Thursday 15th June 2017

BMW M3 (E46): You Know You Want To

As E46s continue to appreciate, is now the time to nab a cheap one?

---

You should always avoid buying the cheapest example of any particular type of car that's for sale. So the conventional wisdom goes, anyway. Of course, conventional wisdom is not always wise - and neither are we, which is probably why our head has been turned by an E46 BMW M3 at a temptingly low price.

Oooh look, 18-inch wheels as well

£6,999, to be exact. And if you're reasonably well-versed on M3 prices, you're probably thinking that for that sort of figure, it has to be an SMG-equipped car, or a convertible. Well, you're wrong, because it's neither. This is the cheapest manual M3 coupe for sale at the moment. And no, it doesn't have the sort of gopping interior or exterior colour scheme you might expect.

What it does have is a full service history, according to the seller - something almost non-existent at this price point with all of the above boxes ticked. This, then, sounds like a bit of a bargain.

There is, of course, a catch, and it's the mileage. Mind you, this M3's 150,000 miles are not preposterous - indeed, were you to apply the old 10,000-mile-a-year rule, it'd be below average.

Of course, the same would apply to pretty much every M3 out there, so let's not kid ourselves: this is a bit of a leggy M3. There's more, too: the advert wording isn't exactly of the sort that inspires confidence in the fastidiousness of the owner.

But perhaps you're prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. After all, of course, sloppy spelling and photography do not a lemon make. That being the case, the only bugbear is the mileage - and of what concern is that? BMWs of this era are known for their ability to rack up big miles, and while the S54 engine is more highly strung than most, there's no reason why that shouldn't still apply.

Only bit we need to see inside anyway!

And with what looks like a big wodge of history featured in one of the photos, there's all the more reason to imagine it'll be fine. Especially if that history contains evidence of the sort of work these cars need with respect to VANOS and so forth. The advert already makes the point that the subframes have already been reinforced; the pictorial evidence shows a job that looks more toward the DIY end of the spectrum, but that doesn't alter the fact the work's been done. What's more, there's a brand new exhaust, freshly refurbed wheels, four new tyres and a long MoT.

In short, then, this is probably not the best E46 M3 in the world, but at this price, it's still worth taking a punt on. Chances are it won't be a keeper, but if you really want to scratch the M3 itch for a year or two and money's tight, it's not a bad shout. Let's face it: prices are only going up, which means this might be your last chance to buy a manual M3 coupe with a full history for £7,000. All of which makes this particular cheapest-of-the-cheap example look a cannier buy than most.

---

BMW M3 (E46)
Price: £6,999
Why you should: It costs peanuts and ticks all the right boxes...
Why you shouldn't: ...except the one marked 'mileage'.

See the original advert here.

[culpz]

There's definitely a rise of people buying these now. I was always under the assumption that you're not going to get one worth buying under 10k. That being said, mileage isn't a huge issue on these as far as i'm aware and obviously the low-mileage pristine models are quite alot more.

It's still alot of car for the money. It's just the cost of parts with added M tax on them, getting them serviced and fixing any repairs and getting them tip-top which seems to be the main drain on the old wallet. Actually physically buying these cars seems to be the easiest part of ownership.

[culpz]

Hoofy said:

culpz said:

It's still alot of car for the money. It's just the cost of parts with added M tax on them, getting them serviced and fixing any repairs and getting them tip-top which seems to be the main drain on the old wallet. Actually physically buying these cars seems to be the easiest part of ownership.

I suppose the issue is that people who would have got a warm hatch with its associated low running costs, buy an M3 because it's cheaper then find they're skimping on parts, servicing etc in order to afford the M running costs.

I remember reading in Car or Evo a couple of decades ago, something that said along the lines of, If you can't afford to buy a £40k BMW, you can't afford a £25k Ferrari (referring to the running costs). I guess the same is now true of VW Golf 2.0 vs BMW M3.

Yupp, definitely. Just running a non-M BMW can be expensive. Obviously, the price of parts are more than would be on something like a Ford but that's to be expected really.

I can, in no way, afford an M3. A 330ci has been considered multiple times but it's just keeping them in decent working condition.
At the end of the day, the M3 is a 40k car with running costs to match. Just because they can be had much cheaper than that now doesn't affect the maintenance and running costs.

[culpz]

Scottie - NW said:

culpz said:

At the end of the day, the M3 is a 40k car with running costs to match. Just because they can be had much cheaper than that now doesn't affect the maintenance and running costs.

This is one of those lines you see a lot on PH, and it's just wrong.

When a car is a 40k new M3 then at the point in it's life cycle when it is worth that much you have to use dealers at dealer service rates and prices and end up paying high parts prices to keep the warranty and so on.

As cars get older, more and more non OE parts become available for them, especially the most common ones, to fix known issues. The cost of the parts themselves also tend to reduce over time, as more and more manufacturers make them and push the price lower.

Specialists are then able to take care of them at lower labour rates, and sometimes work out better ways to do the jobs more cost effectively, on some cars whereas a dealer may say that's an engine out job etc, specialists know ways to do it without.

So, although I accept the running costs for a 40k car at 10 years old may be higher than a 20k car at 10 years old, you should still be paying much less for service and parts on a 10 year old M3 than a nearly new one at dealer prices.

Is it really though?

As far as i'm aware, the M tax you pay for parts and servicing hasn't gone down. Specialists may reduce the labour costs and may be able to work around certain fixes and make them a bit cheaper too, but it's still, generally, going to me more than your generic BMW model.

