had a play with a m3 today!
20 December 2011 | 12:43 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
From: Cambs
I like to look on the bright side that an M3 will probably be quicker at going backwards into the tree than I will. I at least will get to enjoy the view as i understeer into it next to him unless i let off where i could then park ala mcdonalds next to him and discuss injuries and repair costs.
Thats said win or lose... M3 doesnt have the burble and neither does it have our ironing boards on the back and most importantly it isnt Jap.
I'll stick with my scooby
Thats said win or lose... M3 doesnt have the burble and neither does it have our ironing boards on the back and most importantly it isnt Jap.
I'll stick with my scooby
20 December 2011 | 02:12 PM
#35
About 5 years ago as i gently poodled off of a local roundabout (private road of course) I noticed a set of lights flying up in my rear view mirror, by the time it was level with me I was matching it for speed. To my amazement i looked over and saw the M3 badge on the little grill thingy, by the wheel arch, and was even more amazed when I saw i was actually pulling away, if only by a foot per second. As the next roundabout approached (Still on a private road remember) he broke earlier and i zipped off, wierd as i have std brakes. The next bit of private *cough* dual carraigeway is about 1/2 mile straight and even though i waited, the M3 just didn't want to play anymore.
Since that day whenever someone mentions an M3 i think of that evening and grin to myself.
Since that day whenever someone mentions an M3 i think of that evening and grin to myself.
22 December 2011 | 04:30 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
From: Cardiff
2011 BMW M3 CRT {E90}
heavy: 1655 kg
engine: 4361 cc
cylinders: V8
powerful: 450.2 PS / 444 bhp @ 8300 rpm
torque: 440.0 Nm / 325 ft.lb @ 3750 rpm
How quick? (Metric): 0-100 km/h in 4.40 seconds
How fast: 180 mph
heavy: 1655 kg
engine: 4361 cc
cylinders: V8
powerful: 450.2 PS / 444 bhp @ 8300 rpm
torque: 440.0 Nm / 325 ft.lb @ 3750 rpm
How quick? (Metric): 0-100 km/h in 4.40 seconds
How fast: 180 mph
22 December 2011 | 04:32 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
From: Cardiff
2011 BMW M5 {F10}
How heavy: 1945 kg
What size engine: 4395 cc
How many cylinders: V8
How powerful: 559.7 PS / 552 bhp @ 6000-7000 rpm
How much torque: 680.0 Nm / 502 ft.lb @ 1500-5750 rpm
How quick(Metric): 0-100 km/h in 4.40 seconds
How fast: 250 km/h / 155 mph
How heavy: 1945 kg
What size engine: 4395 cc
How many cylinders: V8
How powerful: 559.7 PS / 552 bhp @ 6000-7000 rpm
How much torque: 680.0 Nm / 502 ft.lb @ 1500-5750 rpm
How quick(Metric): 0-100 km/h in 4.40 seconds
How fast: 250 km/h / 155 mph
22 December 2011 | 05:48 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
The M5 is a v10 not a v8. also i thought the E90 M3 was 420ps not 450 and the M5 is 507ps not 559.7. Plus all german cars are limited to 155mph.
And the CRT is limited to 67 units and cost over 130,000 euros plus the good old british tax so not far to compare against this model imo.
And the CRT is limited to 67 units and cost over 130,000 euros plus the good old british tax so not far to compare against this model imo.
Last edited by chopperman; 22 December 2011 at 05:57 PM.
22 December 2011 | 05:50 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
From: Ayrshire
Well done fella, M3's are great cars for going sideways but apart from that they are pretty dull, my mates right into his and has owned 3 M3 evo's. Ive also had the pleasure of a run in an E92 M3 Dakar upto 150, smooth seamless acceleration ain't my cup of tea, was a lovely car though.
22 December 2011 | 06:01 PM
#44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M5#F10_M5_.282011_-.29
22 December 2011 | 06:06 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
The F10 M5 is a V8 and it's turbo charged and is indeed 560bhp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M5#F10_M5_.282011_-.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M5#F10_M5_.282011_-.29
The standard v8 m3 is 414 hp and weighs in at 1684kg. THats 245.8 bhp per ton.
http://autos.yahoo.com/bmw/m3/2011/c...fications.html
Nothing against the beemer's, i like them but comparing the scoob against a very limited 130k car is a tad misleading.
22 December 2011 | 06:12 PM
#46
Weight is the problem with BMW's but they are lovely luxurious cars 
I don't look at my M3 as being a fast car it's more a decent powered luxury motor. If I want speed I use my Impreza
Any idea what my classic version 2 555 should weigh so I can work out my power to weight ratio?
