E46 M3 and E46 330ci-not that different at all really
Discussion
I test drove an '06 M3 last week and I have to say I was left somewhat disappointed by the experience. I expected it to be drastically different in character to the E46 330 but it isn't and whisper it, the 3.0 engine is probably better imo.
LJK Setright hit the nail on the head when he said the best engines are the ones where torque and power outputs are about the same; the linear surge of the 330 is barely any different to the fizz-pop of the M3 in the out right "feel" of speed. Unless you're in a constant state of hoonage, the 330 gives you 9.5/10ths of the performance.
Not only that, could the M3 take the abuse the 3.0 litre could, day in, day out, and still return 25+ mpg? I've had 20,000 miles in one, and it never missed a beat. 400+ miles from a tank wasn't an oddity as well.
I've waited so long to buy an M3; I still have EVO's October 2000 issue with the first shots of the M, so now I'm in limbo. I loved the sound of it but the gear change was cumbersome and the car felt "delicate" compared to a run of the mill E46.
The M was in perfect condition btw, fully serviced, full of extras, and spotless throughout. I'm left scratching my head here; maybe another test drive is in order as I've gone off the idea of buying a 996 Porsche due to their reliability issues.
LJK Setright hit the nail on the head when he said the best engines are the ones where torque and power outputs are about the same; the linear surge of the 330 is barely any different to the fizz-pop of the M3 in the out right "feel" of speed. Unless you're in a constant state of hoonage, the 330 gives you 9.5/10ths of the performance.
Not only that, could the M3 take the abuse the 3.0 litre could, day in, day out, and still return 25+ mpg? I've had 20,000 miles in one, and it never missed a beat. 400+ miles from a tank wasn't an oddity as well.
I've waited so long to buy an M3; I still have EVO's October 2000 issue with the first shots of the M, so now I'm in limbo. I loved the sound of it but the gear change was cumbersome and the car felt "delicate" compared to a run of the mill E46.
The M was in perfect condition btw, fully serviced, full of extras, and spotless throughout. I'm left scratching my head here; maybe another test drive is in order as I've gone off the idea of buying a 996 Porsche due to their reliability issues.
I found the suspension setup to be the biggest difference.
The E46 M-Sport's suspension (assuming it's an M-Sport you're talking about) is a bit of a mess - too stiffly sprung and under-damped, so it feels floaty and crashy at the same time. The M3, for whatever reason, feels very much better resolved.
The M engine is much nicer too, though. IMO.
The E46 M-Sport's suspension (assuming it's an M-Sport you're talking about) is a bit of a mess - too stiffly sprung and under-damped, so it feels floaty and crashy at the same time. The M3, for whatever reason, feels very much better resolved.
The M engine is much nicer too, though. IMO.
daveco said:
LJK Setright hit the nail on the head when he said the best engines are the ones where torque and power outputs are about the same; the linear surge of the 330 is barely any different to the fizz-pop of the M3 in the out right "feel" of speed. Unless you're in a constant state of hoonage, the 330 gives you 9.5/10ths of the performance.
I still that holds today.Another of Setright's maxims was that the peach of any model range was often the one just below the halo model. Best compromise of torque and (accessible) power, slightly more compliant suspension and bushing, sightly narrower and more compliant tyres, etc all of which can create a sweeter-handling car than the one where the engineers have sacrificed some of the above in the pursuit of the ultimate lap time.
AC43 said:
daveco said:
LJK Setright hit the nail on the head when he said the best engines are the ones where torque and power outputs are about the same; the linear surge of the 330 is barely any different to the fizz-pop of the M3 in the out right "feel" of speed. Unless you're in a constant state of hoonage, the 330 gives you 9.5/10ths of the performance.
I still that holds today.Another of Setright's maxims was that the peach of any model range was often the one just below the halo model. Best compromise of torque and (accessible) power, slightly more compliant suspension and bushing, sightly narrower and more compliant tyres, etc all of which can create a sweeter-handling car than the one where the engineers have sacrificed some of the above in the pursuit of the ultimate lap time.
I'm not sure how people can say the M3 is 'miles' ahead of the 330, even from a driver's perspective, when the 330 offers more reliable and usable performance, better overall reliability, better fuel economy, and cheaper servicing (with a better gearbox). It is the more complete car.
The M3 wins hands down on noise but my only concern is it would not take the abuse the 330 has taken. I'd like to hear if anyone has driven the M3 as a daily car. I'm lucky in the sense my drive to and from work takes in a lot of near-empty roads where I can use a good bit of the performance of these cars.
daveco said:
Not only that, could the M3 take the abuse the 3.0 litre could, day in, day out, and still return 25+ mpg? I've had 20,000 miles in one, and it never missed a beat. 400+ miles from a tank wasn't an oddity as well.
Yes, averaged 26mpg in mine over a year and 15k miles and didn't miss a beat. Worth it for the noise and the m-diff alone.D15CO D4VE said:
Yes massive difference but that is from the way I drive and the way I like my cars to perform, if YOU think there isn't much difference you may be better off in a 330.
