RE: PH Heroes: BMW E30 M3 Sport Evolution

[Kawasicki]

sleep envy said:

Kawasicki said:

The steering wheel is on the wrong side for the UK, that is why I didn't buy one!

I wouldn't go as to say it's on the wrong side, it makes kerb crawling far easier

Yeah, but the dog-leg box messes that up! Plus it looks like you are been driven around by a lady of the night, which i just couldn't take.

[sleep envy]

but she can have fun when coppers pull up along side and whilst lifting her hands up she can mouth the words 'look, no hands'

I can confirm that they don't like that one

[PPPPPP]

peter450 said:

Really nice, but i reckon the ultimate 3 series of that age has to the be the Alpina B6 3.5

For fast crusing, yes. But for the best combination of speed and handling, it has to be the 4 cylinder engines, also used by the Alpina race cars.

Edited by PPPPPP on Tuesday 16th June 14:14

[theboymoon]

One day there will be an E30 M3 tucked up in the moon garage, one day....

[sfh3l]

PPPPPP said:

sfh3l said:

On the comparative 'on road' performance between the various E30 M3 variants you've also got to allow for the fact that they generally fitted longer and longer diffs as the car progressed from the early 2.3 through the evolutions. This made them a bit faster at the top end and perhaps a bit more civilised (yeah right), but it did muddy the waters as far as a head to head comparison is concerned.

AFAIK, all E30 M3 versions had the 3:25 rear axle whereas the Sport Evo had 3:15.

Many Sport Evo's owners, however, had the 3:25 axle fitted to their cars. That made for even better acceleration and only a slight loss in top speed (academic in any event).

I bow to your better knowledge on that one. I knew the SE had a longer diff and thought there was at least one other change as the engines got more powerful but must be wrong.

I just drive mine and try to keep it clean living in this land where the roads are always wet and filthy! (Not like yours!)

Edited by PPPPPP on Saturday 14th February 11:31

[Chainguy]

PPPPPP said:

peter450 said:

Really nice, but i reckon the ultimate 3 series of that age has to the be the Alpina B6 3.5

For fast crusing, yes. But for the best combination of speed and handling, it has to be the 4 cylinder engines, also used by the Alpina race cars.

Agree completely. As a teenager I was lucky enough to be taken for a whirl in one of the 4-pots by an ex circuit racer, and he showed me a few lessons in car control. He said chose the 4 cylinder as his day to day driver because of the weight balance and the fact it revved like a bloody chainsaw. That was a pretty awesome hour of my life.

I've been in much faster (on paper) machinery since, but I've always wondered just how good the E30's are as a real world point to point machine. That day they struck me as giant killers. I wonder if they still are? Do they still cut it?

Anyone who has one these days and who isn't scared to 'drive' it care to let me know>

[R5GTTGAZ]

Fast enough, even today but you have to leather them and you need to know where the gears are as the brakes are crap!

300bhp would be perfect.

[Chainguy]

R5GTTGAZ said:

Fast enough, even today but you have to leather them and you need to know where the gears are as the brakes are crap!

300bhp would be perfect.

cheers mate.

They are very high on 'wanted as a toy' list.

[R5GTTGAZ]

Chainguy said:

R5GTTGAZ said:

Fast enough, even today but you have to leather them and you need to know where the gears are as the brakes are crap!

300bhp would be perfect.

cheers mate.

They are very high on 'wanted as a toy' list.

Definitely try before you buy.

You may be disappointed when you carry such high expectations.

[Chainguy]

R5GTTGAZ said:

Chainguy said:

R5GTTGAZ said:

Fast enough, even today but you have to leather them and you need to know where the gears are as the brakes are crap!

300bhp would be perfect.

cheers mate.

They are very high on 'wanted as a toy' list.

Definitely try before you buy.

You may be disappointed when you carry such high expectations.

I looked to buy one a while back, but sadly, every one I went to see was an overpriced bodge job. I saw at least 3 that were advertised as 'as it left the factory' and most definately weren't. Also at least one of them had been clocked, badly.

So, I moved on and spent my money elsewhere. The 'want one' factor though never went away.

[Shropshiremike]

Kawasicki said:

Shropshiremike said:

Shropshiremike said:

Some people might find the article below of interest


http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b213/Mikeshrops/...

