Z4M / E46 M3 - Are they just not that fast?

[flimper]

It's not all about speed, it's about character. I'm sure a M235i or whatever they are called would be quicker than a Z4M (the Z435is probably is), and the ride I had in an M2 was seriously rapid, but i still want to keep my M. it gives me more smiles than the others

[andyman_2006]

Crackie said:

Andy, I'm pleased you like your E46 and understand you are passionate about it however the OP's thread title asked " Are they just not that fast" and the answer is no not any more.

An E46 m3 is fractions quicker than a stock 335i, fractions slower than a stock 135i and a fair bit behind an M135i. There are plenty of road tests, Youtube vids and people with timing slips from Santa Pod, and other drag strips, to back all that up. Its reasonable to assume these cars are being pushed extremely hard, in the correct gear, on cam etc etc.

Power to weight matters and an M135i is usefully higher than an E46 M3.......add in the fact that the M135 has a quicker shifting box and that explains why most road tests achieved around 11.8 seconds for an E46s get to 100mph 11.8 seconds and M135is do the same in less than 11.0.

As I said earlier I'd have an S54 engine over an N55 any day; however regarding pace, which is what the thread is about, the E46 is "just not that fast"

Is there's any evidence or proof to the contrary ?

---

http://fastestlaps.com/models/bmw-135i-coupe

http://fastestlaps.com/models/bmw-m135i

http://fastestlaps.com/models/bmw-m3

http://fastestlaps.com/models/bmw-m3-e92

and for the fun of it:

http://fastestlaps.com/models/bmw-1-series-m-coupe

Not really such a greater margin....the 135i being (for this sites comparison anyway) slower than the E46 0-100, and 1/4 mile and also on a full lap on the dreaded 'Ring' (hate quoting ring times) but it sort of proves the point still. M135i being faster by .3 of a sec 0-100 and slower by .1 of a sec on a 1/4 mile.

i would also pose the question, if things have moved on so far, is the 2014/15/16 M4 performance (0-60 being in 3.9/4.1) really a massive move onwards from a car made in 2002 having done that same 0-60 in 4.8?

Granted as a overall full package (including engine efficiency and fuel economy) yes its maybe moved on, and is far more efficient way to cover miles. But it laps said 'ring in 7:52 vs 8:18 so this is 14 years of development...so performance/Dev wise 26secs over a 13 mile lap in14 years....sort of makes you think.

Passionate about my M3 or not, i think its fair to say it's not wholly justified to say 'they are not that fast'

Andy

Edited by andyman_2006 on Monday 6th June 12:28

Edited by andyman_2006 on Monday 6th June 12:29

[Crackie]

johnwilliams77 said:

this is about discussion. It is your opinion that a 300+ bhp car that isn't terribly heavy 'isn't that fast', it does not mean you are right or I am right.

I agree.

johnwilliams77 said:

I personally think it's quick and they are great things to drive and of course many modern cars are AS FAST, it does not mean the e46 m3 is slow either.

My earlier posts stated that I thought an E46 M3 was still a quickish car; any car that gets to 100 faster than a Ferrari Daytona should be considered quick. Your opinion is that many modern cars are "AS FAST"; my opinion is that many modern cars including the M135i are faster.

Autocar tested the current M4 at 8.8 seconds to 60mph; this is 3 seconds faster than Autocar, and the majority of tests, achieved for the E46 M3. I used these two facts as part of the basis for my opinion that the E46 M3 is just not that fast (anymore).

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 7th June 07:46

[Crackie]

andyman_2006 said:

i would also pose the question, is the 2014/15/16 M4 performance (0-60 being in 3.9/4.1) really a massive move onwards from a car made in 2002 having done that same 0-60 in 4.8?

Passionate about my M3 or not, i think its fair to say it's not wholly justified to say 'they are not that fast'

Andy

Fair enough Andy, you win, E46 M3s are fast.

In response to your question above............. Yes. The M4 is 25% faster than an E46 and we have sort of established that an E46 M3 is still reasonably quick.

Edited by Crackie on Monday 6th June 17:26

[cerb4.5lee]

Crackie said:

Fair enough Andy, you win, E46 M3s are fast.

Fast compared to most things on the road maybe but slow versus performance cars nowadays would be about right for me, it's an old hat engine the S54 from the year 2000 so I can't see many people being that impressed with it now.

[MOTK]

I recently had a good go in my neighbours M4 at combe. I have a z4mc as did she previous to her M4. We both agreed the S54 was the 'better' engine. Her thoughts on the way the power was delivered echoed many things I had read and it is one of her main negatives to the car as a whole, and in the short time I had with the car on track the main downer for me was the throttle response.
So to say that the S54 is unimpressive nowadays I would say is a little 1 dimensional. Numbers yes, character absolutely not.
That said the newer car was undeniably massively effective, incredible pull from low revs. I came away very impressed.
Was it particularly exciting, did I feel the rush as I wrung it out? no, not a candle to the s54, imo.
In some kind of answer to the op, no they're not 'that' fast anymore relatively, but they're fast enough for me and most importantly I absolutely love how they go about achieving that speed.

