2002+ bmw m3

[Accord_tunerx]

for those who own it, for those who drove it.

please the problems with the car, it wont be used as a dd
only spring and summer.

[j0nblayz]

i would get 2003.5+

check out http://www.madrussian.net/m3/

[rojhero]

Here are some links I used when buying mine. The first link is the best and the one I use most often. M3forum.net addresses all the common problems, but you'll go paranoid if you read too much into the frequency of the problems. I have a ton more good links, but I'm sure you can find them.

M3Forum.net (http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
Buyer's guide (http://www.reveuro.com/buyers_guide/bmw/mcars/m3.html)
Model Info (http://www.bmwmregistry.com/model_faq.php?id=19)
Inspection II info (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=787460)

I know you say it'll be a spring and summer car, but you'll be itching to drive it during the chinooks. I bought mine (2004 M3) mainly as a summer car, but have taken it out for a few hundred km this winter. I tried it on snow a handful of times and it's suprisingly good with performance winters and a LSD.

Pros (in case you need some more reasons to buy):
- Performance - ITB’s, 50/50 weight distribution, 7900rpm redline, LSD
- Looks - timeless design (in my opinion). It has been one of my dream cars since it came out.
- Relative luxury and comfort
- Build quality
- It's an ///M

Problems I was on the look out for (look in the first link for more info):
- Earlier years had problems with the rod bearings $$$. Look for 2003.5 and up to avoid this.
- Some cars have rear subframe cracks. You might be able to get the dealer to fix it. Otherwise it's probably a few grand to repair or reinforce on your own. Get it checked by Vitek's or Sheni's before you buy.
- Some cars have VANOS issues with the bolts breaking. Not much you can do about other than preventatively getting them replaced.
- RTABS (rear trailing arm bushings) seem to go quite quickly. The bushings themselves are less than $100, but install costs can be around $500 due to the labor involved.
- Oil change frequency. Apparently UOA (used oil analysis) has found that the recommended 25,000km is too long. Look for a car that has used only TWS10W60 or equivalent (rare) with less than 15,000km changes.
- SMG transmissions aren't as reliable as 6MTs. I think that's sort of obvious though.

Other than that, these cars seem to be very reliable. There have been no problems during the lifetime of mine (55,000km) except a headlight control unit that failed. Parts are more expensive when they go compared with others, but it's part of owning a premium car. If i were you, I'd go for a 2003.5+ coupe with low kms and good records. Definitely get it inspected before you buy.

I think there's a lot of other people familiar with E46 M3's, so I'm sure they'll chime in.

[SpoonDC2R]

Originally posted by j0nblayz
i would get 2003.5+

check out http://www.madrussian.net/m3/

+1:thumbsup:


Your gonna have to check out the car this spring lots of new goodies going on ;)

[R-Audi]

Pro: Performance?
They are boring and slow in stock form... Dont try to kid yourself. While the handling is quite good, dont expect a thrilling ride power wise...

[benyl]

Originally posted by R-Audi
Pro: Performance?
They are boring and slow in stock form... Dont try to kid yourself. While the handling is quite good, dont expect a thrilling ride power wise...

:werd:

It slower than dog shit on a hot day. Especially in Calgary where you are lucky to be making 270hp (maybe 220 at the wheels). The car is heavy, especially the cab.

The only way I would get another E46 M3 is if I spent money on the HPF kit.

[rojhero]

C’mon guys, don’t be so stuck up. Since performance is subjective, it can be “boring and slow in stock form” if you’re coming from an APR’d S4 or C63, but the E46 M3 is not “slower than dog shit on a hot day” even in Calgary. That should be reserved for cars like my stock EK Civic. There are not many new cars in the world that are slower than that. Well… maybe the automatic version.

Seriously though, even though the car is NA and based on ten year old technology, it has very good overall performance compared to new cars, especially when you consider value. Even in terms of acceleration it’s no slouch and that can hardly be considered a problem. The HPF kit would be the ultimate upgrade with the car remaining perfectly drivable on the streets. It’s not cheap though at $15K+.

[benyl]

Actually, that was coming from my point of view when I had a 300hp STi and a e92 335 coupe.

Both cars have less horsepower than the M3. The M3 suffers huge because of our altitude.

[rage2]

Originally posted by rojhero
C’mon guys, don’t be so stuck up. Since performance is subjective, it can be “boring and slow in stock form” if you’re coming from an APR’d S4 or C63, but the E46 M3 is not “slower than dog shit on a hot day” even in Calgary. That should be reserved for cars like my stock EK Civic. There are not many new cars in the world that are slower than that. Well… maybe the automatic version.

Originally posted by benyl
Actually, that was coming from my point of view when I had a 300hp STi and a e92 335 coupe.

Both cars have less horsepower than the M3. The M3 suffers huge because of our altitude.
It's slow.

