2002 ///m3 Vs 35oz
04-16-2003, 08:48 PM
#21
Originally posted by Mrsideways
Dont' say that. Had the chance to drive a 97 4 door M3 around a track in competetion. It was bone stock and I thought it was one of the worst handling car's I'd ever driven. I can't say a single thing I liked about it. We have some In car video and I just curse the thing the entire way around. All it did was PUSH PUSH PUSH PUSH. I've driven stock civic's that had less understeer then that thing.
Dont' say that. Had the chance to drive a 97 4 door M3 around a track in competetion. It was bone stock and I thought it was one of the worst handling car's I'd ever driven. I can't say a single thing I liked about it. We have some In car video and I just curse the thing the entire way around. All it did was PUSH PUSH PUSH PUSH. I've driven stock civic's that had less understeer then that thing.
NON-of those civics (bone stock) would out handle a E36. My civic EX with Adj Konis, 17" wheels and Nitto tire, Eibach springs, strut tower bars, etc, may come close, BUT a "STOCK CIVIC"??? Nope
04-17-2003, 05:08 AM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rodH
Bone stock civic??? No you haven't, as an owner of PLENTY Honda/acura products (88 CRX Si, 87 Integra, 94 Civic EX, 99 Civic Si,amoung them), PLEASE PLEASE tell me you are JOKING. I say this because many of your posts I agree with, BUT if you saw this is true, I suddenly wonder if you are full of BS ALL the time.
NON-of those civics (bone stock) would out handle a E36. My civic EX with Adj Konis, 17" wheels and Nitto tire, Eibach springs, strut tower bars, etc, may come close, BUT a "STOCK CIVIC"??? Nope
Bone stock civic??? No you haven't, as an owner of PLENTY Honda/acura products (88 CRX Si, 87 Integra, 94 Civic EX, 99 Civic Si,amoung them), PLEASE PLEASE tell me you are JOKING. I say this because many of your posts I agree with, BUT if you saw this is true, I suddenly wonder if you are full of BS ALL the time.
NON-of those civics (bone stock) would out handle a E36. My civic EX with Adj Konis, 17" wheels and Nitto tire, Eibach springs, strut tower bars, etc, may come close, BUT a "STOCK CIVIC"??? Nope
04-17-2003, 08:03 AM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: port richey Fl.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as usual some of you guys under estimate your cars...iv eseen it at my board also...one of you webcarconnection i believe went 13.6 @105 that's not getting owned by an M3
04-17-2003, 10:12 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mrsideways
I never said OUT HANDLE. I said they had less understeer. And I'm not kidding this M3 was HORRIBLE. I had the oppertunity to drive a maxima the same day (maxima had better tires) but i'm not kidding the Maxima put in a better lap time, with just a rear sway bar and falken Azenis. I was absolutely unimpressed with the M3. I've lost all faith in BMW and to be honest (this was before I owned either of my fast cars) the M3 didn't even feel quick. I read somewhere that the 4 doors run high 14's so that might explain it. The one I drove was freshly home from the repair shop where the owner had brushed a Guard rail so I don't think the body shop messed with the alighnment but it's possible. I almost cancelled my subscription to all the magazines that raved about the M3. It clearly lead me to believe that BMW pays for their High ratings. Now the older Civic's and Integras have a clear advantage over the M3 in front suspension. They have the ability to Build camber in a corner (ala not having mcpherson sturts). The M3 had those Silly sturts and therefore NO CAMBER. This can easily account for the Understeer.
I never said OUT HANDLE. I said they had less understeer. And I'm not kidding this M3 was HORRIBLE. I had the oppertunity to drive a maxima the same day (maxima had better tires) but i'm not kidding the Maxima put in a better lap time, with just a rear sway bar and falken Azenis. I was absolutely unimpressed with the M3. I've lost all faith in BMW and to be honest (this was before I owned either of my fast cars) the M3 didn't even feel quick. I read somewhere that the 4 doors run high 14's so that might explain it. The one I drove was freshly home from the repair shop where the owner had brushed a Guard rail so I don't think the body shop messed with the alighnment but it's possible. I almost cancelled my subscription to all the magazines that raved about the M3. It clearly lead me to believe that BMW pays for their High ratings. Now the older Civic's and Integras have a clear advantage over the M3 in front suspension. They have the ability to Build camber in a corner (ala not having mcpherson sturts). The M3 had those Silly sturts and therefore NO CAMBER. This can easily account for the Understeer.
04-17-2003, 10:27 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mrsideways
I never said OUT HANDLE. I said they had less understeer. And I'm not kidding this M3 was HORRIBLE. I had the oppertunity to drive a maxima the same day (maxima had better tires) but i'm not kidding the Maxima put in a better lap time, with just a rear sway bar and falken Azenis. I was absolutely unimpressed with the M3. I've lost all faith in BMW and to be honest (this was before I owned either of my fast cars) the M3 didn't even feel quick. I read somewhere that the 4 doors run high 14's so that might explain it. The one I drove was freshly home from the repair shop where the owner had brushed a Guard rail so I don't think the body shop messed with the alighnment but it's possible. I almost cancelled my subscription to all the magazines that raved about the M3. It clearly lead me to believe that BMW pays for their High ratings. Now the older Civic's and Integras have a clear advantage over the M3 in front suspension. They have the ability to Build camber in a corner (ala not having mcpherson sturts). The M3 had those Silly sturts and therefore NO CAMBER. This can easily account for the Understeer.
I never said OUT HANDLE. I said they had less understeer. And I'm not kidding this M3 was HORRIBLE. I had the oppertunity to drive a maxima the same day (maxima had better tires) but i'm not kidding the Maxima put in a better lap time, with just a rear sway bar and falken Azenis. I was absolutely unimpressed with the M3. I've lost all faith in BMW and to be honest (this was before I owned either of my fast cars) the M3 didn't even feel quick. I read somewhere that the 4 doors run high 14's so that might explain it. The one I drove was freshly home from the repair shop where the owner had brushed a Guard rail so I don't think the body shop messed with the alighnment but it's possible. I almost cancelled my subscription to all the magazines that raved about the M3. It clearly lead me to believe that BMW pays for their High ratings. Now the older Civic's and Integras have a clear advantage over the M3 in front suspension. They have the ability to Build camber in a corner (ala not having mcpherson sturts). The M3 had those Silly sturts and therefore NO CAMBER. This can easily account for the Understeer.
M3s have a tendency towards low speed understeer --especially in tight turns. This tendency goes away with some front camber adjustments. A properly aligned car should show very good balance through medium and high speed turns and can be driven with the throttle easily. Add some camber plates and bigger tires up front and the cars can dance on the head of a pin.
How were the tires? Cheapie tires really hamsting the car. Other possible factors include worn shocks, rear shock mounts, rear trailing arm carriers and lower control arm bushings. They are traditional weak points in the suspension and become suspect after 60k miles or so. Any combination of these things will lead to an ill-handling car.
FYI, the sedans and coupes have identical perfomance. They are both 14 flat @100 mph cars. The automatic equiped M3s were slow dogs and ran high 14s.
-Apex
04-17-2003, 10:51 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by LateApex-S52B32
Was the car in a generally good state of tune? Or was it a ragged out and tired old thing the owner didn't take care of?
M3s have a tendency towards low speed understeer --especially in tight turns. This tendency goes away with some front camber adjustments. A properly aligned car should show very good balance through medium and high speed turns and can be driven with the throttle easily. Add some camber plates and bigger tires up front and the cars can dance on the head of a pin.
How were the tires? Cheapie tires really hamsting the car. Other possible factors include worn shocks, rear shock mounts, rear trailing arm carriers and lower control arm bushings. They are traditional weak points in the suspension and become suspect after 60k miles or so. Any combination of these things will lead to an ill-handling car.
FYI, the sedans and coupes have identical perfomance. They are both 14 flat @100 mph cars. The automatic equiped M3s were slow dogs and ran high 14s.
-Apex
Was the car in a generally good state of tune? Or was it a ragged out and tired old thing the owner didn't take care of?
M3s have a tendency towards low speed understeer --especially in tight turns. This tendency goes away with some front camber adjustments. A properly aligned car should show very good balance through medium and high speed turns and can be driven with the throttle easily. Add some camber plates and bigger tires up front and the cars can dance on the head of a pin.
How were the tires? Cheapie tires really hamsting the car. Other possible factors include worn shocks, rear shock mounts, rear trailing arm carriers and lower control arm bushings. They are traditional weak points in the suspension and become suspect after 60k miles or so. Any combination of these things will lead to an ill-handling car.
FYI, the sedans and coupes have identical perfomance. They are both 14 flat @100 mph cars. The automatic equiped M3s were slow dogs and ran high 14s.
-Apex
It was a 97 4 door. The car had 24,000 miles on it. The owner only had it for a few thousand miles. (his previous car was a 330ci) it had Bridgestone S03's all the way around. Stagger front to rear, I think 225 front 245 rear. All new paint and the wheels and tires were bran new (from the accident) He picked it up from the body shop litterally 2 days before I drove it. The radio and the A/C were both havin Issues. the Radio would randomly turn on and Off with no Volume control and the A/C was permently on. We didn't pull the fuse because there was 4 of us driving the car and that was the only 4 people in the class. It was Hot so what the hell. As far as we know the alighnment was Stock as it was set before he received the car back from the body shop. It didn't pull in either direction. The car felt Numb (all german cars feel numb for some reason) . I desperatly tried to get it to rotate into the corner with trail braking (it felt like it has some sort of driving aid on, but the owner claimed it was off) . We had the Traction control off but The only way we could manage wheel spin was by dumping the clutch which began to slip at the end of the day. I managed one Power slide with the car on my 3rd run. I was so upset at the cars terminal understeer on a weight transfer I popped the clutch in and Yanked the E-brake to get it side ways (~ 50 mph) dropped the e-brake and stood on the gas. I got an applause from all onlookers. I drove the car around Gainsville Race way, Here is a Map of the course.
The maxima had Rear Sway bar at full stiff. Falken Azenis 215/45 16's Home made intake, Y pipe, Cat back. The car runs a 14.4. It was most deffently faster then the M3 in a straightline. I should also mention that I HATE UNDERSTEER it's evil .
I drove the track again this weekend in my S2000. Here are a couple Photo's just for kicks
Last edited by Mrsideways; 04-17-2003 at 11:24 AM.
04-17-2003, 12:09 PM
#31
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took some video of me chasing an E46 M3 SMG out at Gingerman, we were running the course backward so it was new to both of us. I'll post it when I get it edited and compressed. The M3 definitely pulls on the straights.
04-17-2003, 09:52 PM
#32
Originally posted by chahny
I took some video of me chasing an E46 M3 SMG out at Gingerman, we were running the course backward so it was new to both of us. I'll post it when I get it edited and compressed. The M3 definitely pulls on the straights.
I took some video of me chasing an E46 M3 SMG out at Gingerman, we were running the course backward so it was new to both of us. I'll post it when I get it edited and compressed. The M3 definitely pulls on the straights.
04-17-2003, 10:25 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im currently deciding which is a better buy, the 350z (which would leave me with a good sum of money to Mod the car with) or a M3 SMG2 coupe (plus $500(canadian) chip). I used to drive an X5 (2 1/2 years) and the handling on the bimmers is generally fantastic. And i know the M3 has some ***** going straight. But is it worth the extra 55k (canadian)?
Think Nissan will release a Turbo version, like they did with the 300zx after a year?
And ya, I'd have to say it's an even race, only because the M3 is a convertable, making it less stable in turns, plus it has SMG2.
Think Nissan will release a Turbo version, like they did with the 300zx after a year?
And ya, I'd have to say it's an even race, only because the M3 is a convertable, making it less stable in turns, plus it has SMG2.
Last edited by MoD; 04-17-2003 at 10:29 PM.
04-17-2003, 11:25 PM
#34
Registered User
I guess I never updated this post with our times, but as it turns out my buddy with the M3 SMG2 Vert was able to beat me by a couple tenths of a second. Ahh well, maybe next time.
Raceboy beat us both though, so score .5 for the Z and .5 for experience!
-D'oh!
Raceboy beat us both though, so score .5 for the Z and .5 for experience!
-D'oh!
04-19-2003, 12:38 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mrsideways
And I'm not kidding this M3 was HORRIBLE.
And I'm not kidding this M3 was HORRIBLE.
While it is no where in the league of the S2k in handling on the autox course, the e36m3 is very competent (and was the car to have prior to the S2k in Astock-->Bstock). You know if it was that bad I never would have bought one.
And a good example is definitely not slower than the S2k in a straight line. Mike and I have had some runs and his M3/4 ran neck and neck with my S2k.
I know he's possibly got some VANOS issues to work out, but maybe he would let you take a drive to see what his car is like when it comes back from the shop.
04-19-2003, 02:14 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've ridden in the 350Z's twin the G35, and an E46 M3. I hope I don't **** anybody off by saying that the BMW is superior in every category. Take a Z and drive at 40mph on a flat straight road. That's what an E46 M3 feels like on the freeway doing 110 in rainy weather. Not only does the car have *****, it makes the driver feel like he or she has *****.
The engine sounds like a 325i engine on crack and never seems to work hard. TorqueTorqueTorque in every gear. It's quieter at 110 than the G35 is at 50. The ride is lumpy but very well damped and from what I hear, it's more pleasant than the 350Z Track
The only downsides? It cost helluva a lot more than the Z, and a stock E46 M3 sounds as intimidating as a blender filled with ice cubes from outside.
The engine sounds like a 325i engine on crack and never seems to work hard. TorqueTorqueTorque in every gear. It's quieter at 110 than the G35 is at 50. The ride is lumpy but very well damped and from what I hear, it's more pleasant than the 350Z Track
The only downsides? It cost helluva a lot more than the Z, and a stock E46 M3 sounds as intimidating as a blender filled with ice cubes from outside.
04-19-2003, 03:07 PM
#37
Originally posted by AREITU
I've ridden in the 350Z's twin the G35, and an E46 M3. I hope I don't **** anybody off by saying that the BMW is superior in every category. Take a Z and drive at 40mph on a flat straight road. That's what an E46 M3 feels like on the freeway doing 110 in rainy weather. Not only does the car have *****, it makes the driver feel like he or she has *****.
The engine sounds like a 325i engine on crack and never seems to work hard. TorqueTorqueTorque in every gear. It's quieter at 110 than the G35 is at 50. The ride is lumpy but very well damped and from what I hear, it's more pleasant than the 350Z Track
The only downsides? It cost helluva a lot more than the Z, and a stock E46 M3 sounds as intimidating as a blender filled with ice cubes from outside.
I've ridden in the 350Z's twin the G35, and an E46 M3. I hope I don't **** anybody off by saying that the BMW is superior in every category. Take a Z and drive at 40mph on a flat straight road. That's what an E46 M3 feels like on the freeway doing 110 in rainy weather. Not only does the car have *****, it makes the driver feel like he or she has *****.
The engine sounds like a 325i engine on crack and never seems to work hard. TorqueTorqueTorque in every gear. It's quieter at 110 than the G35 is at 50. The ride is lumpy but very well damped and from what I hear, it's more pleasant than the 350Z Track
The only downsides? It cost helluva a lot more than the Z, and a stock E46 M3 sounds as intimidating as a blender filled with ice cubes from outside.
I agree with most of what you said (all though NOT to the same degree, the Z hardly feels like it is pushing hard and if you read the R&T article against the M, you would learn that the Z is VERY VERY easy to drive fast (even easier than the M and 911)). That being said, if someone were to give me a Z OR an M, I would take the M, if I had to pay for it (like is usually the case outside of fairy tails and rich kids) i'd buy the Z. The M use to be my favorite car for hte $$ I was planning/dreaming on going S2000---->M3--->911, now I think I might skip the M3 and go straight to the 911 (many years from now, which gives me plenty of time to change my mind
)
04-19-2003, 03:10 PM
#38
Originally posted by AREITU
I've ridden in the 350Z's twin the G35, and an E46 M3. I hope I don't **** anybody off by saying that the BMW is superior in every category. Take a Z and drive at 40mph on a flat straight road. That's what an E46 M3 feels like on the freeway doing 110 in rainy weather. Not only does the car have *****, it makes the driver feel like he or she has *****.
The engine sounds like a 325i engine on crack and never seems to work hard. TorqueTorqueTorque in every gear. It's quieter at 110 than the G35 is at 50. The ride is lumpy but very well damped and from what I hear, it's more pleasant than the 350Z Track
The only downsides? It cost helluva a lot more than the Z, and a stock E46 M3 sounds as intimidating as a blender filled with ice cubes from outside.
I've ridden in the 350Z's twin the G35, and an E46 M3. I hope I don't **** anybody off by saying that the BMW is superior in every category. Take a Z and drive at 40mph on a flat straight road. That's what an E46 M3 feels like on the freeway doing 110 in rainy weather. Not only does the car have *****, it makes the driver feel like he or she has *****.
The engine sounds like a 325i engine on crack and never seems to work hard. TorqueTorqueTorque in every gear. It's quieter at 110 than the G35 is at 50. The ride is lumpy but very well damped and from what I hear, it's more pleasant than the 350Z Track
The only downsides? It cost helluva a lot more than the Z, and a stock E46 M3 sounds as intimidating as a blender filled with ice cubes from outside.
btw, the G isn't a "twin" more like a cousin
04-19-2003, 03:44 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at my posts on this page:
https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....850#post274850
The E46 M3 convert is relatively slow it adds way too much weight to the M3. Its somewhere around 3900 pounds laden w/ a small amount of fuel.
I have to say the M3 is very very overrated by magazines and various reviewers. Clarkson from Top Gear made a point of this when they rated the M3. Everyone wanted to put at at the top of the pedastal but he shoved it all the way to the bottom. Dont get me wrong its a nice car but its NO WHERE NEAR as good as people say it is.
Most people hear the name 'M' and tremble in fear. They are not infalliable machines in fact there are some major quibles that I have. Mainly an overstressed motor that lacks any form of tunning potential as well as an overly stiff suspension. Secondly they weigh a lot more than they should. A good weight for the M3 would have been 3200 pounds especially once you factor in an all aluminium skin. You have to wonder if they got a 50/50 weight balance by adding balast to the rear....
Is the M3 better than a Z/Coupe? In stock form yes, its not worth the $20,000 price difference. I dont see too many of us leaving the Z/Coupe in stock form though.
Anyway its still a tough choice and I'm still trying decide what I want.
https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....850#post274850
The E46 M3 convert is relatively slow it adds way too much weight to the M3. Its somewhere around 3900 pounds laden w/ a small amount of fuel.
I have to say the M3 is very very overrated by magazines and various reviewers. Clarkson from Top Gear made a point of this when they rated the M3. Everyone wanted to put at at the top of the pedastal but he shoved it all the way to the bottom. Dont get me wrong its a nice car but its NO WHERE NEAR as good as people say it is.
Most people hear the name 'M' and tremble in fear. They are not infalliable machines in fact there are some major quibles that I have. Mainly an overstressed motor that lacks any form of tunning potential as well as an overly stiff suspension. Secondly they weigh a lot more than they should. A good weight for the M3 would have been 3200 pounds especially once you factor in an all aluminium skin. You have to wonder if they got a 50/50 weight balance by adding balast to the rear....
Is the M3 better than a Z/Coupe? In stock form yes, its not worth the $20,000 price difference. I dont see too many of us leaving the Z/Coupe in stock form though.
Anyway its still a tough choice and I'm still trying decide what I want.
04-20-2003, 06:34 PM
#40
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: texas
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the Performance model. My friend has the M3 SMG. We're headed this weekend to a Porsche club sponsored drivers education event at the Texas World Speedway's road circuit. We both will be timing our laps with top notch digital stopwatches. I'll let you know the results. I should say that he has done more driving events, but I shouldn't be too far behind in time.