moving and then everything changes. Although it cant touch me on a back road with whatever power as the back likes to kick
Just my opinion on them. For your info the M3 Evo has always been my dream machine for years.....now i am glad i didn't get one (couldn't afford it!!)
Stuart
10 June 2005, 10:29 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sparkster
Its been a while since ive been on here as i had to sell my scooby a few years back!
Since then ive had the "pleasure" of driving a 05 plate BMW M3 for three days. This was always a dream for me ever since the car came out. Oh how my dream was shattered! The word that comes to mind is
"OVERRATED"
I was expecting to be overwhelmed by a feeling of accelaration. On flooring it through first second and third i seriously thought there was something wrong with the car!! Wheres the torque? Theres none. The car is just not that quick. I try to think back to my scooby. It was an old jap import with mods putting out about 280bhp and i'm sure it could have given this car a run for its money. If anything the M3 would be fumbling for gears whilst the scoobys torque left it for dead. Amazing i was just so unimpressed. Who pays the money for these cars?
Ok it was a bit of a pose and the sound of it was something else but it wasnt for me!
Ive also recently driven a Mitsubishi Evo FQ340. Its not even funny how much that car would p*ss over an M3. In fact i'm sure the Evo 260 i drove felt quicker.
Sorry i'm being really harsh here but when you get the chance to live a childhood dream and get this experience, i need to write something!
Anyone else had the same experience?
Mark
Since then ive had the "pleasure" of driving a 05 plate BMW M3 for three days. This was always a dream for me ever since the car came out. Oh how my dream was shattered! The word that comes to mind is
"OVERRATED"
I was expecting to be overwhelmed by a feeling of accelaration. On flooring it through first second and third i seriously thought there was something wrong with the car!! Wheres the torque? Theres none. The car is just not that quick. I try to think back to my scooby. It was an old jap import with mods putting out about 280bhp and i'm sure it could have given this car a run for its money. If anything the M3 would be fumbling for gears whilst the scoobys torque left it for dead. Amazing i was just so unimpressed. Who pays the money for these cars?
Ok it was a bit of a pose and the sound of it was something else but it wasnt for me!
Ive also recently driven a Mitsubishi Evo FQ340. Its not even funny how much that car would p*ss over an M3. In fact i'm sure the Evo 260 i drove felt quicker.
Sorry i'm being really harsh here but when you get the chance to live a childhood dream and get this experience, i need to write something!
Anyone else had the same experience?
Mark
Have spent some time in one recently, admittedly with 15,000 odd miles on board.
Was seriously impressed with it. Unresricted they will run to over 170 mph as standard.
Very, very good in a straight line.
Did you have the sport button pressed?
I doubt any standard scooby would be quicker, WR1 included.
10 June 2005, 10:35 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diablo
No.
Have spent some time in one recently, admittedly with 15,000 odd miles on board.
Was seriously impressed with it. Unresricted they will run to over 170 mph as standard.
Very, very good in a straight line.
Did you have the sport button pressed?
I doubt any standard scooby would be quicker, WR1 included.
Have spent some time in one recently, admittedly with 15,000 odd miles on board.
Was seriously impressed with it. Unresricted they will run to over 170 mph as standard.
Very, very good in a straight line.
Did you have the sport button pressed?
I doubt any standard scooby would be quicker, WR1 included.
It sounds and feels quicker yes - however it is not and I agree with this post 100%
M3 is a quicker car than any standard scoob.
10 June 2005, 10:50 AM
#43
I agree that the M3 I drove was quicker than any std scoob (WR1 inc) but it didn't feel as quick as I expected it to 
I thought it would be supercar quick - it isn't.
I'm sure it would be a quick and capable daily driver but it needs more wow factor for me to spend that kind of dosh.
IIRC Birdy had one and now has a WR1 instead...
F
I thought it would be supercar quick - it isn't.
I'm sure it would be a quick and capable daily driver but it needs more wow factor for me to spend that kind of dosh.
