Having owned an SMG equipped E46 m3 i can honestly say that rolling on the power whilst doing say 60mph the thing was nothing short of brutal all the way to the limiter. Personally i would say it would murder a standard STI. Let's not forget that the SMG is equipped with factory launch control and is idiot proof off the line full throttle gear charges are possible with just a flip of the paddle.Handling wise the turn in on the m3 was just sublime mid corner not a hint of understeer and just so rewarding to get the tail sliding on exit.

 

So we've gone from comparing the M3 to the STI down to a WRX and now up to the flagship Spec-C!!! Why don't we just throw a justy in for good measure!

 

Absolutely gorgeous car bro

 

I wish you would stop talking now....I said I beat a mate in his M3, not a guy I happened to come across on a B road. We discussed it afterwards and he was trying. I obviously got the gear changes better than him on that occasion. It was a one off, so who knows what would happen in the next one? Not that that would be the same test as I have it PPP'd now. I have not claimed the WRX is faster, I am just recalling an occasion when I ran against one. Only dopey one round here is you for not reading properly.

On the torque quotes that have been flying round - I read on whatcar that the M3 has 269ftlb, whereas the STI is 289. Does someone have different figures for torque or are they just thinking the larger displacement means more torque?

 

First off drop the obsession with torque - if you want to discuss it I insist we discuss wheel torque (i.e the actual twisting force applied at the hubs) at this accounts for gearing and any drivetrain losses, etc.

Secondly, if I had a M3 and couldn't absolutely obliterate (and that's NOT a word I use often when describing performance car vs performance car) a 220bhp WRX then I'd get it booked into BMW. Even shifting like you grandmother an M3 simply demolishes 220bhp WRXs!

The comment that really got my goat in this thread was the statement that bhp is not relevant at the 'top end'. I assume that means top end of a vehicle speed range which is where outright bhp matters the most!!!!

 

Yes, but the way you buy cars if you come back in 1 week you'll be on your 15th M car and 27th Scooby, and you'll have had 12 Evo's in between too :

 

Please tell me you don't put as much weight into Top Gear laptimes as your above statement would indicate? So many variables and the Clarkson factor, a man who would never let facts get in the way of good copy or editorial smoothing...

I believe the Stig count is up around 10 for example.....

 

BMW M3 (E46) 0-60(4.8) Top Speed (155mph) BHP(338) Torque(269lbs ft) Top Gear Lap(131.8)

Subaru Impreza WRX Sti (type uk) PPP (2005) 0-60(4.6) Top Speed (158mph) BHP(301) Torque(300lbs ft) Top Gear Lap(130.1)

That is how!!!

Plus I've beaten one, so that is my experience. Other may have experienced different, i don't know

They are very evenly matched though as the figures suggest.

 

oooooh ^^^ thought PPP STI was 305BHP

 

305PS = 301bhp mate

 

Its an urban myth about 4wd transmission losses, your looking at more like 18-20% rather than 24-33% that some people will tell you.
There are some factors to consider though, gearboxes and diffs "can" increase losses, so any manufacturer who wants the car to put 75% of its power down on the road rather than 80% can do that, but in most cases, especially with DCCD cars, your losses will be less.


Tony

 

The Spec C isnt the flagship, it never has been, simple reason that the flagship is usually the most best equipped car, something the Spec C isnt and wasnt designed for, its designed to be stripped and rallied though some of the technology in it is above the higher specced STi models because of its role

Tony

 

Well I have a 305bhp classic which will happily hump your UK STI and I'd lose to an M3 from 20-120mph so you are doing really rather well IMHO!

The top gear times aren't worth the paper they are written on, the Subaru's 0-60 is 4WD aided and is the dinosaur of performance benchmarks and you critically ignore 0-100mph, 30-70mph and 60-100mph which are far more representative of real world performance. Also 155 is limited - the engine can do more!

 

Nah, the quickest best handling is the flagship IMHO. That's like saying a full specced up M3 is the flatship and a CSL is its poor brother.

 

Does anyone know how fast the M3 will actually go with no limiter??

Steve

 

Its geared to 176mph IIRC. IIRC mine was showing around 7k when it was on the speed limiter at 155

 

Either way i don't see the Scoob or the M3 would romp away from one or another given similar power/torque/heavier/lighter etc,

So horses for courses really each has its own merits

 

If unlimited the M3 will go to the early 170mph range and the CSL close to 180mph REAL speed, though the speedo will be showing higher speeds. Most people who have tried have found they run out of puff around 175mph and if you could hit the 8000rpm limit in 6th, which they can't, you would be seeing an indicated 200mph plus.

 

Kenny, surely if you were on boost you could keep up with an M3 on a rolling start if you were driving a car with only 40bhp less, yet weighed 300kg less ?
Transmission losses can't account for that ?

 

Yes I know the M3 is limited to 155mph, most german cars that are capable of doing more than 155mph are limted as part of an agreement that mostly affects Merc, BMW and the VAG group.

Forget the real world, the best place to test/compare a car like for like is the track right????

Then you go on about drivers abilities, so we need a good driver to drive both to compare???