What you're saying could be interpreted, to some people, as a false hope.

[culpz]

Scottie - NW said:

TheAngryDog said:

culpz said:

Scottie - NW said:

culpz said:

At the end of the day, the M3 is a 40k car with running costs to match. Just because they can be had much cheaper than that now doesn't affect the maintenance and running costs.

This is one of those lines you see a lot on PH, and it's just wrong.

When a car is a 40k new M3 then at the point in it's life cycle when it is worth that much you have to use dealers at dealer service rates and prices and end up paying high parts prices to keep the warranty and so on.

As cars get older, more and more non OE parts become available for them, especially the most common ones, to fix known issues. The cost of the parts themselves also tend to reduce over time, as more and more manufacturers make them and push the price lower.

Specialists are then able to take care of them at lower labour rates, and sometimes work out better ways to do the jobs more cost effectively, on some cars whereas a dealer may say that's an engine out job etc, specialists know ways to do it without.

So, although I accept the running costs for a 40k car at 10 years old may be higher than a 20k car at 10 years old, you should still be paying much less for service and parts on a 10 year old M3 than a nearly new one at dealer prices.

Is it really though?

As far as i'm aware, the M tax you pay for parts and servicing hasn't gone down. Specialists may reduce the labour costs and may be able to work around certain fixes and make them a bit cheaper too, but it's still, generally, going to me more than your generic BMW model.

What you're saying could be interpreted, to some people, as a false hope.

BMW raise their prices every year for parts. Services aren't too bad, but inspection I and II's cost more I believe. E39 M5's and E46 M3's now have fixed price service charges.

BMW M3 (2001-2006)
Engine oil service
£169*
Inspection I
£669*
Inspection II
£899*

BMW M5 (1999-2003)
Engine oil service
£199*
Inspection I
£319*
Inspection II
£539*

The M3 costs more the inspection but less for the oil.

But why would you be going to BMW for a 10 year old M3?

I run a few cars, one a BM and I get my parts from specialists and it costs no more to run a when new 40k BM than my others cars, a 20k when new Mazda etc.

You're really missing the point here. BMW's M cars are a different league when it comes to maintenance and parts, compared to normal models, anyway.

Granted, some people have ran them and not had much go wrong and it's mainly just cost consumables and servicing. It's definitely not for the faint-hearted though.

[culpz]

Funk said:

culpz said:

Yupp, definitely. Just running a non-M BMW can be expensive. Obviously, the price of parts are more than would be on something like a Ford but that's to be expected really.

I can, in no way, afford an M3. A 330ci has been considered multiple times but it's just keeping them in decent working condition.
At the end of the day, the M3 is a 40k car with running costs to match. Just because they can be had much cheaper than that now doesn't affect the maintenance and running costs.

I looked at E46 M3s and decided against at the moment. I went for a tidy 330Ci instead and after sorting out a few niggles it's been fine but I'm still not quite bonding with it the same way I did with my E36 328i. For now though, the 330Ci is a great daily and enough fun to chuck about a bit when the mood takes me but I've got my eye on something with a V8 later this year...

I do think that a decent 330ci is a nice, cheaper alternative the the full fat M car. I think the issue is that it's just a fast cruiser, whereas the M3 is a completely different beast , as you'd expect.
I'm not sure that's what i'm after right now and i'm also not sure, in my current financial state, that i could put up/keep up with the maintenance and common issue on them.

I do keep looking at 325ti's as the rust issues on them seem to be alot less widespread and generally not as bad. But, then again, alot of the common issue on the 330 will be the same for that too.
I definitely need to own both a 6-cylinder and a V8 powered Beemer at some point though for sure!

[culpz]

nicfaz said:

Scottie - NW said:

culpz said:

At the end of the day, the M3 is a 40k car with running costs to match. Just because they can be had much cheaper than that now doesn't affect the maintenance and running costs.

This is one of those lines you see a lot on PH, and it's just wrong.

When a car is a 40k new M3 then at the point in it's life cycle when it is worth that much you have to use dealers at dealer service rates and prices and end up paying high parts prices to keep the warranty and so on.

As cars get older, more and more non OE parts become available for them, especially the most common ones, to fix known issues. The cost of the parts themselves also tend to reduce over time, as more and more manufacturers make them and push the price lower.

Specialists are then able to take care of them at lower labour rates, and sometimes work out better ways to do the jobs more cost effectively, on some cars whereas a dealer may say that's an engine out job etc, specialists know ways to do it without.

So, although I accept the running costs for a 40k car at 10 years old may be higher than a 20k car at 10 years old, you should still be paying much less for service and parts on a 10 year old M3 than a nearly new one at dealer prices.

Absolutely - it's garbage. Pick the right car for (say) £16k and you can pay the extra running costs out of the savings on depreciation, so long as your mileage isn't too high. This rubbish of "people who can't afford to buy it new can't afford to run it second hand" is just rationalisation of why they weren't braver in their car buying choices.

Except it's not though, is it? Any BMW M car is expensive to run, especially out of warranty. It's a given. The older they get, the more they do start to go wrong and certain things start to wear out. This is where you get hit with the M tax on parts and labour. Depreciation may be minimal, or could even go the other way with these, but you definitely need have a fair bit of money spare to keep them tip-top.

You will never hear from anyone that they are cheap to run, even with the word cheap being subjective. I'm sorry, but that's the truth here. Let's stop acting like these are just as cheap to run as a generic BMW model. Take the plunge and find out yourself, first-hand.