You might be right. I'm worried that close to four years of driving 325/330s with absolutely nothing going wrong will come to an abrupt end if I drive an M3 in the same way.daveco said:
You might be right. I'm worried that close to four years of driving 325/330s with absolutely nothing going wrong will come to an abrupt end if I drive an M3 in the same way.
The fact that fuel economy seems to be so high on your list, then the M3 is not for you, its a drivers car, with one of the best engines out there, and so rewarding when you are pushing on..Have you thought about the 330d, that would be miles better for you than the 330ci
markjo said:
daveco said:
You might be right. I'm worried that close to four years of driving 325/330s with absolutely nothing going wrong will come to an abrupt end if I drive an M3 in the same way.
The fact that fuel economy seems to be so high on your list, then the M3 is not for you, its a drivers car, with one of the best engines out there, and so rewarding when you are pushing on..Have you thought about the 330d, that would be miles better for you than the 330ci
I'm worried that an M3 won't take the abuse the 330 will
Crusoe said:
daveco said:
Not only that, could the M3 take the abuse the 3.0 litre could, day in, day out, and still return 25+ mpg? I've had 20,000 miles in one, and it never missed a beat. 400+ miles from a tank wasn't an oddity as well.
Yes, averaged 26mpg in mine over a year and 15k miles and didn't miss a beat. Worth it for the noise and the m-diff alone.Wow!
I had a manual M3 for a couple of years, put about 80k miles on it, averaged around 24-25mpg and loved it. I could do 4-5 car overtakes with ease, it sounded great and it was very comfy on the twisties and on the m-ways.
BUT, the only time I REALLY drove it, and this was a cross country dash just before I sold it, I realised what an epic car it was - the pick up out of a corner when you are using the full range of the engine was shocking, and I mean that in a good way! It slowed down quickly, changed direction just as I wanted it too then accelerated away from the corners impressively. Oh, I'd taken it to the rev-limiter before, but never really pushed the handling envelope until that day and it was the combination of power, braking and handling that makes it such a powerful road weapon. I still remember that day and the grin I had all the way through the drive.
The 330i will be NOWHERE close to that: it doesn't have the brakes, engine, diff or suspension to do it.
But hey, what do I know
I had a manual M3 for a couple of years, put about 80k miles on it, averaged around 24-25mpg and loved it. I could do 4-5 car overtakes with ease, it sounded great and it was very comfy on the twisties and on the m-ways.
BUT, the only time I REALLY drove it, and this was a cross country dash just before I sold it, I realised what an epic car it was - the pick up out of a corner when you are using the full range of the engine was shocking, and I mean that in a good way! It slowed down quickly, changed direction just as I wanted it too then accelerated away from the corners impressively. Oh, I'd taken it to the rev-limiter before, but never really pushed the handling envelope until that day and it was the combination of power, braking and handling that makes it such a powerful road weapon. I still remember that day and the grin I had all the way through the drive.
The 330i will be NOWHERE close to that: it doesn't have the brakes, engine, diff or suspension to do it.
But hey, what do I know
B3ALP said:
daveco said:
I test drove an '06 M3 last week and I have to say I was left somewhat disappointed by the experience. I expected it to be drastically different in character to the E46 330 but it isn't and whisper it, the 3.0 engine is probably better imo.
daveco said:
AC43 said:
daveco said:
LJK Setright hit the nail on the head when he said the best engines are the ones where torque and power outputs are about the same; the linear surge of the 330 is barely any different to the fizz-pop of the M3 in the out right "feel" of speed. Unless you're in a constant state of hoonage, the 330 gives you 9.5/10ths of the performance.
I still that holds today.Another of Setright's maxims was that the peach of any model range was often the one just below the halo model. Best compromise of torque and (accessible) power, slightly more compliant suspension and bushing, sightly narrower and more compliant tyres, etc all of which can create a sweeter-handling car than the one where the engineers have sacrificed some of the above in the pursuit of the ultimate lap time.
I'm not sure how people can say the M3 is 'miles' ahead of the 330, even from a driver's perspective, when the 330 offers more reliable and usable performance, better overall reliability, better fuel economy, and cheaper servicing (with a better gearbox). It is the more complete car.
The M3 wins hands down on noise but my only concern is it would not take the abuse the 330 has taken. I'd like to hear if anyone has driven the M3 as a daily car. I'm lucky in the sense my drive to and from work takes in a lot of near-empty roads where I can use a good bit of the performance of these cars.
Driven in a similar manner i assume fuel economy will be similar and i wouldn't imagine a person purchasing an M3 will worry to much about the extra servicing costs.
I am going to take delivery of a Z4M Roadster shortly and for me a car is not about reliability (warranty to cover this if anything happens, although they seem fairly reliable), fuel economy (i don't need my car for work)and cheaper servicing (I want circa 340bhp, better looks, noise, etc) so for me a 3.0 Z4 (equivalent to the 330ci) would be something i wouldn't even consider and wouldn't be a more complete car for my intended purpose.
Trying to justify any performance version of a car or even any performance car by practicality and cost is never going to end well and is missing the point of these cars altogether.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff