e92 m3...best car ever?

e92 m3...best car ever?

Author
Discussion

cerb4.5lee

30,042 posts

179 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
toasty said:
But for a fast all rounder available second hand for 25-30k, what are the alternatives?

C63? Lovely sound, less nimble, auto box.
RS4? Quick all weather. Uninvolving. Costly to maintain.
997.1? More sporty, less practical, bore scoring issues.
XKR/XFR? Very quick but floaty, no rear leg room in XKR.
Monaro? Bigger engine, thirstier. 'Only' a Vauxhall.
M5? Faster but heavier.
Even though I didn't get on with mine I can appreciate why so many do love it in the £25-30k bracket though, in my case I went from the two car set up(daily and nice weekender) to the M3 so its flaws to me came very easily, but as you say when you compare its alternatives it is hard to criticise it because it does arguably have the edge on all its rivals.

I would have gone C63 if it was offered with a manual, I respect the RS4 but prefer RWD, 911 is a nice car but I would want a fast one so out of budget, I am not old enough yet for the Jag, like the idea of a Monaro but never owned a Vauxhall, love M5`s but as you state they carry plenty of weight.

In fairness I can see why plenty love the E92 M3 as a do it all motor and I am struggling to come up with a viable alternative.

popeyewhite

19,521 posts

119 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
£25 - £30k = E63 V8 or M5

cosworth330

1,299 posts

236 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
Can't comment on driving an E90 M3 as its one model I've never owned. Although I prefer the look of the saloon M3 to the coupe or convertible the E90/92 shape has never really appealed to me looks wise. My M history, E36 M3,E36 M3 Evo,E39 M5, E60 M5. I tend to keep my cars 4 or 5 years before changing. Personally I think the E46 M3 was a cracking looking car and the F80 M3 is even better but I don't have so much love for the E90/92 M3.

toasty

7,431 posts

219 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
popeyewhite said:
£25 - £30k = E63 V8 or M5
Both lovely cars, I'd certainly consider both for the next car but bigger and heavier, less nimble/fun than the M3?

popeyewhite

19,521 posts

119 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
toasty said:
popeyewhite said:
£25 - £30k = E63 V8 or M5
Both lovely cars, I'd certainly consider both for the next car but bigger and heavier, less nimble/fun than the M3?
Definitely less nimble. In the AMG you get an amazing V8 and in the M a manic V10 - basically you'd sacrifice some nimbleness for far more character, power and comfort. Worked for me, but then I'm no spring chicken and have done the Subaru - Evo - M3 - 911 thing.

bigtime

513 posts

138 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
popeyewhite said:
Both the RS5 and C63 are half a second quicker to 60 and have more torque. You want a with a high revving engine that suits a track better than the road? That's an E92 M3. Best car ever? Not by a margin.
I am not going to argue on the internet but the manufacturers 0-60 times were lower in the M3 dct than the RS5, don't know about the amg. I only know this as a friend bought his RS5 around the same time as me. The RS5 is quicker 0-60 than the manual M3 though.

bigtime

513 posts

138 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
toasty said:
For those that had an M3 and didn't like it, I'm genuinely interested to know what they found that was better.

If it's 2 cars, one for every day and one for fun, I'd understand as I might do the same if I had the space.

If you bought the M3 new or nearly new, then you're looking in a different price bracket to me and I could see other options in the £30-60k bracket.

But for a fast all rounder available second hand for 25-30k, what are the alternatives?