IIRC Birdy had one and now has a WR1 instead...
F
10 June 2005, 10:53 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gone for Good
Posts: 13,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M3 is not a supercar, it's a heavy luxury car that does EVERYTHING well, but NOTHING great. It's comfotable, fast, and has all the toys.
If you want a track, fast car, think CSL not M3.
CSL is supercar fast.
If you want a track, fast car, think CSL not M3.
CSL is supercar fast.
10 June 2005, 10:56 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
I think you've missed the point of the M3.
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
It is a very fast car, being normally aspirated the power is progressive without lag then a sudden kick (that FEELS fast) in a turbo.
The standard M3 is considered by some as a little soft for track use, but it's straight line performance is more than capable, and quicker than any whooosshhh chiiisshhhing Impreza.
The standard M3 is considered by some as a little soft for track use, but it's straight line performance is more than capable, and quicker than any whooosshhh chiiisshhhing Impreza.
its just how subaru wanted it, and so far, no M3 (e46) has kept up (5 at last count plus 1 e36 evo)Tony
10 June 2005, 10:59 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TonyBurns
No i pointed out earlier that a turbocharged engine and a NA engine were different in power delivery
Mine doesnt go whooooosh chiissshhhhh thingy type stuff its just how subaru wanted it, and so far, no M3 (e46) has kept up (5 at last count plus 1 e36 evo)
Tony
Mine doesnt go whooooosh chiissshhhhh thingy type stuff
its just how subaru wanted it, and so far, no M3 (e46) has kept up (5 at last count plus 1 e36 evo)Tony
In fact, I know you were cos the M3 is a quicker car with regard to acceleration (excluding 0-20 for all you red light racers out there).
In gear, and through the gears it is faster, look at stats of in gear performance.
10 June 2005, 11:01 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ex'e'er
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
Not to sound rude, but many on this thread are under the impression that loud exhausts, chiiissshhing dump valves and the kick of a turbo constitutes a fast car.
It sounds and feels quicker yes - however it is not and I agree with this post 100%
M3 is a quicker car than any standard scoob.
It sounds and feels quicker yes - however it is not and I agree with this post 100%
M3 is a quicker car than any standard scoob.
but..
how do you explain the technical figures listed on the respective web sites ie.
BMW M3
0-62 5.2secs
50-75 (4th) 5.3secs
STI (standard) - from Prodrive site
0-62 5.17secs
50-70 (4th) 3.4secs (I know its not 75mph but just add a nabby grabby)
I wont bother with the PPP times (they are considerably quicker) although whether this is mods as its a dealer fit is debatable
10 June 2005, 11:07 AM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ex'e'er
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
Prodrive stats are brilliant.
Remember the WR1, could do 0-100 in single figures, later turns out it's nearer 11.5 secs.
Remember the WR1, could do 0-100 in single figures, later turns out it's nearer 11.5 secs.
10 June 2005, 11:10 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GrollySTI
I'm sure it is (I've never driven one so don't know myself)
but..
how do you explain the technical figures listed on the respective web sites ie.
BMW M3
0-62 5.2secs
50-75 (4th) 5.3secs
STI (standard) - from Prodrive site
0-62 5.17secs
50-70 (4th) 3.4secs (I know its not 75mph but just add a nabby grabby)
I wont bother with the PPP times (they are considerably quicker) although whether this is mods as its a dealer fit is debatable
but..
how do you explain the technical figures listed on the respective web sites ie.
BMW M3
0-62 5.2secs
50-75 (4th) 5.3secs
STI (standard) - from Prodrive site
0-62 5.17secs
50-70 (4th) 3.4secs (I know its not 75mph but just add a nabby grabby)
I wont bother with the PPP times (they are considerably quicker) although whether this is mods as its a dealer fit is debatable
And who, in a straight drag, would be in 4th gear at 50 mph...LOL...
Look at the through the box times from 30 mph onwards and then come back and say the M3 is slower
10 June 2005, 11:16 AM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ex'e'er
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diablo
Because in the real world zero to 60 is a useless indicator of performance.
