.........nothing more to say

 

Well I'd agree with the "bought purely because they're a BMW" statement if nothing else.

The number of pocket money special BMW's you see around with big alloys and the badge delete option ticked because they could only afford the 1.6 amazes me considering they could have actually bought a decent car for the same money. But then it wouldn't have been a BMW right?

Can't afford to do it properly? Don't do it.

Not saying BMW's arn't decent cars - but someone buying a new 316 needs their head looked at.

 

I know bud, I was just in from work

 

Agreed, but he was talking about M3's, not 316's

 

Ah sorry - I thought this thread had just descended into "BMW's are crap"

 

ur a dope

 

And you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the rack!

 

Whys that? i dont make stupid quotes saying M3 sound **** and they go like **** and so on so forth, ive owned a fair few fast cars and think im able to comment on the situation fairly well

 

You are typical ex impreza owner! Now that you do not have one anymore, you have nothing good to say about them and every other car is the best thing since sliced bread.
I have driven everything from a 1 ltr micra to a SL55 AMG, so I am in a pretty good position to comment on the M3.
On whole they are good car, that does everything well but does not excel in any one area!

Banny

 

ive nothin good to say about imprezas!!? im far from a "typical ex scoob owner" i just earlier that i still love them! Always will, also love evo's and GTR's and Supras too but theyre al very different cars in their own right, il probably own another scooby some day

 

Hi,

Hello people, we all seem to be getting a bit steamed up!

I currently have an M3 Cab with SMG and my last car was a Turbo2000 MY99 with an aftermarket exhaust and Unichip Remap.

So I have driven both cars in question, and the M3 is faster in all respects apart from 0-30.

The scooby always got away quicker due to 4wd, it never spun unless you were trying to tear the clutch out of it (once-and it smelled so bad I never repeated).

The M3 is faster doing anything above 30mph, straight/twisty motorway, whatever. A lot faster.

And to show how unbiased I am, when I sell my M3 it will probably be replaced by a Jap Import STI from Litchfields or similar, as the scooby had so much more character. The M3 is a better car, speed, handling, build, but its too bland compared to scoob.

Ok you can all take no notice, but at least I have actually owned both unlike most test pilots on here

 

You need to drive a JDM Impreza then compared it to the M3, you will be pleasently suprised!

Banny

 

I have had a go in a 2.5l STI demonstrator from stan palmers (cumbria) but it was difficult to really find out what it would do in such a short time.

It didnt excite me enough to part with hard earned, but the M3 did.

 

Everyone used to say that to me about my UK 99 so now I have an STI-5. It is better than the UK car but it still feels like a fast saloon car most of the time Certainly not the definition of 'sports car' I was expecting.

 

I was referring to the newage JDM

 

I wouldn't call an impreza a sports car. I'd put Z5's, MX-5's and such into the "sports-car" mould i'd say Impreza's, Evo's, M3's etc are more performance cars.
There's a lot of badge attached to the M3 as with all BM's thats why they are everywhere, and i'd expect most owners were set on buying one before driving one.
This is a bit of a non-arguement really, the price of the M3 in comparison to a scoob should mean it should be compared to cars in the same bracket, not something half the price.

 

There's nothing like a 'which is faster' thread to get us all arguing.

I'm surprised you think it's faster on B roads, or in the wet. The scoob is easier to drive quickly on twisty roads, and while some of the people here are very good (fast) drivers, it's harder to safely get to the limit with an M3 on B roads. A well driven M3 would beat a Scoob on a dry track, where the Scoobs understeer is more of a problem, and the M3s power can be used.

 

On the "twistys" ie B roads, you are typically travelling 40 to XXX.(Lets imagine the road was closed for a special stage etc if the busys are reading this)On the tarmac over 40mph, neither car is losing forward speed due to lack of grip. You can feel the wheels fighting for grip on a scoob in 2/3 and in the M3 the DSC will light up for the odd second here and there if its wet.But the bottom line is you need chassis and power which the M3 shades the scooby. 4wd will only really count on the gravel in the forests!!!BTW, remember the old BTCC touring cars that had the 4wd A4, it tore off the line but after that, no advantage.M3 = more grunt = faster.

 

The guy who made the comment about not wanting to turn up in a Scoob pretty much has it right when it comes down to image. A friend of mine does "tax minimisation" for some very wealthy clients and we had this very same discussion on the weekend.

I said to him, a 911 Porker owner (who has just ordered an Enzo for a client and has a slot for a Veyron for 1.4 million Euro) that if he wanted a seriously fast car then he should be out buying an EVO FQ 360-400. Usual argument followed and what it boiled down to is that sure an EVO or an STI might be faster A to B on some twisty country roads but who the **** wants to be seen pulling up in a a glorified Jap lunch box.

So we might be able to beat a lot of very expensive machinery but basically they dont give a toss as they have the cash to "be seen"

 

Why is the STI PPP(130.1) almost 2 secs quicker than the M3(131.8) on a dry tarmac track driven by the Stig on Top Gear??? I'd say that was a pretty fair test

Point to point the Subaru STI PPP is quicker

And don't tell me that was fixed!!!

 

He obviously wasn't trying in the M3

 

Yeah whatever

 

(sucked in)

 

What a complete crock of **** !

 

Maybe from my position as a mere poor person - but as a petrol head; and I would hope that someone who's buying an Enzo is a petrol head, not just a badge collecting numpty with more money than sense; I wouldn't pay any attention to someone pulling up in an Evo or Impreza. To be honest if someone pulled up in a vanilla 911 I'd just think that was the car they'd promised themselves when they got their first six figure bonus and that this is probably the first time its been outside the City and over 25mph (and its scared them). Most Ferraris suffer from the same thing in my eyes - fantastic car; shame that the driver probably has so little clue that if they took a Fiat Panda, painted it red, stuck a little horse on the front and wanted Ł120,000 for it, the waiting list would be 18 months long.

Probably a little harsh, but if we are talking about "image" here. Of course if they pulled up in a 911 RS my opinion would be "they're nails to live with that as a daily driver!" and assume they were a driving god .

 

FWIW i've been spanked on numerous occasions off rounabouts in dry and wet by m3's in my standard 2003 wrx.

 

Ok, I don't know if the sucked in comment means it was all a big joke, or what, but I think the argument's interesting anyway, so...
If a rear wheel drive BTCC car is faster than a 4 wheel drive, that indicates they are faster round a track. It doesn't give any indication of their performance on a B road. One of the advantages of the BM on a track, is getting the back out and keeping the power on, which isn't such an advantage on B roads, where you're less able to go sideways. Scoobs suffer from understeer on fast track corners, which happens a lot less on slower B roads, removing another advantage of the BM.

 

And as observed earlier when Don Palmer was significantly quicker around the circuit in my Spec C than the M3 Cabriolet...may he was not trying in the M3 that day...

PS the Audi BTCC carried an very heavy weight penalty for 4WD as it outperformed the two wheel drive cars. I think the new regs are the same - 4WD has the heaviest weight penalties.

 

Agree with Rannoch in that the BTCC Audis were a success due to their overall grip, not just because of their ability off the line - and they suffered a weight penalty as a result.

 

There was another guy who had owned both and posted similar thoughts on the E46 M3 in another thread a while back.

The M3 is still quick - as when the DSC is switched off it is only partialy so (I believe this is a pro-active traction control system). So the backend can get twitchy but if it gets too twitchy the DSC actually cuts in. So can make for some pretty rapid progress through the bends.

If you hold the button for 15 Secs and fully turn off the DSC on the M3 then the Scoob will definately be the quicker car on the cross country stuff. The thing I like about scoobs on cross contry road say with damp and dry patches is that you know exactuly where you are with them when the tyres are losing grip - with the M3 (fantastic car that it is) it doesnt give me confidence of exactly how progressive the loss of grip will be on this type of road.

However I still think that these big RWD BHP cars come into their own at the top end on the Autobahn where the BHP really counts and on the track. Where you could exploit the M3s precision and RWD oversteer characteristics to maximum advantage (sure there are specific scoobs such as the SpecC that may well out run an M3 on the track - But the M3 is the more ´Pure´ drive)

Barvaria builds the M3. Look at Barvarian Roads - long autobahns with no speed limits, many of the ´A roads´ have long sweeping cruves. Its no coincidence that the M3 is a product that excells on these roads. Not a typical damp AorB road in Wales.

My two pennys worth. I will now let the argument rage
Steve