C63? Lovely sound, less nimble, auto box.
RS4? Quick all weather. Uninvolving. Costly to maintain.
997.1? More sporty, less practical, bore scoring issues.
XKR/XFR? Very quick but floaty, no rear leg room in XKR.
Monaro? Bigger engine, thirstier. 'Only' a Vauxhall.
M5? Faster but heavier.
I agree. People whinge about the fact you have to rev it which is good isn't it? BMW can't win as people are whinging about the F series going turbo charged so there's no point in revving it out and due to all the torque low down traction is easily broken.

popeyewhite

19,521 posts

119 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
bigtime said:
I am not going to argue on the internet
Figures from here: http://www.zeroto60times.com/

jayemm89

3,990 posts

129 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
bigtime said:
I agree. People whinge about the fact you have to rev it which is good isn't it? BMW can't win as people are whinging about the F series going turbo charged so there's no point in revving it out and due to all the torque low down traction is easily broken.
Yeah, you're never going to win really. Big torquey motor, will give you instant gratification but they're often disappointing when you come to rev them out. Give people a rev-happy engine and they're always going to complain that it doesn't have any guts.

The best performance mod for any car is to rent a transit van for two days. Drive that everywhere, get back in your car and suddenly it'll feel like a Saturn 5 rocket has been stuffed under the hood.

api330

673 posts

199 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
I don't get why every one is mad on torque, Is It because you have been reading lots on car mags going on about new turbo engines with lots of torque, Turbo cars have been about for years with loads of torque and lag and not revving very high and I have had my fair share scoobys, evo's various rs fords, I know new turbo's are better now with loads less lag and if that's your thing great and as I say I have had my fair share, But I just love revving mine though to 8,000 rpm and flicking paddle or lever and instantly hitting the next gear though all seven gears on the German roads or pushing hard in a few gears then sort shifting though rest of gears in England It sounds and feels great, Then when you had some fun put it in comfort mode and auto and have a nice relaxing drive home, As for the merc great car but you talk about M3 looking like standard bmw the merc looks like local taxi to the untrained eye,

bigtime

513 posts

138 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
popeyewhite said:
Figures from here: http://www.zeroto60times.com/
Yes they are nonsense on that website. A 2008 m3 can't to 0-60 in 4.0 and the 2011 can't do 3.9. I was using manufacturers figures and I think (don't quote me) the RS5 was 4.5 and the m3 4.6 manual and 4.2 dct so nothing in it really but the RS5 is not faster.

bennyboysvuk

3,491 posts

247 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
toasty said:
But for a fast all rounder available second hand for 25-30k, what are the alternatives?

C63? Lovely sound, less nimble, auto box.
RS4? Quick all weather. Uninvolving. Costly to maintain.
997.1? More sporty, less practical, bore scoring issues.
XKR/XFR? Very quick but floaty, no rear leg room in XKR.
Monaro? Bigger engine, thirstier. 'Only' a Vauxhall.
M5? Faster but heavier.
If you consider that the E90 M3 is a four door and can be had as a manual then there are even fewer alternatives. As an off the shelf solution, I don't think it's bad. I'd much rather have a 4 door E46 M3, but they never made one.

IMO different drivers want different levels of aggression and comfort and depending on the driver, you'll be more or less impressed by the E92 M3. I'm certainly more on the track-driver side of the fence and so find the E92 a bit tame (and my M135i even more so).

api330

673 posts

199 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
bigtime said:
Yes they are nonsense on that website. A 2008 m3 can't to 0-60 in 4.0 and the 2011 can't do 3.9. I was using manufacturers figures and I think (don't quote me) the RS5 was 4.5 and the m3 4.6 manual and 4.2 dct so nothing in it really but the RS5 is not faster.
There are several independent mags out there that have a comp pack dct M3 at 3.9 seconds to 60, I think evo was one that timed one at that,


Edited by api330 on Tuesday 19th January 12:52

daz05

2,900 posts

194 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
The E46 isn't all that different to the E92, very similar cars, both are refined, E92 slightly more grown up but definitely more competent, most people that have owned both for extended periods seem to agree. You can't really say you like one and hate the other.

The alternative was the Z4m, a little bit more of an event behind the wheel perhaps but a compromised chassis.

pjv997

648 posts

181 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
Torque is a relative thing and I have often said on here that you don't need to wring the neck of an E9X M3. I had my E90 manual for three years and found that I could make very rapid progress on the road without going beyond 5,000 rpm.

The fact that there was nearly 3,500 revs still to play with shows what a gem of an engine it has. My current F10 M5 is a brilliant all round car with huge torque low down and wharp speed acceleration, but in all honesty, is not as fun to drive on the road as my old E90 M3.

popeyewhite

19,521 posts

119 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
api330 said:
bigtime said:
Yes they are nonsense on that website. A 2008 m3 can't to 0-60 in 4.0 and the 2011 can't do 3.9. I was using manufacturers figures and I think (don't quote me) the RS5 was 4.5 and the m3 4.6 manual and 4.2 dct so nothing in it really but the RS5 is not faster.
There are several independent mags out there that have a comp pack dct M3 at 3.9 seconds to 60, I think evo was one that timed one at that,


Edited by api330 on Tuesday 19th January 12:52
Comp pack is only allowed against A C63s which is 3.9 (Evo) and quicker to 100.

Incidentally EVO tested the standard E92 against the standard C63 and the C63 was quicker both to 60 and 100. The BMW won the test overall "In short, the M3 saloon is sharper, cuts deeper and will keep you hooked for longer." http://www.evo.co.uk/bmw/3-series/14170/mercedes-b...

bigtime

513 posts

138 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
api330 said:
There are several independent mags out there that have a comp pack dct M3 at 3.9 seconds to 60, I think evo was one that timed one at that,


Edited by api330 on Tuesday 19th January 12:52
To keep things equal I always use manufacturers 0-60 times. I am sure if I tried hard enough I could find a M3 5 second 0-60 time if I wanted. Anyway 0-60 is rarely used anyway day to day and if this is of priority I wouldn't be looking at an M car which is a great all rounder.

cerb4.5lee

30,042 posts

179 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
api330 said:
I don't get why every one is mad on torque, Is It because you have been reading lots on car mags going on about new turbo engines with lots of torque, Turbo cars have been about for years with loads of torque and lag and not revving very high
I think some of it is what you are used to and I had experienced a E90 330d for six years and also a TVR Cerbera for six years prior to me getting hold of a E92 M3, so from my point of view the M3 was always going to feel gutless low down compared to both of the cars I was used to.

The V8 M3 goes like the clappers after 6k revs but I also thought my Z4M was gutless low down as well purely because of what I was used to, my favourite car has been my stage one tuned 200SX and I loved everything about that and maybe these high rev engines just aren't my bag I suppose.

My Cerbera only revved to 7500rpm and it never felt wanting low down like the M3 and Z4M do, so you do pay a price for the high rev nature of the S54/S65 engines.


daz05

2,900 posts

194 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
I think some of it is what you are used to and I had experienced a E90 330d for six years and also a TVR Cerbera for six years prior to me getting hold of a E92 M3, so from my point of view the M3 was always going to feel gutless low down compared to both of the cars I was used to.

The V8 M3 goes like the clappers after 6k revs but I also thought my Z4M was gutless low down as well purely because of what I was used to, my favourite car has been my stage one tuned 200SX and I loved everything about that and maybe these high rev engines just aren't my bag I suppose.

My Cerbera only revved to 7500rpm and it never felt wanting low down like the M3 and Z4M do, so you do pay a price for the high rev nature of the S54/S65 engines.
I suspect there would be very little in it between the 330d and an m3 at low rpm, the 330d will just feel like its making better progress.

cerb4.5lee

30,042 posts

179 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
daz05 said:
I suspect there would be very little in it between the 330d and an m3 at low rpm, the 330d will just feel like its making better progress.
Yes I think you are right and its the perception or feeling that the 330d gives you which makes it actually feel quicker than it actually really is.

When I had some fun with a X3 35d in my M3 that certainly shot off and went quickly initially and it made me work really hard to catch it though.