On the track, it will test all factors of the car, accelaration from standstill, accelaration rolling through corners , cornering ability-oversteer/understeer, grip levels, braking, mid-range power/torque, high speeds, gearing etc etc. This covers a lot of important key factors that determine the ability of a performance car and also cover Saxo Boys crtical areas of 0-100mph, 30-70mph and 60-100mph.

So then what fairer test could there be than that of one which is available to us of the Top Gear track test. Stig was driving (not Clarkson), track was dry for both the M3 and STI PPP and the STI whooped the M3 by nearly 2 seconds. In fact if you think there was to be any bias from Clarkson it would be towards the M3 as Clarkson generally don't like Subarus and Evo's cus of the image/look and crap interiors on them. He has always liked BMW M3s.

Therefore I feel it is fair to say the STI PPP is a quicker car overall from point to point. I don't care what the M3 might be geared up to for top speed, the fact remains that when tested on the track, the Subaru Impreza came on top, period.

 

(Excluding the Polo 1.0L)

 

20-100mph I probably could but as we get into 4th gear at 90-100ish (i forget) an M3 would pull on me. My S2000 would seriously trouble my scooby in from 90 upwards so an M3 would definately ease away. I'd beat one to 100mph from rest though - quite easily. Scooby's are blisteringly quick in the first 3 gears. These bigger cruisers tend to be the other way around and pick up their knickers in the higher gears.

Andy, if you've not driven or been in something like a TT Supra then I'd seriously recommend you get a go in one. All cars that I've had (saxo, v6 pug, MY99, S2000, STI) have noticably been affected by drag in and around 100mph. The Supra has a callous disregard for the cubed relationship between speed and air resistance The M3 is cut from the same sort of stone

A perfect, albeit exaggerated, example of this was when I raced Adam Kindness's modified Supra at Crail in my old scooby. I absolutely beasted him off the line and was still easily 10-20 car lengths ahead after 200m or so. What I saw in my rear-view was just an awsome site to behold. The Supra had its nose pointing to the sky and it effortlessly hauled me in - it was like I was going backwards. This is what big-bhp RWD cars do almost irrespective of weight.

Want further proof...

Ok, using letstorquebhp calculations (accurate enough for our purposes) lets compare a Vaxhaull VXR220 to a BMW M5 (e39) over the 60-100mph incriment.

The BMW has 400bhp and 231 bhp/ton. It dispatches 60-100mph in 5.89 seconds.

The VXR220 has 220bhp and 240bhp/ton. It dispatches 60-100mph in 7.28 seconds.

So despite having more power for its weight (and remember these calcs give us a level playing field for gearing and drag co) the VXR220 gets totally trounced from 60-100 by the BWM simply on account of the BM's superior outright grunt This is why once you get rolling and start to pile on the speed an M3 will happily show a PPP STI its quad pipes

 

Point to point is not up for debate here. John Banks confirmed for those of us not privillaged enought to have access to both cars that fairly basic Subaru's would happily take an M3 in the twisties you might expect in british roads.

This thread is about claims of straight-line grunt. FWIW I still hold the opinion that a well sorted EVO or Impreza is as fast as you can go on a british twisty b or c class road. This is not up for debate here

 

But what would be quicker around a track? A VXR or an M5? The VXR would be quicker. So there we have it, horses for courses.

If you are talking about street races then most of them end by up to 100mph anyway, on a motorway it would be different story where the bigger engined cars would just come into their own.

 

Kenny truth be told your sti 5 must be a little slow then. Had a rollig race with an m3 in my sti 3 on the vf23 running around similar power to you and from 3rd gear 60mph to 120mph (private road of course) i pulled 2 car lenghts and he was not catching me at all.

Banny

 

I disagree with that. When you are 17 most 'races' are traffic light grand prix off the lights, next to a school and probably with a dab of speed in your system

Most car enthusiasts reserve the activities for stints between roundabouts on dualled roads or when out and about on country roads, etc with the usual 'range' being between 30-130mph at which point someone usually/nearly always calls it a day.

The last encounter I had was with an FQ300 Evo when he blasted up my chuff (not like that!) at 70. We gunned it and later got a 20-x chance off a roundabout.

 

It's fine - Andy F did a power run only 500 or so miles ago and it made 307bhp and 297 for an average of just over 300bhp. Don't get me wrong, its a rapid car (fastest I've owned) but I really don't believe it'll beat an M3 (e46) 60-120! I'll report back (as I always do ) if I ever get a go against one

I think the M3 possibly falls into the same trap as the S2000 does. If the person driving doesn't know how to/is not willing to wring every single bhp out of the rev-happy engine then nowhere near full performance is unleashed. In the subaru I can get pretty much full performance from 50% throttle travel and less than half the rev-range!!!

 

My MY05 T25, pulls away from M3 at any speed you care to mention, in other words it has, it has more low down and top end power than an M3. So to all you running down the ability of Scooby's, think again!

 

Thats because it has 350bhp or 415bhp if its a litchfield!! We are now a minimum of 130bhp more powerful than the 220bhp WRX that's out there beating M3s

I'd still fancy an M3 from 130-150 vs a 350bhp Type 25 though

 

Not if the T25 had decent gearing, which it doesn't