Ravell said:

A ll e30's share the same basic front and rear suspension layout with only minor differences, so they will all drive roughly smilar, the e30 M3 however, has very different geomery both front and especialy rear, the handeling of it simply can not be compared with other e30's.

Just because it looks the same (somewhat) doesn't mean it drives the same.

Just out of interest Ravell, what was different about the rear geometry on the E30 M3 compared to say a 325i? - I know they used a lot more caster at the front and the ARB was mounted differently and all the other changes at the front , but I thought apart from the springs and shocks at the back, the E30 M3 used the same 15 degree trailing arm set-up as other E30s. Just interested to learn?

So were there any geometry differences on the M3 version compared to other E30s at the rear of the car or has Ravell just got confused with the front end? I thought they just changed springs/dampers/arb at the rear ....and the rear arms were the same?

It has the same rear suspension design, 15 degree semi-trailing arms, also as used on the E36 Compact and all of the Z3 models. I am pretty sure the arms are interchangeable between 316i and M3. Journalists like to slate the Z3 & compact for having crap rear suspension design and praise the E30 M3 for having amazing suspension, weird.

The front has some small changes, the front anti-roll bar links to the strut (which generates a torque on the strut to oppose the steering input), which combined with the slightly faster rack and increased castor gives more direct steering feel, which in my opinion is a weakness of the E30. I spoke to some chassis guys at BMW who worked on the E30 project and they told me that the slow rack on the E30 was to calm down the responsiveness to a level where a typical driver would be happy with.

Ah right, so the rear is fundamentally the same between a 325 Sport and stock M3 apart from spring/damper rates - that's what I thought. I noticed they run the same arb dia as well in the "Motor" article.
I remember reading the Ammerschlager interview where he said he wanted the front geo offered as an option for all E30s....but it never came to fruition

[kiko]

Kawasicki said:

kiko said:

Kawasicki said:

Shropshiremike said:

Shropshiremike said:

Some people might find the article below of interest


http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b213/Mikeshrops/...

Ravell said:

A ll e30's share the same basic front and rear suspension layout with only minor differences, so they will all drive roughly smilar, the e30 M3 however, has very different geomery both front and especialy rear, the handeling of it simply can not be compared with other e30's.

Just because it looks the same (somewhat) doesn't mean it drives the same.

Just out of interest Ravell, what was different about the rear geometry on the E30 M3 compared to say a 325i? - I know they used a lot more caster at the front and the ARB was mounted differently and all the other changes at the front , but I thought apart from the springs and shocks at the back, the E30 M3 used the same 15 degree trailing arm set-up as other E30s. Just interested to learn?

So were there any geometry differences on the M3 version compared to other E30s at the rear of the car or has Ravell just got confused with the front end? I thought they just changed springs/dampers/arb at the rear ....and the rear arms were the same?

It has the same rear suspension design, 15 degree semi-trailing arms, also as used on the E36 Compact and all of the Z3 models. I am pretty sure the arms are interchangeable between 316i and M3. Journalists like to slate the Z3 & compact for having crap rear suspension design and praise the E30 M3 for having amazing suspension, weird.

The front has some small changes, the front anti-roll bar links to the strut (which generates a torque on the strut to oppose the steering input), which combined with the slightly faster rack and increased castor gives more direct steering feel, which in my opinion is a weakness of the E30. I spoke to some chassis guys at BMW who worked on the E30 project and they told me that the slow rack on the E30 was to calm down the responsiveness to a level where a typical driver would be happy with.

Just because the E30 M3 looks completely different to a 316i, doesn't mean it is.

Well I must correct you once again... as your posts are biased and misleading. First of all the main reason why the ARB link is attached to the strut is because the new shorter lever length generates an exponential increase in torque using the same ARB, this fact is then balanced with thicker ARB on the rear axle (another fact you forgot mentioning).

Then, speaking of rear axles if you had checked your facts first you'd see the Part number on the E30 and M3 are different and even between the M3 and Sport Evo the part number differ (this is due to a slight change in alignment settings between them) and no, the exhaust hangers are not the only difference. So in the end the alignment setting is radically different between e30 and M3 on BOTH axles (I think the only similar setting is the front axle's toe...). Oh and just for the record the trailing arms have different part numbers as well (not sure what's the difference here but though)

At least but not last even though the wheel base only differs 2mm the weight distribution between the M20 equipped e30's (6 cyl) and M3 makes a world of difference but as you're a Automotive Engineer as well I guess you know the rest...

