BMW E46 M3, what is it to you, iconic, overrated, epic etc.?
Discussion
e30m3Mark said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I was only used to a slightly modified 200sx when I had a go in one and it left me flat aswell. The kerbweight of the M3 and the fact they only come alive at very high revs I think didn't help.
Much like the S14, the S52 is a high revving engine and designed to be worked hard. People used to criticise the S14 for displaying the same characteristics and called the E30 M3 slow. It actually came down to the fact they simply weren't driving it as you need to. I'm not saying that to offend. I know of E30 M3 owners who never even came close to using the full potential of their car because they drove it like a 325i.Over the years I've realised that the high rev N/A engine doesn't really suit me(I didn't really get on with either my Z4M or E92 M3). I do understand the high regard in which the N/A M engines are held for sure
but they're not really my cup of tea(for the road at least). I think I must be a lazy driver at heart and I just can't be bothered revving an engine to death to get the rewards. The idea of a Honda VTEC N/A engine would bring me out in a cold sweat!
br d said:
I think the 0 - 100 mph of my M3 was about 12 seconds,
IIRC back in the day there were a number of cheaper performance cars that would equal or beat that time. I remember being unable to pull away from a 270 bhp Evo once. The thought of one of those with 400 bhp was too much temptation a few years later.popeyewhite said:
IIRC back in the day there were a number of cheaper performance cars that would equal or beat that time. I remember being unable to pull away from a 270 bhp Evo once. The thought of one of those with 400 bhp was too much temptation a few years later.
I remember a chap in a Megane RS running around 260bhp and he was pinned to my bumper in my E92 M3. I got chance to have a little chat with him, and he couldn't believe my M3 had 414bhp and I said to him that's what having a heavy car does for you! On paper I thought I would pull away easily from him, and before anyone says I was really high up the revs!! When a 2 Litre 4 pot turbo engine is keeping up with a 4 litre V8 you know its time to get rid!
cerb4.5lee said:
I remember a chap in a Megane RS running around 260bhp and he was pinned to my bumper in my E92 M3. I got chance to have a little chat with him, and he couldn't believe my M3 had 414bhp and I said to him that's what having a heavy car does for you!
On paper I thought I would pull away easily from him, and before anyone says I was really high up the revs!! When a 2 Litre 4 pot turbo engine is keeping up with a 4 litre V8 you know its time to get rid!
On paper I thought I would pull away easily from him, and before anyone says I was really high up the revs!! When a 2 Litre 4 pot turbo engine is keeping up with a 4 litre V8 you know its time to get rid!
For sure.Superb cars. Probably the best car ive ever owned. Loved my one and stupidly sold it last summer in a fit of madness. My carbon black manual face lift M3, had been fitted with a CSL steering rack, which is probably the best mod one can do. It was a two owner car, on 179,000 miles, used no oil and ran perfectly.
They are too heavy though, the front seats are like boat anchors and like wise the rear seats ( i took the rear seats out and the difference was very noticeable.
The OE Sachs shocks are poor, the new fronts i had fitted went off after just 12,000 miles. I had intended on fitting Konis all round.
The Conti M3 tyres were epic, but tram lined badly. I fitted the new Conti 6s to the front and that almost eliminated the tram lining. Superb tires.
I never liked the heater controls. Or the sun roof ( if i buy another, it will be non sunroof )
They arent a sprint / 0-60 car, 1560 odd kgs and first gear is too short and the change is slow, however once into third, they really get moving.
However, the thing i Do not miss, is putting petrol in it!
They are too heavy though, the front seats are like boat anchors and like wise the rear seats ( i took the rear seats out and the difference was very noticeable.
The OE Sachs shocks are poor, the new fronts i had fitted went off after just 12,000 miles. I had intended on fitting Konis all round.
The Conti M3 tyres were epic, but tram lined badly. I fitted the new Conti 6s to the front and that almost eliminated the tram lining. Superb tires.
I never liked the heater controls. Or the sun roof ( if i buy another, it will be non sunroof )
They arent a sprint / 0-60 car, 1560 odd kgs and first gear is too short and the change is slow, however once into third, they really get moving.
However, the thing i Do not miss, is putting petrol in it!
cerb4.5lee said:
Over the years I've realised that the high rev N/A engine doesn't really suit me(I didn't really get on with either my Z4M or E92 M3). I do understand the high regard in which the N/A M engines are held for sure but they're not really my cup of tea(for the road at least).
I think I must be a lazy driver at heart and I just can't be bothered revving an engine to death to get the rewards. The idea of a Honda VTEC N/A engine would bring me out in a cold sweat!
I don't think you're alone in that respect. Changing gear at 8.5k revs instead of 4.5 - 5k revs takes some getting used too and people prefer a wave of torque from low in the rev range. N/A twin cam are an acquired taste I guess? but they're not really my cup of tea(for the road at least). I think I must be a lazy driver at heart and I just can't be bothered revving an engine to death to get the rewards. The idea of a Honda VTEC N/A engine would bring me out in a cold sweat!
I imagine that's one of the main reasons the new generation of M cars (combined with emissions legislation) are 6 cylinder turbo and high revving, N/A twin cam are a thing of the past? Sadly.cerb4.5lee said:
I think I must be a lazy driver at heart and I just can't be bothered revving an engine to death to get the rewards. The idea of a Honda VTEC N/A engine would bring me out in a cold sweat!
I think you are. My first 'sports car' was an ITR which you had to bounce off the 9k RPM limiter. I find the double-VANOS power-band on the E92 M3 almost luxurious. As long the gear-shift is sweet (or suitably quick DCT) then it's no hardship. I guess the E46 fits into this ethos of driver involvement - but it's hero status can be attributed to it being the last in a line of straight sixes - the E92 is better and will become just as iconic in time.I owned multiple E46 models with different engine types (including the 300Ci) during the manufacturing period, and the M3 had more response and low down grunt than all of them. Even today, my daily driver has the AMG 6.2 V8 with a torque converter auto (easier to get moving briskly from low speeds) and getting out of that and into my E46 M3 doesn't make me think "I wish this had more torque".
derin100 said:
Sorry, but I have to disagree! They do not feel like a "totally different car" at all!
And you also mention "lap-times" which is part of my point! The vast majority of either (M3s or CSLs) never see a track and even if they do the vast majority of drivers couldn't do justice to either anyway. For the most part it's just macho-posturing and dreaming IMHO>
Think you are being very unfair to M3 owners there. I'd argue an E46 M3 is 'ring weapon of choice. The whole point of them is that they have good chassis balance and now spiky turbos to worry about. And you also mention "lap-times" which is part of my point! The vast majority of either (M3s or CSLs) never see a track and even if they do the vast majority of drivers couldn't do justice to either anyway. For the most part it's just macho-posturing and dreaming IMHO>
There are plenty of CSL owners that have owned or still own faster cars and still have a CSL in the garage, which is clearly telling when you consider they are up to 6x more than a regular M3. For me, they're worth it.
My bro has one and it's a great all round car.
It wasn't until we did a track day at Bedford that I realised what they are truly about. They are very balanced, the engine screams and pulls in every gear and they are great handling machines. They're good on the road, but really come alive on track.
It wasn't until we did a track day at Bedford that I realised what they are truly about. They are very balanced, the engine screams and pulls in every gear and they are great handling machines. They're good on the road, but really come alive on track.
cerb4.5lee said:
I think my 200sx spoilt me more than I realised at the time in fairness, and then I went into my TVR which had a really strong power to weight ratio so it always felt quick.
Over the years I've realised that the high rev N/A engine doesn't really suit me(I didn't really get on with either my Z4M or E92 M3). I do understand the high regard in which the N/A M engines are held for sure but they're not really my cup of tea(for the road at least).
I think I must be a lazy driver at heart and I just can't be bothered revving an engine to death to get the rewards. The idea of a Honda VTEC N/A engine would bring me out in a cold sweat!
I have to say you have an amazing taste in cars Over the years I've realised that the high rev N/A engine doesn't really suit me(I didn't really get on with either my Z4M or E92 M3). I do understand the high regard in which the N/A M engines are held for sure
but they're not really my cup of tea(for the road at least). I think I must be a lazy driver at heart and I just can't be bothered revving an engine to death to get the rewards. The idea of a Honda VTEC N/A engine would bring me out in a cold sweat!
I similarly went from 200sx --> (S2000) --> TVR Cerbera --> E92 M3
I too feel the 200SX spoilt me even with 'just' 280bhp.. it was light (compared to metal 10 years younger), had a huge midrange punch. At the time I remember having some fun with an e39 M5 and it not getting away from me. At the time I just assumed he wasn't going for it, but the more I think about it, I think he was. To the point where I jump into cars that people rave on about being fast and I think.. "no its not"..
The E92 is faster at the top end no doubt.. but the 200 would surge forward in any gear and any speed as long as you were above 2krpm. The Cerbera only really managed to do the same (in a faster more instant way) because it was light.
6:57. Just 10 secs slower than the Pagani Zonda R. I know the M3 is supercharged but that's still pretty impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c71kqgM92ek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c71kqgM92ek
tejr said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I think my 200sx spoilt me more than I realised at the time in fairness, and then I went into my TVR which had a really strong power to weight ratio so it always felt quick.
Over the years I've realised that the high rev N/A engine doesn't really suit me(I didn't really get on with either my Z4M or E92 M3). I do understand the high regard in which the N/A M engines are held for sure but they're not really my cup of tea(for the road at least).
I think I must be a lazy driver at heart and I just can't be bothered revving an engine to death to get the rewards. The idea of a Honda VTEC N/A engine would bring me out in a cold sweat!
I have to say you have an amazing taste in cars Over the years I've realised that the high rev N/A engine doesn't really suit me(I didn't really get on with either my Z4M or E92 M3). I do understand the high regard in which the N/A M engines are held for sure
but they're not really my cup of tea(for the road at least). I think I must be a lazy driver at heart and I just can't be bothered revving an engine to death to get the rewards. The idea of a Honda VTEC N/A engine would bring me out in a cold sweat!
I similarly went from 200sx --> (S2000) --> TVR Cerbera --> E92 M3
I too feel the 200SX spoilt me even with 'just' 280bhp.. it was light (compared to metal 10 years younger), had a huge midrange punch. At the time I remember having some fun with an e39 M5 and it not getting away from me. At the time I just assumed he wasn't going for it, but the more I think about it, I think he was. To the point where I jump into cars that people rave on about being fast and I think.. "no its not"..
The E92 is faster at the top end no doubt.. but the 200 would surge forward in any gear and any speed as long as you were above 2krpm. The Cerbera only really managed to do the same (in a faster more instant way) because it was light.
popeyewhite said:
Limpet said:
Only ever had a couple of fast passenger rides in them, but I've been impressed both times. That engine is a masterpiece.
I disagree but anyway you can tell that yet you've never driven one?matthias73 said:
popeyewhite said:
Limpet said:
Only ever had a couple of fast passenger rides in them, but I've been impressed both times. That engine is a masterpiece.
I disagree but anyway you can tell that yet you've never driven one?Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff