E36 M3....are they still fast?

[StottyZr]

Vladimir said:

StottyZr said:

DPF delete as well as a remap, DXB would be proud

With 204hp 1/4 is 15.2, should be doing ~14 now.

That does sound a tad optimistic. A standard 335d hits 100 in mid 13s (13.3 is the quickest I've seen) and does a 1/4 in a nadge under 14s (again that is the best time) and very few run less than 300bhp. They weigh a bit more but not a lot more.

A remapped 335d can almost dip into a 13s quarter if driven very, very well. But not quite.

The famous DXB may not have made friends here but he has proper evidence of blasting off E36 M3s and E46 M3s in his remapped Starship Enterprise. Not seen the evidence but him and a few other owners claim that even as standard they will seriously scare an E46 and pull away from an E36 M3.

And the power band of these bi-turbo BMW diesels is about 1500-(just under) 5000rpm. About the same or better than many petrols but lower down the rev range.

even the smaller diesel bi-turbo's can't keep up with the amazing M car destroying 335ds then.


That was done by a 230hp 120d minus its interior. Best of 3 runs and the guy wasn't exactly a professional driver.

[2thumbs]

s m said:

2thumbs said:

flatline84 said:

Have people owned both the e36 and the E30? How do they compare

Now this I would be very interested in. All the talk about the E36 'not being a real M' & 'not a patch on the E30'. It would be nice to have some actual comparison.

Any takers?

Whenever mags do tests of the M3s alongside each other,people seem to prefer the E30 to the E36 ( unless you're a racing driver like Steve Soper ). E46 CSLs usually get a good review though.
EVO mag and Top Gear mag ( not to mention the dedicated Marque mags ) seem to run a comparison like this every couple of years

I can understand the preference, the older original car is always going to be the favourite. What I'd like to know is just how big a gap there is between them. Is it really night & day as some would have you believe?

It'd be nice to drive one one day, but I can't see that ever happening!

[TOENHEEL]

I looked at a E36 M3 3.0 to turn into a track car, it had 145,000 miles on the clock and apart from a suspension and bushes overhaul and a new bearing in the alternator it was great. It pulled like a train just felt very loose and not very confidence inspiring on the back end but would of been easily sorted.

Theres no doubt they are great cars it's such a shame however that many have fallen into the wrong hands and haven't had the treatment they deserve.

Love the E36 M3 GT..

[paulmon]

redgriff500 said:

You really are utterly clueless aren't you.

Applause for saying what I was thinking.

[s m]

2thumbs said:

I can understand the preference, the older original car is always going to be the favourite. What I'd like to know is just how big a gap there is between them. Is it really night & day as some would have you believe?

It'd be nice to drive one one day, but I can't see that ever happening!

Have you seen the old Autocar article comparing a Sport EVO vs a 3 litre E36? It was a sizeable gap round Goodwood track - the journo preferred the E30, Steve Soper the E36 ( or the M5 )

http://www.originalm3.info/?p=517

[2thumbs]

s m said:

2thumbs said:

I can understand the preference, the older original car is always going to be the favourite. What I'd like to know is just how big a gap there is between them. Is it really night & day as some would have you believe?

It'd be nice to drive one one day, but I can't see that ever happening!

Have you seen the old Autocar article comparing a Sport EVO vs a 3 litre E36? It was a sizeable gap round Goodwood track - the journo preferred the E30, Steve Soper the E36 ( or the M5 )

http://www.originalm3.info/?p=517

No, I'd not seen that Thanks.

[SuperVM]

doogz said:

crosseyedlion said:

Ontop of the shocking bodywork, I'd be mostly worried about the horrendous geometry that seems to be going on there....and the incorrect front tyre size. It looks like an accident damaged car thats ultra low budget repair hasn't been quite finished.

Maybe it's just the angle of the pictures or something, but it looks like there's a bit of positive camber and toe in going on at the back end?

It looks to me like the sill cover on the driver's side doesn't fit properly anymore. I wonder if under it there's a nice bent sill.

[chippy17]

2thumbs said:

flatline84 said:

Have people owned both the e36 and the E30? How do they compare

Now this I would be very interested in. All the talk about the E36 'not being a real M' & 'not a patch on the E30'. It would be nice to have some actual comparison.