Having said that, I'm sure your race e30 handles great but a road going 325i is NOWHERE near as fast on a track as road going M3 e30.

Edited by kiko on Saturday 14th February 10:24

I didn't bother mentioning the most obvious reason for mounting front anti-roll bar drop links to the strut as to be honest it is pretty clear to see. If you want to go into such pedantic details then I should mention that the your post is also misleading as the torque on the anti-roll bar is linearly, not exponentially, related to the lever length.

Part No.s change for also sorts of reasons, so nothing can be assumed from that. Regarding the rear axle, I would imagine BMW would have made small modifications such as changing the position of the trailing arm pivots in the vertical direction, to correct any errors introduced by ride height changes. This would not change the toe out effect on the outside rear tyre when you lift off in a corner though as that is the characteristic of every E30 which makes them all handle in a similarly nice way.

And regarding the lap time difference between a 325i and an M3, of course the M3 will be quicker, but that doesn't change the fact that it basically handles like any E30, 316i included, which (as I keep saying) is very, very well. The 6 cylinder models will obviously have slightly more limit understeer, but the basic characteristics of good turn in and predictable lift off oversteer are all very similar. People like to really distance the handling of M3 from the sales rep 318i and the yuppie 325i for some reason, it just isn't true. I was shocked the first time I drove an M3 as the fundamental handling behaviour was pretty much the same as the 318iS I was driving at the time, and the 318i I had before that.

I am keen to avoid getting any further into a pedantic debate on how the E30 M3 is so different to other E30s, in my eyes they share the same platform architecture and the 4 cylinder models share the basic weight distribution. The steering wheel is on the wrong side for the UK, that is why I didn't buy one!

Different part numbers is for different part in BMW and in most manufactures I know. Yes, little differences in the pivots that result in what? In differences in the alignment which coincidently is one of the things that makes cars handle differently.

In my eyes the phrase to describe this comparison is: "So near and yet do far..."

[Kawasicki]

kiko said:

Kawasicki said:

kiko said:

Kawasicki said:

Shropshiremike said:

Shropshiremike said:

Some people might find the article below of interest


http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b213/Mikeshrops/...

Ravell said:

A ll e30's share the same basic front and rear suspension layout with only minor differences, so they will all drive roughly smilar, the e30 M3 however, has very different geomery both front and especialy rear, the handeling of it simply can not be compared with other e30's.

Just because it looks the same (somewhat) doesn't mean it drives the same.

Just out of interest Ravell, what was different about the rear geometry on the E30 M3 compared to say a 325i? - I know they used a lot more caster at the front and the ARB was mounted differently and all the other changes at the front , but I thought apart from the springs and shocks at the back, the E30 M3 used the same 15 degree trailing arm set-up as other E30s. Just interested to learn?

So were there any geometry differences on the M3 version compared to other E30s at the rear of the car or has Ravell just got confused with the front end? I thought they just changed springs/dampers/arb at the rear ....and the rear arms were the same?

It has the same rear suspension design, 15 degree semi-trailing arms, also as used on the E36 Compact and all of the Z3 models. I am pretty sure the arms are interchangeable between 316i and M3. Journalists like to slate the Z3 & compact for having crap rear suspension design and praise the E30 M3 for having amazing suspension, weird.

The front has some small changes, the front anti-roll bar links to the strut (which generates a torque on the strut to oppose the steering input), which combined with the slightly faster rack and increased castor gives more direct steering feel, which in my opinion is a weakness of the E30. I spoke to some chassis guys at BMW who worked on the E30 project and they told me that the slow rack on the E30 was to calm down the responsiveness to a level where a typical driver would be happy with.

Just because the E30 M3 looks completely different to a 316i, doesn't mean it is.

Well I must correct you once again... as your posts are biased and misleading. First of all the main reason why the ARB link is attached to the strut is because the new shorter lever length generates an exponential increase in torque using the same ARB, this fact is then balanced with thicker ARB on the rear axle (another fact you forgot mentioning).

Then, speaking of rear axles if you had checked your facts first you'd see the Part number on the E30 and M3 are different and even between the M3 and Sport Evo the part number differ (this is due to a slight change in alignment settings between them) and no, the exhaust hangers are not the only difference. So in the end the alignment setting is radically different between e30 and M3 on BOTH axles (I think the only similar setting is the front axle's toe...). Oh and just for the record the trailing arms have different part numbers as well (not sure what's the difference here but though)

At least but not last even though the wheel base only differs 2mm the weight distribution between the M20 equipped e30's (6 cyl) and M3 makes a world of difference but as you're a Automotive Engineer as well I guess you know the rest...

Having said that, I'm sure your race e30 handles great but a road going 325i is NOWHERE near as fast on a track as road going M3 e30.

Edited by kiko on Saturday 14th February 10:24

I didn't bother mentioning the most obvious reason for mounting front anti-roll bar drop links to the strut as to be honest it is pretty clear to see. If you want to go into such pedantic details then I should mention that the your post is also misleading as the torque on the anti-roll bar is linearly, not exponentially, related to the lever length.

Part No.s change for also sorts of reasons, so nothing can be assumed from that. Regarding the rear axle, I would imagine BMW would have made small modifications such as changing the position of the trailing arm pivots in the vertical direction, to correct any errors introduced by ride height changes. This would not change the toe out effect on the outside rear tyre when you lift off in a corner though as that is the characteristic of every E30 which makes them all handle in a similarly nice way.

And regarding the lap time difference between a 325i and an M3, of course the M3 will be quicker, but that doesn't change the fact that it basically handles like any E30, 316i included, which (as I keep saying) is very, very well. The 6 cylinder models will obviously have slightly more limit understeer, but the basic characteristics of good turn in and predictable lift off oversteer are all very similar. People like to really distance the handling of M3 from the sales rep 318i and the yuppie 325i for some reason, it just isn't true. I was shocked the first time I drove an M3 as the fundamental handling behaviour was pretty much the same as the 318iS I was driving at the time, and the 318i I had before that.

I am keen to avoid getting any further into a pedantic debate on how the E30 M3 is so different to other E30s, in my eyes they share the same platform architecture and the 4 cylinder models share the basic weight distribution. The steering wheel is on the wrong side for the UK, that is why I didn't buy one!

Different part numbers is for different part in BMW and in most manufactures I know. Yes, little differences in the pivots that result in what? In differences in the alignment which coincidently is one of the things that makes cars handle differently.

In my eyes the phrase to describe this comparison is: "So near and yet do far..."

Let me approach this discussion from a different angle. Have you driven an E30 318is? If you have (or anyone else has), in terms of fundamental handling behaviour what are the big differences that makes the E30 M3 leagues better?

[PPPPPP]

Kawasicki said:

Let me approach this discussion from a different angle. Have you driven an E30 318is? If you have (or anyone else has), in terms of fundamental handling behaviour what are the big differences that makes the E30 M3 leagues better?

So what BMW should have done is just stick a 2.3 engine in the 318iS, and provided for larger wheels and competed in the Touring Car Races, and they would still have beaten the Sierra Cosworths & the Evo Mercs. The money they could have saved....

What about the Sierra Cosworths - were they just ordinary 1.6 Sierras with a turbocharged engine. And the Mercs?

BTW The E30 318iS is a wonderful car, as is the 320iS, as is the ordinary M3, as is the Sport Evo.

[kiko]

Kawasicki said:

kiko said:

Kawasicki said:

kiko said:

Kawasicki said:

Shropshiremike said:

Shropshiremike said:

Some people might find the article below of interest


http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b213/Mikeshrops/...

Ravell said:

A ll e30's share the same basic front and rear suspension layout with only minor differences, so they will all drive roughly smilar, the e30 M3 however, has very different geomery both front and especialy rear, the handeling of it simply can not be compared with other e30's.

Just because it looks the same (somewhat) doesn't mean it drives the same.

Just out of interest Ravell, what was different about the rear geometry on the E30 M3 compared to say a 325i? - I know they used a lot more caster at the front and the ARB was mounted differently and all the other changes at the front , but I thought apart from the springs and shocks at the back, the E30 M3 used the same 15 degree trailing arm set-up as other E30s. Just interested to learn?

