RE: BMW M3 (E46): Spotted

[mackay45]

pilotdan said:

Not bald enough or angry enough to own one of these.

Give it a bit of time and you'll probably get there (on both fronts). Just hope prices don't rise too much in the mean time.

I bought an £8k E46 M3 in 2017, had it about a year before writing it off (my fault), doh

Was a great car, mine had subframe fixed and vanos rebuilt, I still spent £1k on the Insp 2 service it needed when I had it but was good fun

Would have another for sure. £15k E92 M3s are catching my eye more at the moment though...

[mat205125]

I wouldn't be scared off by the mileage of this car, given that it appears to have been well cared for and properly maintained.

These cars are fantastic to drive and own, and built to take lots of "enthusiasm".

Was in the market for another one earlier in the year, however their modern classic status is inflating prices quickly of late. The draw of the power and noise of the next generation V8 E92 was too much to resist, however only made possible by the car being a second car and the sub-20mpg not being a concern. An E46 can be coaxed close to 30 mpg on a run, and return closer to 27mpg in normal daily use

[cerb4.5lee]

mat205125 said:

The draw of the power and noise of the next generation V8 E92 was too much to resist, however only made possible by the car being a second car and the sub-20mpg not being a concern. An E46 can be coaxed close to 30 mpg on a run, and return closer to 27mpg in normal daily use

Agree and I always remember when the E92 M3 first came out and BMW were championing it because it was more fuel efficient than the E46 M3...I'm not sure what they were smoking in fairness! The S65 engine is loads more thirsty than the S54 engine in my experience.

[1974foggy]

Two fairly large issues unmentioned here, aside from the vanos and rear subframe problems there is the head gasket and rod bearings to check, your going to need £2k to put these issues right (if caught early). If the rod bearings go you are stuffed, and the head gaskets are a common weakness.
Id assume that, given the bills, these have been done though without looking at the excel sheet mentioned.
My only worry would be its value after Id piled a load more miles on it perhaps?

[havoc]

1974foggy said:

My only worry would be its value after Id piled a load more miles on it perhaps?

Won't drop much more as long as the maintenance is kept up...for the sort of cars these are, they'll always be worth a decent amount and this is well past the threshold where mileage puts people off.

My only thought that's not been mentioned so far is suspension condition - dampers and bushes will be well past their best by 165k.

Otherwise that's a car I'd be sorely tempted by if I was in the market for an E46...

[SidewaysSi]

Too heavy and needs too much expensive work IMO. Not great feel either so not the most connected driving experience.

A good car but not one I desire in the least bit.

[vasario]

I was the second owner of this car.

Loved it, one of the best cars I've had. Still got the original 18" wheels in my garage !

[JD2329]

Re future value & resale, at one time you could hardly give high mileage cars away.
Now with online auctions, just about anything will sell for something, and someone will always want an E46 M3.

[mat205125]

cerb4.5lee said:

mat205125 said:

The draw of the power and noise of the next generation V8 E92 was too much to resist, however only made possible by the car being a second car and the sub-20mpg not being a concern. An E46 can be coaxed close to 30 mpg on a run, and return closer to 27mpg in normal daily use

Agree and I always remember when the E92 M3 first came out and BMW were championing it because it was more fuel efficient than the E46 M3...I'm not sure what they were smoking in fairness! The S65 engine is loads more thirsty than the S54 engine in my experience.

MPG per BHP maybe?

Had this conversation with daughter when comparing to her 1.2 punto ........ Engine in the M3 nearly 4 times the size, making nearly five times the power, and only using 3 times the fuel!! That's efficiency!!!

[cerb4.5lee]

mat205125 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

mat205125 said:

The draw of the power and noise of the next generation V8 E92 was too much to resist, however only made possible by the car being a second car and the sub-20mpg not being a concern. An E46 can be coaxed close to 30 mpg on a run, and return closer to 27mpg in normal daily use

Agree and I always remember when the E92 M3 first came out and BMW were championing it because it was more fuel efficient than the E46 M3...I'm not sure what they were smoking in fairness! The S65 engine is loads more thirsty than the S54 engine in my experience.

MPG per BHP maybe?

Had this conversation with daughter when comparing to her 1.2 punto ........ Engine in the M3 nearly 4 times the size, making nearly five times the power, and only using 3 times the fuel!! That's efficiency!!!

Now that is a good way of looking at it!!

[nunpuncher]

vasario said:

I was the second owner of this car.

Loved it, one of the best cars I've had. Still got the original 18" wheels in my garage !

On here 97 months and this is your first post. Now that is some high level lurking.

Well done.

[Taylor James]

£8500?

Laughable.

[BigChiefmuffinAgain]

I took a 2002 Alpina B10 all the way to 210k with full BMWSH but got to admit that by then it was feeling pretty tired and getting expensive to run. They certainly do rust.

Previous owner was spending 2k a year - that will only go up....

[Quadcamboy]

I have an MX5 NBFL on 151,000 and a 1.8 20V vRS on 198,000 miles.

Mileage wouldn't put me off.

[mat205125]

Taylor James said:

£8500?

Laughable.

Please show me the better cars being advertised for less

[Court_S]

My biggest concern would be rust; BMW’s of this era do like to rust that’s for sure. I’d be more concerned about that than the mileage especially as it’s had some work done to the body already.

[aaron_2000]

mat205125 said:

Taylor James said:

£8500?

Laughable.

Please show me the better cars being advertised for less

Just the usual person that expects a brand new car for free. My £8500 would go into an STI wagon, but I don't really see how you can complain about the price of this. Seems fair to me.

[Kosy]

It’s the not price of entry, it’s the potential (likely) price of upkeep that will significantly reduce the market for this!

Will be cracking when it’s running good but is that enough to justify it?

[Plate spinner]

mat205125 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

mat205125 said:

The draw of the power and noise of the next generation V8 E92 was too much to resist, however only made possible by the car being a second car and the sub-20mpg not being a concern. An E46 can be coaxed close to 30 mpg on a run, and return closer to 27mpg in normal daily use

Agree and I always remember when the E92 M3 first came out and BMW were championing it because it was more fuel efficient than the E46 M3...I'm not sure what they were smoking in fairness! The S65 engine is loads more thirsty than the S54 engine in my experience.

MPG per BHP maybe?

Had this conversation with daughter when comparing to her 1.2 punto ........ Engine in the M3 nearly 4 times the size, making nearly five times the power, and only using 3 times the fuel!! That's efficiency!!!

That’s man-maths

[jakesmith]

mat205125 said:

Please show me the better cars being advertised for less

This one is a grand less and looks a lot better looked after. It is a vert however.

https://forums.m3cutters.co.uk/threads/2004-54-e46...