Any takers?

oohhh tricky one, I owned an M3 Cecotto for 5 glorious years and replaced it with a 3.0 M3 about 4 years ago

problem for me is the Cecotto was a very cherished toy that was only driven on weekends etc and the 3.0 has been my everyday car so difficult for me to compare in one sense as the Cecotto was always an event for this reason, if I had driven the E30 everyday I may have formed a different opinion

short and cliched answer:

E36: faster, more everyday car, more GT perhaps, fab engine yes the evo is quicker but having driven both I love the organic feel of the 3.0, and as Mr Harris put it; tough as old boots. Great car but have not fallen in love with it

E30: you really can feel the racer inside just felt more 'special' from the dogleg box to the altered roof line etc etc, absolutely adored it and miss it terribly even if it was a bit slow and old

not a great post but I am no writer!

[Ferosferio]

Wouldn't normally post a response without reading all comments but I got to page 3 or 4 and got bored of reading futile attempts to compare a FWD diesel hatch (or any other diesel for that matter) to a RWD, straight 6 M car. Yes, the lazy, lowdown delivery of a torque-laden engine will suit many people over the rev-happy nature of an NA I6 but to compare the two types in straight line speed terms is missing the point.

Just to add my tuppence-worth (as I used to own one), they're fantastic cars (apart from the 'Vaders') and a good proposition given today's prices. Vanos issues are over-hyped but it does pay to be wary when buying.

I'm going to be back in the hunt for a car of this ilk in the coming 12 months and I'll definitely be looking at E36 M3s in the classifieds. As long as I can find replacements for those Vaders...

[fushion julz]

2thumbs said:

I can understand the preference, the older original car is always going to be the favourite. What I'd like to know is just how big a gap there is between them. Is it really night & day as some would have you believe?

It'd be nice to drive one one day, but I can't see that ever happening!

I own an E30 M3 (and an E36 328i) and I've driven both E36 M3 varients...

Yes, the E36 is more powerful and faster down the drag strip...However, over a road (or circuit) the E30 will keep up with a standard E36 and will be more fun and involving whilst doing it.

Even in full race trim a well developed E30 M3 can be a race winner against a whole field of E36 M3s...As seen in the Kumho BMW championship only a couple of years ago...Granted the E30 was one of the best available, but there were a fair few expensivily prepared E36s (and the odd E46) on the grids, too...

The E30 is just so easy to drive right up to the limit...it is a beautifully balanced and feelsome chassis, it is light (approx 1200kg in standard trim) and with 200+ bhp from a decent S14 4pot motor it just doesn't feel slow...

If you're expecting to be able to outdrag the latest turbo hatches (petrol or diesel) then you will be disappointed with either the E30 or E36 M3...but come to the twisty bits and the other cars will be disappearing in your mirrors and, if they attempt to keep up, probably disappearing into the hedges, too.

If you want more involvment from the E36 then there are plenty of (fairly cheap) suspension upgrades that will help.

To the OP:
Just as an extra spoiler, though...
If you are still considering an E36 M3 have a look also at E34 M5s...they are more special to drive and just as quick...The 3.6 versions are cheap enough, produce 315bhp reliably, have more space inside are proper hand-built cars and are a lot rarer than an e36 M3...If you can find a decent 3.8 version without the adaptive damping, these are even better and will be a true classic/collectors item with only 340 RHD ones made (that is less than any E30 M3 model other than the Europameister)

[k15tox]

Pedmeister said:

Absolutely. The E36 M3 was not a patch on the original E30 M3 in terms of sheer driving pleasure/experience. The E30 M3 was a fully focused driver's car. The E36 was not the same type of animal at all, despite it being faster & more powerful.

Thats always the case as time progresses and technology moves on, things get more complicated and less simple...usually hampering the driving experience.

Ek9-EP3-FN.
E39-E60-Current M5.
R32-R33-R34-R35

To name a few.

But i'd still regard the the E36 as a decent M-Car.

[Eighteeteewhy]

e21Mark said:

Are there any factory options to those bloody awful Vadar seats though? They look ghastly imo.

Change them for the Cab seats, much nicer.

[TEKNOPUG]

There really is no comparison between the cars; they are just too different to even bother choosing which is best.

One has between 190-230bhp 2.3 I4 and weighs 1300kg and the other has between 290-320bhp 3/3.2 I6 and weighs 1460kg.

They are very different cars. You're comparing apples with pears.

Better to compare the E36 to the E28 & E34 M5s or E46 M3 as they at least share some similarities other than a name.

[10 Pence Short]

It's a circa 1450kg car with circa 300bhp. Of course it's fast. I'd say it's in the top 5% of cars currently on the road in terms of power to weight.

[Sub5s]

8 pages - one simple answer: Yes!


Just to add my "slightly biased" opinion:

It'll still be faster than 90% of the cars you'll come across on the road and it will very, VERY easily take you to license endangering speeds. Even if you're cruising, it's constantly pushing you to go just a little bit faster.

