O.K. here's a good question for you. I can't decide whether to buy a Scooby or an E36 M3 Evo. Does anyone have any experience of owning or driving both types of car? I'm looking at all angles from how they are to drive to costs of ownership. Any advise appreciated.

 

i haven't owned or drove the 321 bhp m3 but when i was buying my car (98 wrx) and i was talking to the car dealer about both cars and he'd drove loads of them and convinced me to buy the scooby (which was actually the cheaper car) he reckons at low speeds the m3 can be very skittish and sometimes dangerous if your not used to this sort of power through the rear wheels but he did say they are very very fast and a amazing car to drive but they just dont hold the road like a scooby or have the fun factor! insurance is mega on the 321 bhp 3.2 m3 evo cheapest quote i got was £2600 and on my 276 bhp wrx its £1400 still not cheap but much much cheaper!!!

[Edited by peachy wrx - 1/30/2004 3:57:40 PM]

 

Hi Si

I have a nearly standard sti v2 (MY96) and my best mate has an M3 Evo which i have driven. The M3 is a heavier car to drive but gets better mpg, higher top speed and has better torque. The scooby however is better at accelerating and better in the wet and on twistier roads. The M3 feels like you sit on it while the scooby feels like you sit in it. All down to what you want from a car.

Just my view
Stuart

BTW I got a 13.6sec quarter mile time and he got a 14.1sec

 

oh and we are both the same age and pay the same cost for insurance so not true about the M3 being more (he only has 1 more year no claims but has 3 points)
Stuart

 

So would you say that a standard uk turbo will be considerably slower then an M3, whereas an import Scooby WRX, STi etc. would be a fair match?

 

Yep exactly. I think most people would agree
Stuart

 

Hi,

Just swapped my 98 WRX (276 bhp) with an 97 M3 EVO so can give you a good comparison with that model Impreza (others vary greatly).

Performance and brakes

In a straight line the WRX was more explosive off the line and faster through first and second to 60 mph, especially in the wet. Form there on the M3 is quicker and the faster you go the more the extra power starts to show. I find the brakes on the M3 are very good for fast road use and much better than the two pots I had on the WRX.

Handling

Around the bends I think the M3 has a little bit more outright grip on it's wider tyres but you only feel safe exploiting this in the dry where in the WRX you felt quite secure whatever the conditions. This is obviously down to the greater security provided by 4wd and the fact that you can use the power to straighten yourself out if you go into oversteer - try this in the M3 and you could be going backwards in no time at all. The WRX was lighter, more agile and better at quickly changing direction which is not surprising given it's origins. Overall the WRX was quicker on windy B roads with better traction out of slower bends, but the M3 is quicker on faster sweeping A roads where you can use all the power. The engines both sound great with the M3's a bit more like track racing car, but not as 'beefy' as the WRX's.

Refinement, Economy and Build

Not surprisingly the M3 wins for refinement giving a more comfortable ride and a quieter cabin at speed as well as a much nicer interior which feels more durable and whole car also feels more solidly built than the WRX. The M3 is also more economical overall giving low 20's around town which is similar to the WRX, but about 35 mpg on the motorway in 6th which is clearly better.

Servicing and Insurance

If you use a BMW dealer for servicing then it would be a lot more expensive than the WRX, but if you use an independant specialist then it shouldn't really be too much more but it will be more expensive, especially if things go seriously wrong mechanically. The service intervals are a probably a bit longer in the M3 depending how you drive -service lights on the dash tell when one is due and I've heard about 8k - 10k is a normal interval but I haven't had mine long enough to see for myself yet... As for insurance, mine actually went down by about £15 a year when I got the M3 and I'm now paying about £960 a year. A UK impreza is definitely cheaper to insure though.

Overall, both are great cars then but which is better? Well, it depends on what you want out of a car as they both have their strenghs and weaknesess as you can see above. At the moment the M3 is better for me, but I may go back to an Impreza in the future..

[Edited by scoobysnacks - 2/1/2004 4:13:30 PM]

 

One Word.......VANOS

One Number....£2000

One Comment..."Common Fault"

 

I think the VANOS problem is more common on early EVO's (96 cars) before BMW increased the bolt strength on the VANOS unit. Also, the garage I got my car from has not had any VANOS failures reported to them on any M3's they have sold, which is plenty. Probably not as common as some people think then...

 

It does happen. Depends how hard the car has been driven etc.

Only had an M3 5 Speed (Not Evo) for month so cant really provide a realistic comment.

 

Si_Smudge, depends on the scooby, would choose the M3 over a UK scooby, which i sold and considered buying an M3, ended up buying an STi Type R

 

I think I may have already answered your question on the other forum, but to pick up the point about insurance, when I moved from M3 Evo to STi8 PPP I am now saving £400 per year! (1200 to 800)

 

Two Words "Melted Piston"

One Number "2000 +-"

One Comment "Common Fault"


Yes I own a Scoob. But like the M series BM's.