[rb5er]

cerb4.5lee said:

Fast compared to most things on the road maybe but slow versus performance cars nowadays would be about right for me, it's an old hat engine the S54 from the year 2000 so I can't see many people being that impressed with it now.

Its certainly nowhere near the top 10 of my favourite engines. Makes a nasty sound and never seems to feel alive below 6k revs.

Potatoes n tomatoes etc as some people seem to love it but I'm certainly not a fan.

[Beedub]

cerb4.5lee said:

Fast compared to most things on the road maybe but slow versus performance cars nowadays would be about right for me, it's an old hat engine the S54 from the year 2000 so I can't see many people being that impressed with it now.

Don't agree with that at all never see you right such things about the TVRs that last 30 seconds truly shocking moors, did you know the f12 TDF uses the same tech for the mech valve train and the sodium filled valves.... nothing old hat about this , more done properly, forged crank, forged rods, the head is a work of art on these, ITB, the engine is wonderful, but like all has its issues...

the car maybe isn't that fast by todays standards but the engine is nothing but special, MORE so in todays standards, today we get eco 4 pots with turbos that are just mehhh.... they make performance but no character so, are that they fast in todays performance car world, not really, BUT... what a wonderful ownership experience that for me is still yet to be trumped, the s54 is something truly special, even popping her bonnet makes me smile. The sound, the feel, the mechanical sounds it makes, just lovely.....

i can however say my little 1088kg fiesta ST with some tuning add-ons would give many cars a hard time tbh, but theirs NOTHING special about that eco 1.6 and its borwarner turbo. But that wasn't the original question.

lets not forget... than can make quite abit more too with some more spent.

Edited by Beedub on Monday 6th June 21:46

[robbiekhan]

Well I had my car mapped by Evolve today and indeed the gains are real and noticeable in the right areas of the rev range. On cutters they state around +15-18 HP from the baseline for a stage 1 remap only. Mine gained 20HP and increased torque between 3000-4500rpm with bulk power continuously climbing above7000rpm whereas before it lopped off at 7050rpm.

Beedub is right, there's something special about the S54, the noises it makes idle might not please everyone, and let's face it, it sounds like a bag of spanners being chucked about, but get it in motion and the sounds are great and only get greater the higher the revs you go.

[Crackie]

robbiekhan said:

Well I had my car mapped by Evolve today and indeed the gains are real and noticeable in the right areas of the rev range. On cutters they state around +15-18 HP from the baseline for a stage 1 remap only. Mine gained 20HP and increased torque between 3000-4500rpm with bulk power continuously climbing above7000rpm whereas before it lopped off at 7050rpm.

Beedub is right, there's something special about the S54, the noises it makes idle might not please everyone, and let's face it, it sounds like a bag of spanners being chucked about, but get it in motion and the sounds are great and only get greater the higher the revs you go.

Evolve are good, a 20hp gain is great. What were the before and after figures ? I had a lightened M3 EVO (S52) mapped by them, they also fitted Simota induction and Supersprint Cat Back. Loved that car, and the new 7900rpm rev limit; S52/S54 have a character, charisma and throttle response missing from forced induction engines.

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 7th June 07:58

[robbiekhan]

Crackie said:

Evolve are good, a 20hp gain is great. What were the before and after figures ? I had a lightened M3 EVO (S52) mapped by them, they also fitted Simota induction and Supersprint Cat Back. Loved that car, and the new 7900rpm rev limit; S52/S54 have a character, charisma and throttle response missing from forced induction engines.

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 7th June 07:58

Yeah my rev limit increased too, nice to see the power delivery doesn't drop off at 7500rpm like it did at stock but just keeps climbing now which means revving to 8000rpm is more feasible for those few times you want to have a bit of fun as opposed to just sounding nice but not actually accelerating any more after 7500!

Before/After graph:

[cerb4.5lee]

Beedub said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Fast compared to most things on the road maybe but slow versus performance cars nowadays would be about right for me, it's an old hat engine the S54 from the year 2000 so I can't see many people being that impressed with it now.

Don't agree with that at all never see you right such things about the TVRs that last 30 seconds truly shocking moors,

I often wrote that the AJPV8 in my TVR was made from cotton wool and toilet roll and I had it rebuilt at only 19k miles so I am hardly going to sing its praises on the reliability front.

What it did offer though was torque and guts and it didn't need to be thrashed to death to get thrills either, I never thought the S54 engine was that fast when I first experienced it and I didn't like its wasp like tinny noise much but that's me and I appreciate many love it though.

I would love to experience the S54 with a charger on it though.

[GroundEffect]

Modern turbo cars are fast on the road because they have lots of torque available immediately. Cars like the Z4M (which I owned for 2 years) or my current E92 M3 need to be worked for their dinner.

And to be honest, I don't give a st if an Astra or a Metro or a 2CV could keep up. I took my M3 to the Nurburgring last month and it was the most fun I've ever had in a car...bar some staining...and at no point did I think "I don't want all these revs!".

[johnwilliams77]

Crackie said:

My earlier posts stated that I thought an E46 M3 was still a quickish car; any car that gets to 100 faster than a Ferrari Daytona should be considered quick. Your opinion is that many modern cars are "AS FAST"; my opinion is that many modern cars including the M135i are faster.

Autocar tested the current M4 at 8.8 seconds to 60mph; this is 3 seconds faster than Autocar, and the majority of tests, achieved for the E46 M3. I used these two facts as part of the basis for my opinion that the E46 M3 is just not that fast (anymore).

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 7th June 07:46

So it's a quickish car, but 'not that fast' (what you said on the last page). Glad that is clear

[Wolands Advocate]

It is surely more about the smiles than the speed in today's world. Who cares if an Astra is faster than a Z4M.

I took a 2004 Maserati 4200GT Cambiocorsa out for a spin the other day. The bald figures tell me it has performance roughly on par with my M135i.

Well perhaps it does but in my considered view the bald figures can go hang because the Maserati simply felt faster, regardless of whether it was or not.

The Maserati of course has its flaws but it felt alive and straining at the leash in a way the M135i simply doesn't. The step-off acceleration is much more savage and the noise as the needle leaps around to the far end of the rev counter is simply addictive, and simply result in a much more vivid experience than the BMW can muster.

Of course I am being unfair on the BMW, which wasn't designed to compete with a 400bhp V8-engined Italian GT, and is otherwise an excellent car. But the point remains germane to the topic, which is that outright speed isn't everything provided you are having enough fun.

[Alias218]

WI have wondered this exact point myself. I own a 2007 350Z with the 308bhp motor, circa 200bhp/ton. This can keep up to the 95th percentile with my friends 2002 E46 M3, although they have around 220bhp/ton. This same friend owned a Fiesta ST prior to the BMW and I couldn't shake it! In stock guise too. Cars have just moved on so much, particularly in the last decade.

The M3/350Z/Fiesta ST can all reach many leptons in not much time, however I'd much rather own my 350 or the M3 because of the type of car they are - horses for courses. Longitudinal engines (looks nicer in the bay IMO), RWD, 6 cylinders, large displacement and you have to work them to get them singing. Much better, IMO, than a muted 1600 turbo. Although there is no denying the Fiesta is a marvellous car.

The Z4M, M3, 350Z etc. were fast new and they are fast now. They have just gained more stable mates. And let's be honest, if someone asks you what you own you feel a lot better saying Z4M etc. than [insert white goods vehicle here]. They're just more evocative.

[johnwilliams77]

Wolands Advocate said:

It is surely more about the smiles than the speed in today's world. Who cares if an Astra is faster than a Z4M.

I took a 2004 Maserati 4200GT Cambiocorsa out for a spin the other day. The bald figures tell me it has performance roughly on par with my M135i.

Well perhaps it does but in my considered view the bald figures can go hang because the Maserati simply felt faster, regardless of whether it was or not.

The Maserati of course has its flaws but it felt alive and straining at the leash in a way the M135i simply doesn't. The step-off acceleration is much more savage and the noise as the needle leaps around to the far end of the rev counter is simply addictive, and simply result in a much more vivid experience than the BMW can muster.

Of course I am being unfair on the BMW, which wasn't designed to compete with a 400bhp V8-engined Italian GT, and is otherwise an excellent car. But the point remains germane to the topic, which is that outright speed isn't everything provided you are having enough fun.

Thats right. Which is why the little mazdas and lotus are so popular.

[sidesauce]

Wolands Advocate said:

It is surely more about the smiles than the speed in today's world.

Oh, I don't know - having driven for 20-odd years I still get a rush from flooring an accelerator and getting the feeling of being pushed back in my seat...

[Tuvra]

cerb4.5lee said:

Fast compared to most things on the road maybe but slow versus performance cars nowadays would be about right for me, it's an old hat engine the S54 from the year 2000 so I can't see many people being that impressed with it now.

Absolutely.

The Golf R & 135 etc are real modern day slayers. Personally (mapped R) I've spanked E46 M3's, Cayman's, Impreza's etc, I've also attached a few invisible tow ropes to some impressive cars too, 5.0 XKR, RS5, E92 M3, C63 etc. These were all rolling starts too, from a static start I think the R would create a gap on all of them that wouldn't be closed until at least 100mph.

A remapped R feels much, much faster than a Focus RS (2.3) and that's not slow by any stretch of the imagination.

[Wolands Advocate]

Yes, my point is though that I am fairly sure the Z4M gives you that and the Maserati does too. Still doesn't mean you might not get "owned" at some point by a man with a point to prove in a gussied-up Civic.