And don't listen to the Diesel brigade. They might pull away faster, but you'll zip past them, shooting out of their massive black wall of smoke, as soon as they run out of puff at 3500 rpm!
The Evo is quite torquey with the full torque available from as low as 2500 rpms - I tend to drive the car around town in 5th gear without any problems - at road legal speeds of course!

The sound of that straight 6 with ITBs at full chat still gets me smiling after 2 years of ownership.

Just make sure you budget about £2-3k a year for maintenance, oil changes and other bits and bobs. Get a car with lots of service history. Things can add up and become expensive if not done in time.

I tend to change my cars every 6-12 months, but I could never get rid of the M3. Timeless lines on the outside, massive poke under the bonnet and the interior is still a nice place to be. A well aged car.

The only downside is that you've got the most overused mirrors on the planet fitted as standard on your car, although I tend to think that it must be kind of embarrassing for the owner of the Saxo/Corsa/*enter generic tuning car here* to be passed by the original!

[Cheburator mk2]

k15tox said:

Thats always the case as time progresses and technology moves on, things get more complicated and less simple...usually hampering the driving experience.

E39-E60-Current M5.
To name a few.

But i'd still regard the the E36 as a decent M-Car.

Only a man who has never driven an E39 and an E60 can say this... The E60 M5 is a much purer car to drive than the E39. It has better handling, better steering, better brakes and a much, much better engine. The E60 M5 is much closer to the E34 in its rawness and character, which eggs you on to drive it at 10/10 all the time. The E39 is much closer to the F10 - lazy power delivery, insulated chasis etc...

[k15tox]

Cheburator mk2 said:

Only a man who has never driven an E39 and an E60 can say this... The E60 M5 is a much purer car to drive than the E39. It has better handling, better steering, better brakes and a much, much better engine. The E60 M5 is much closer to the E34 in its rawness and character, which eggs you on to drive it at 10/10 all the time. The E39 is much closer to the F10 - lazy power delivery, insulated chasis etc...

Fair point.

But doesnt it have many driving modes and not to mention a SMG box?

I agree the engine is a peach but the E39's is hardly lacking.

Although it may be faster, doesnt mean its the more involving ride.

However i have never driven either so my comments are not truly valid!

But can you see where i'm coming from?

[Cheburator mk2]

k15tox said:

Fair point.

But doesnt it have many driving modes and not to mention a SMG box?

I agree the engine is a peach but the E39's is hardly lacking.

Although it may be faster, doesnt mean its the more involving ride.

However i have never driven either so my comments are not truly valid!

But can you see where i'm coming from?

I do and generally agree with you. Just that the E60 vs E39 was the wrong one to pick as an example. I have an E61 M5 and drove/tracked my best man's E39 Nowack N500, thus I think I am suitably qualified to comment. I also extensively test drove the new F10 and there you comment makes a perfect sense. Great car, but not one if you are looking for old school ///M thrills in my opinion as it is too grown up.

[rallycross]

2thumbs said:

s m said:

2thumbs said:

I can understand the preference, the older original car is always going to be the favourite. What I'd like to know is just how big a gap there is between them. Is it really night & day as some would have you believe?

It'd be nice to drive one one day, but I can't see that ever happening!

Have you seen the old Autocar article comparing a Sport EVO vs a 3 litre E36? It was a sizeable gap round Goodwood track - the journo preferred the E30, Steve Soper the E36 ( or the M5 )

http://www.originalm3.info/?p=517

No, I'd not seen that Thanks.

For a lap time comparison - the E36 will lap much, much quicker.

When the E36 M3 3.0 first came out they entered one in that years Willhire 24 hour production saloon race at Snetterton, in the mid nineties, a race series where the E30 M3 was king of its class (and often outright).

The E36 was entered by a top team who had previously always used E30 M3's in prodcution saloons.

After a couple of hours running the newer shape car was lapping so much quicker than the front running E30 M3's that it had already lapped them, so they are clearly much quicker.

I had an E30 M3 before my E36's and I much preferred the newer cars.

[s m]

rallycross said:

2thumbs said:

s m said:

2thumbs said:

I can understand the preference, the older original car is always going to be the favourite. What I'd like to know is just how big a gap there is between them. Is it really night & day as some would have you believe?

It'd be nice to drive one one day, but I can't see that ever happening!

Have you seen the old Autocar article comparing a Sport EVO vs a 3 litre E36? It was a sizeable gap round Goodwood track - the journo preferred the E30, Steve Soper the E36 ( or the M5 )

http://www.originalm3.info/?p=517

No, I'd not seen that Thanks.

For a lap time comparison - the E36 will lap much, much quicker.

3 and a half seconds quicker on a 90 second lap of Goodwood according to that article