And who, in a straight drag, would be in 4th gear at 50 mph...LOL...
Look at the through the box times from 30 mph onwards and then come back and say the M3 is slower
And who, in a straight drag, would be in 4th gear at 50 mph...LOL...
Look at the through the box times from 30 mph onwards and then come back and say the M3 is slower
Where are the through the box times please as I'm interested to see them
10 June 2005, 11:20 AM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GrollySTI
Really! I never saw that.....they must be nuts - its only 20bhp more than an STI PPP which is listed as 12.2secs .I can't believe they thought that 20bhp could take off over 2 secs from the 0-100mph!!! . Where is this please cause I could be loosing any faith I had in Prodrive
Please accept my apologies, it was quoted as low 10's.
Being deadly honest, I don't recall where I saw it, however it was an "official" figure. Every magazine that tested said something along the lines of "didn't get anywhere near quoted stats to 100".
Perhaps do a search on here cos WR1 owners were getting ripped!!
10 June 2005, 11:21 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. Bought my M5 last year - haven't looked back since, except at scoobs disappearing in my rear view mirror.......
10 June 2005, 11:29 AM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ex'e'er
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
Please accept my apologies, it was quoted as low 10's.
Being deadly honest, I don't recall where I saw it, however it was an "official" figure. Every magazine that tested said something along the lines of "didn't get anywhere near quoted stats to 100".
Perhaps do a search on here cos WR1 owners were getting ripped!!
Being deadly honest, I don't recall where I saw it, however it was an "official" figure. Every magazine that tested said something along the lines of "didn't get anywhere near quoted stats to 100".
Perhaps do a search on here cos WR1 owners were getting ripped!!
10 June 2005, 12:30 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
Prodrive stats are brilliant.
Remember the WR1, could do 0-100 in single figures, later turns out it's nearer 11.5 secs.
Remember the WR1, could do 0-100 in single figures, later turns out it's nearer 11.5 secs.
In real life..................
10 June 2005, 12:53 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by matchmaker
0-62 in 5.17 secs. Not 5.16 or 5.18? WTF is the point of quoting acceleration times to two decimal places? In real life..................
In real life..................I was highlighting the figures were in fact bollox and the only thing that matters is out on the road - however, through the gear figures are the only thing one can go buy to guage what car is quicker. So, I agree with what you've said.
M3 is quicker on paper, M3 is quicker on the road.
Not taking about about drivers capabilities, twisties, snow, ice, heat, leaves on the damn track. The thread is about outright straight line speed of which the M3 wins hands down.
End of.
Next....
10 June 2005, 12:59 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
http://www.litimports.co.uk/images/large/mag_23.jpg
Looks like the Spec C does well even 30-50 in 5th gear. Below 100 mph I can't seen any/many of the increments having an advantage to the CSL, and by 140 mph from a launch and nearly 26 seconds the CSL hasn't yet made up the difference, maybe there is a gearchange but the 130-140mph times look identical. I think the Spec C does surprisingly well against the CSL. It loses 0.35s on an 80 second lap, would it beat the non-CSL?
Looks like the Spec C does well even 30-50 in 5th gear. Below 100 mph I can't seen any/many of the increments having an advantage to the CSL, and by 140 mph from a launch and nearly 26 seconds the CSL hasn't yet made up the difference, maybe there is a gearchange but the 130-140mph times look identical. I think the Spec C does surprisingly well against the CSL. It loses 0.35s on an 80 second lap, would it beat the non-CSL?
10 June 2005, 01:01 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
M3 is quicker on paper, M3 is quicker on the road.
Tony
10 June 2005, 01:04 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TonyBurns
Nope sorry cant agree, only the M3 CSL will be quicker than any impreza, out of the box, so far, still no E46, in gear, through gears, catching them up etc, aint as quick as some impreza's
Tony
Tony
Excludes the Spec-c.
I know what I'd prefer!!
The Fast & The Furious vs Class.