So were there any geometry differences on the M3 version compared to other E30s at the rear of the car or has Ravell just got confused with the front end? I thought they just changed springs/dampers/arb at the rear ....and the rear arms were the same?

It has the same rear suspension design, 15 degree semi-trailing arms, also as used on the E36 Compact and all of the Z3 models. I am pretty sure the arms are interchangeable between 316i and M3. Journalists like to slate the Z3 & compact for having crap rear suspension design and praise the E30 M3 for having amazing suspension, weird.

The front has some small changes, the front anti-roll bar links to the strut (which generates a torque on the strut to oppose the steering input), which combined with the slightly faster rack and increased castor gives more direct steering feel, which in my opinion is a weakness of the E30. I spoke to some chassis guys at BMW who worked on the E30 project and they told me that the slow rack on the E30 was to calm down the responsiveness to a level where a typical driver would be happy with.

Just because the E30 M3 looks completely different to a 316i, doesn't mean it is.

Well I must correct you once again... as your posts are biased and misleading. First of all the main reason why the ARB link is attached to the strut is because the new shorter lever length generates an exponential increase in torque using the same ARB, this fact is then balanced with thicker ARB on the rear axle (another fact you forgot mentioning).

Then, speaking of rear axles if you had checked your facts first you'd see the Part number on the E30 and M3 are different and even between the M3 and Sport Evo the part number differ (this is due to a slight change in alignment settings between them) and no, the exhaust hangers are not the only difference. So in the end the alignment setting is radically different between e30 and M3 on BOTH axles (I think the only similar setting is the front axle's toe...). Oh and just for the record the trailing arms have different part numbers as well (not sure what's the difference here but though)

At least but not last even though the wheel base only differs 2mm the weight distribution between the M20 equipped e30's (6 cyl) and M3 makes a world of difference but as you're a Automotive Engineer as well I guess you know the rest...

Having said that, I'm sure your race e30 handles great but a road going 325i is NOWHERE near as fast on a track as road going M3 e30.

Edited by kiko on Saturday 14th February 10:24

I didn't bother mentioning the most obvious reason for mounting front anti-roll bar drop links to the strut as to be honest it is pretty clear to see. If you want to go into such pedantic details then I should mention that the your post is also misleading as the torque on the anti-roll bar is linearly, not exponentially, related to the lever length.

Part No.s change for also sorts of reasons, so nothing can be assumed from that. Regarding the rear axle, I would imagine BMW would have made small modifications such as changing the position of the trailing arm pivots in the vertical direction, to correct any errors introduced by ride height changes. This would not change the toe out effect on the outside rear tyre when you lift off in a corner though as that is the characteristic of every E30 which makes them all handle in a similarly nice way.

And regarding the lap time difference between a 325i and an M3, of course the M3 will be quicker, but that doesn't change the fact that it basically handles like any E30, 316i included, which (as I keep saying) is very, very well. The 6 cylinder models will obviously have slightly more limit understeer, but the basic characteristics of good turn in and predictable lift off oversteer are all very similar. People like to really distance the handling of M3 from the sales rep 318i and the yuppie 325i for some reason, it just isn't true. I was shocked the first time I drove an M3 as the fundamental handling behaviour was pretty much the same as the 318iS I was driving at the time, and the 318i I had before that.

I am keen to avoid getting any further into a pedantic debate on how the E30 M3 is so different to other E30s, in my eyes they share the same platform architecture and the 4 cylinder models share the basic weight distribution. The steering wheel is on the wrong side for the UK, that is why I didn't buy one!

Different part numbers is for different part in BMW and in most manufactures I know. Yes, little differences in the pivots that result in what? In differences in the alignment which coincidently is one of the things that makes cars handle differently.

In my eyes the phrase to describe this comparison is: "So near and yet do far..."

Let me approach this discussion from a different angle. Have you driven an E30 318is? If you have (or anyone else has), in terms of fundamental handling behaviour what are the big differences that makes the E30 M3 leagues better?

Yes I have but I've owned an even better car for that comparison, a 320is! (I'm in Portugal). So e30 chassis with S14 engine in it... IT's LIKE CHEESE AND CHALK! The steering is number and has less turn-in but most of all is twitchier and less refined in terms of handling. More difficult to drive at the limit and I can add to discussion that there was a 320is championship here in Portugal back when they were new with a Schnitzer sorted suspension and guess what the complaint was...? you guessed it: The twitchy handling at the limit of adhesion. Here's a couple of links w/ some interesting footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yo7xyzjcZw&NR=...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS1GlebANgY

Mind you, I know most of the racers that raced these cars and I even sold one of those cars to Mallorca where it's raced today. So my assessment is based in pretty solid information.

Edited by kiko on Monday 16th February 12:18

[Kawasicki]

kiko said:

Kawasicki said:

kiko said:

Kawasicki said:

kiko said:

Kawasicki said:

Shropshiremike said:

Shropshiremike said:

Some people might find the article below of interest


http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b213/Mikeshrops/...

Ravell said:

A ll e30's share the same basic front and rear suspension layout with only minor differences, so they will all drive roughly smilar, the e30 M3 however, has very different geomery both front and especialy rear, the handeling of it simply can not be compared with other e30's.

Just because it looks the same (somewhat) doesn't mean it drives the same.

Just out of interest Ravell, what was different about the rear geometry on the E30 M3 compared to say a 325i? - I know they used a lot more caster at the front and the ARB was mounted differently and all the other changes at the front , but I thought apart from the springs and shocks at the back, the E30 M3 used the same 15 degree trailing arm set-up as other E30s. Just interested to learn?

So were there any geometry differences on the M3 version compared to other E30s at the rear of the car or has Ravell just got confused with the front end? I thought they just changed springs/dampers/arb at the rear ....and the rear arms were the same?

It has the same rear suspension design, 15 degree semi-trailing arms, also as used on the E36 Compact and all of the Z3 models. I am pretty sure the arms are interchangeable between 316i and M3. Journalists like to slate the Z3 & compact for having crap rear suspension design and praise the E30 M3 for having amazing suspension, weird.

The front has some small changes, the front anti-roll bar links to the strut (which generates a torque on the strut to oppose the steering input), which combined with the slightly faster rack and increased castor gives more direct steering feel, which in my opinion is a weakness of the E30. I spoke to some chassis guys at BMW who worked on the E30 project and they told me that the slow rack on the E30 was to calm down the responsiveness to a level where a typical driver would be happy with.

Just because the E30 M3 looks completely different to a 316i, doesn't mean it is.

Well I must correct you once again... as your posts are biased and misleading. First of all the main reason why the ARB link is attached to the strut is because the new shorter lever length generates an exponential increase in torque using the same ARB, this fact is then balanced with thicker ARB on the rear axle (another fact you forgot mentioning).

Then, speaking of rear axles if you had checked your facts first you'd see the Part number on the E30 and M3 are different and even between the M3 and Sport Evo the part number differ (this is due to a slight change in alignment settings between them) and no, the exhaust hangers are not the only difference. So in the end the alignment setting is radically different between e30 and M3 on BOTH axles (I think the only similar setting is the front axle's toe...). Oh and just for the record the trailing arms have different part numbers as well (not sure what's the difference here but though)

At least but not last even though the wheel base only differs 2mm the weight distribution between the M20 equipped e30's (6 cyl) and M3 makes a world of difference but as you're a Automotive Engineer as well I guess you know the rest...

Having said that, I'm sure your race e30 handles great but a road going 325i is NOWHERE near as fast on a track as road going M3 e30.

Edited by kiko on Saturday 14th February 10:24

I didn't bother mentioning the most obvious reason for mounting front anti-roll bar drop links to the strut as to be honest it is pretty clear to see. If you want to go into such pedantic details then I should mention that the your post is also misleading as the torque on the anti-roll bar is linearly, not exponentially, related to the lever length.

Part No.s change for also sorts of reasons, so nothing can be assumed from that. Regarding the rear axle, I would imagine BMW would have made small modifications such as changing the position of the trailing arm pivots in the vertical direction, to correct any errors introduced by ride height changes. This would not change the toe out effect on the outside rear tyre when you lift off in a corner though as that is the characteristic of every E30 which makes them all handle in a similarly nice way.