I don't look at my M3 as being a fast car it's more a decent powered luxury motor. If I want speed I use my Impreza Any idea what my classic version 2 555 should weigh so I can work out my power to weight ratio?
22 December 2011 | 06:13 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
From: Ayrshire
Thats why it didn't impress me, great car for going to dinner parties but it didn't feel as a 414bhp car should, even when you watch the speedo it ain't overly impressive, especially for what the fella paid for it.
22 December 2011 | 06:25 PM
#48
Weight is the problem with BMW's but they are lovely luxurious cars I don't look at my M3 as being a fast car it's more a decent powered luxury motor. If I want speed I use my Impreza
Any idea what my classic version 2 555 should weigh so I can work out my power to weight ratio?
I don't look at my M3 as being a fast car it's more a decent powered luxury motor. If I want speed I use my Impreza Any idea what my classic version 2 555 should weigh so I can work out my power to weight ratio?
That's stripped out, no air con, no sound proofing, no spare wheel, no carpets, rear seats and door cards out, lighter exhaust and manifold, lightweight battery, rear spoiler off, little mirrors etc etc.
Added a few bits now so weight has crept up. Carpets and rear door cards are back in along with a cage.
22 December 2011 | 06:48 PM
#49
My classic came in at just under 1160kg
That's stripped out, no air con, no sound proofing, no spare wheel, no carpets, rear seats and door cards out, lighter exhaust and manifold, lightweight battery, rear spoiler off, little mirrors etc etc.
Added a few bits now so weight has crept up. Carpets and rear door cards are back in along with a cage.
That's stripped out, no air con, no sound proofing, no spare wheel, no carpets, rear seats and door cards out, lighter exhaust and manifold, lightweight battery, rear spoiler off, little mirrors etc etc.
Added a few bits now so weight has crept up. Carpets and rear door cards are back in along with a cage.
22 December 2011 | 07:04 PM
#50
22 December 2011 | 07:05 PM
#51
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
From: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
About 1230 Kgs I believe for a UK classic, mate.
There's so much more to it than simple power to weight though, its also all about gear rations, aerodynamics, where the car develops it's peak power and torque too.
I remember going from my 340bhp classic to a 340ish bhp 2.5 Hawk STi I was bracing myself for a loss in performance, which simply wasn't there, despite what the relative power to weight vids might tell you. If anything the hawk had the legs on the classic. Probably the 6 speed box, and the better power and torque curves at more modest revs.
Makes for interesting viewing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGATSb54YEQ
There's so much more to it than simple power to weight though, its also all about gear rations, aerodynamics, where the car develops it's peak power and torque too.
I remember going from my 340bhp classic to a 340ish bhp 2.5 Hawk STi I was bracing myself for a loss in performance, which simply wasn't there, despite what the relative power to weight vids might tell you. If anything the hawk had the legs on the classic. Probably the 6 speed box, and the better power and torque curves at more modest revs.
Makes for interesting viewing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGATSb54YEQ
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 22 December 2011 at 07:11 PM.
22 December 2011 | 07:21 PM
#53
The 6 speed always makes the car feel quicker due to the closer ratios. I drove a JDM STI blob earlier this year with 340bhp. Car felt very quick but seemed to be changing gear far to quickly for my liking.
Also, with the 2.5 you will have far more torque. I would however think if you put your 340 classic next to your 340 hawk you would find the classic edging it.
The hawk may well have felt quicker but I doubt it actually was.
Also, with the 2.5 you will have far more torque. I would however think if you put your 340 classic next to your 340 hawk you would find the classic edging it.
The hawk may well have felt quicker but I doubt it actually was.
22 December 2011 | 07:23 PM
#54
22 December 2011 | 07:37 PM
#55
22 December 2011 | 08:58 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
My classic came in at just under 1160kg
That's stripped out, no air con, no sound proofing, no spare wheel, no carpets, rear seats and door cards out, lighter exhaust and manifold, lightweight battery, rear spoiler off, little mirrors etc etc.
Added a few bits now so weight has crept up. Carpets and rear door cards are back in along with a cage.
That's stripped out, no air con, no sound proofing, no spare wheel, no carpets, rear seats and door cards out, lighter exhaust and manifold, lightweight battery, rear spoiler off, little mirrors etc etc.
Added a few bits now so weight has crept up. Carpets and rear door cards are back in along with a cage.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post