And regarding the lap time difference between a 325i and an M3, of course the M3 will be quicker, but that doesn't change the fact that it basically handles like any E30, 316i included, which (as I keep saying) is very, very well. The 6 cylinder models will obviously have slightly more limit understeer, but the basic characteristics of good turn in and predictable lift off oversteer are all very similar. People like to really distance the handling of M3 from the sales rep 318i and the yuppie 325i for some reason, it just isn't true. I was shocked the first time I drove an M3 as the fundamental handling behaviour was pretty much the same as the 318iS I was driving at the time, and the 318i I had before that.

I am keen to avoid getting any further into a pedantic debate on how the E30 M3 is so different to other E30s, in my eyes they share the same platform architecture and the 4 cylinder models share the basic weight distribution. The steering wheel is on the wrong side for the UK, that is why I didn't buy one!

Different part numbers is for different part in BMW and in most manufactures I know. Yes, little differences in the pivots that result in what? In differences in the alignment which coincidently is one of the things that makes cars handle differently.

In my eyes the phrase to describe this comparison is: "So near and yet do far..."

Let me approach this discussion from a different angle. Have you driven an E30 318is? If you have (or anyone else has), in terms of fundamental handling behaviour what are the big differences that makes the E30 M3 leagues better?

Yes I have but I've owned an even better car for that comparison, a 320is! (I'm in Portugal). So e30 chassis with S14 engine in it... IT's LIKE CHEESE AND CHALK! The steering is number and has less turn-in but most of all is twitchier and less refined in terms of handling. More difficult to drive at the limit and I can add to discussion that there was a 320is championship here in Portugal back when they were new with a Schnitzer sorted suspension and guess what the complaint was...? you guessed it: The twitchy handling at the limit of adhesion. Here's a couple of links w/ some interesting footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yo7xyzjcZw&NR=...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS1GlebANgY

Mind you, I know most of the racers that raced these cars and I even sold one of those cars to Mallorca where it's raced today. So my assessment is based in pretty solid information.

Edited by kiko on Monday 16th February 12:18

First off, I love the footage. That looks like a fun circuit. I don't want to complicate the discussion by bringing racing discussion to the debate. I would like to focus on road cars, M3 included. The only E30 I have ever driven that was twitchy had terrible tyres, the handling went from twitchy to very predictable once they were changed. So my opinion of the E30 is that it has very predictable handling, with great turn-in and easy throttle adjustability. I agree that the standard E30 has inferior steering feel and a slower ratio to the M3, but steering feel doesn't have an influence on the basic handling of the car. In what respect is a standard E30 road car (on good tyres) twitchy at the limit?

[motheatenhound]

I think you should start a seperate topic mate.

I hate M3's does anyone else!

all you have done is hijack a post about someones pride and joy and compared it to a 318is. If the 318is is so good i think i might sell my m3 buy a 318 is and pocket the 16k difference.

how many touring car races did a e30 win compared to the m3 in all formats??

[e..uncle..hello]

yeah! thats right punk... answer that.

[derin100]

e..uncle..hello said:

yeah! thats right punk... answer that.

Although...having said that...

Once..many years ago...I was in my E30 M3 and my friend was behind me (on some twisty bits on a road in Scotland) in his E30 318is...and it was actually very difficult to leave him that far behind! The 318is is seriously under-rated car IMHO. If there were any decent low mileage ones still around I'd seriously think about having one for Sunday morning fun! Unfortunately there now seems to be a paucity of such cars.

(Remember this day Gary? Before your Sport EVO days... Nearly 7 years ago my friend! (no...just re-calculated...more like 8-9 years ago... I thought Stevie looked a lot slimmer and younger in some of the photos that he looks now......then I looked at recent pics of me and that wiped the smirk off my face big time! )

http://www.bmwclassics.co.uk/picsvarious/PICT0001....

This picture was actually taken about 20 minutes before I was struggling to get away from the 318is!

Edited by derin100 on Wednesday 25th February 03:03

[Miguel]

Well-written article on a great classic, but

Article said:

Displacement had grown from 2.3-litres to 2,467cc thanks to an increase in bore from 84mm to 95mm and a long-stroke crank.

No, there was not a bore increase of 11mm! The bore was increased from 93.4mm to 95mm, whereas the stroke grew from 84mm to 87mm.

Miguel