My bro was driving my GTI, and we were even up to 60, and I got about 1/2 car length on him by 100. The GTI had a puny 200hp. My M3 was a vert was well, so that didn't help. The M3 has no torque up here, where as the GTI had gobs of low end torque and made full power here because it's a turbo. It was much better at sea level, where I felt the M3 had acceptable power.

Because of the lack of torque, even though it was a little faster than the GTI, it still felt much slower. It got boring to drive after a month or so. Luckily, I had SMG keeping me entertained, otherwise that car would've lasted 2 weeks in my garage before I got rid of it.

The HPF kit completely transformed the car. All of a sudden, I was beating 600cc bikes.

[Accord_tunerx]

it was always a dream to own one e46 m3 coupe, no vert
i kept the evo in mind as well.

[rojhero]

Sorry Op, I know we’re getting off topic, but it might be of some interest to you. I test drove a manual GTI last summer. Overall I was very impressed, but it didn't feel nearly as fast in a straight line as the M3. Comparing ~200hp at ~3100lbs vs. the ~280hp (rough altitude correction) at ~3800lbs, it’s probably pretty even depending on gearing. If you get a coupe at ~3400lbs it should be noticeably quicker than a GTI. If this were a daily driver with lots of city driving, the GTI or WRX are fantastic cars with great low range torque as rage2 has mentioned.

The M3 is not the fastest car for its price by any means. I was just trying to provide some more reasoning to get the car. I still maintain that a pro of the car is performance and it’s nice that it does so without a turbo (fuel mileage aside). The guys above who have had the opportunity to drive/own some seriously fast cars feel otherwise and that’s fair.

In any case, check out the forums. If you have any specific questions, post them up. My bias towards the M3 is likely similar to yours. It was one of my dreams cars and the priced dropped enough so that I could comfortably afford one.

[luxor]

Originally posted by benyl

Especially in Calgary where you are lucky to be making 270hp (maybe 220 at the wheels).


You got proof to back that bro?

333hp down to 270hp (-63 hp)? Really? Please tell another joke.

Your "point of view" is outrageous. Don't even get me started on the 220 whp part.

:facepalm:

Given our altitude and hot air, realistically, from my calculations the most is a drop to 290hp. I would say it's safe to assume you still get a good 300hp from the S54 in the summer. Stop posting useless information.

[Scat E46]

The E46 M is such a fun car, maintenance wise just DIY, you will save a lot. I love driving my friends m. Just too much fun

[PD77]

Originally posted by luxor


You got proof to back that bro?

333hp down to 270hp (-63 hp)? Really? Please tell another joke.

Your "point of view" is outrageous. Don't even get me started on the 220 whp part.

:facepalm:

Given our altitude and hot air, realistically, from my calculations the most is a drop to 290hp. I would say it's safe to assume you still get a good 300hp from the S54 in the summer. Stop posting useless information.

My S4 dyno'ed in at 226whp and 218wtq (344hp and 302tq at sea level), so Benyl is pretty much bang on....I can put up the plot if you want.

Bro.

Edit: May as well throw the graph in

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5268994707_539581a669_z.jpg

[dirtsniffer]

^^ um from my understanding turbo cars dont suffer from altitube because boost pressure is measured inside the manifold, so a turbo at higher altitude just works harder to maintain the same level of boost. I was also under the impression (no real experience, just from magazines and the net) that bmws generally (at sea level) lay down around the advertised hp.

unless you have two plots, one from sea level at one at altitude, in which case i would like to see the plots

[PD77]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
^^ um from my understanding turbo cars dont suffer from altitube because boost pressure is measured inside the manifold, so a turbo at higher altitude just works harder to maintain the same level of boost. I was also under the impression (no real experience, just from magazines and the net) that bmws generally (at sea level) lay down around the advertised hp.

unless you have two plots, one from sea level at one at altitude, in which case i would like to see the plots

Benyl's reference was to a naturally aspirated M3, so I am kind of confused about your comment...although you are somewhat correct.

[dirtsniffer]

crap, i forgot that there was a couple years of naturally aspirated s4's. im way out in left field:nut:

[PD77]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
crap, i forgot that there was a couple years of naturally aspirated s4's. im way out in left field:nut:

Oh haha, that makes more sense now.

Cars that have forced induction are still susceptible to altitude but not nearly as much as their N/A brethren.

[luxor]

Originally posted by PD77


My S4 dyno'ed in at 226whp and 218wtq (344hp and 302tq at sea level), so Benyl is pretty much bang on....I can put up the plot if you want.

Bro.

Edit: May as well throw the graph in

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5268994707_539581a669_z.jpg

Your S4 is AWD, that an AWD dyno? If not then did you disconnect your drive shaft to only measure one set of drive wheels? I want to see dynos from an E46 M3 not an S4.

EDIT: Also that's a dyno dynamics dyno, those read even lower than mustang dynos. Thanks for coming out bro.

[PD77]

Originally posted by luxor


Your S4 is AWD, that an AWD dyno? I want to see dynos from an E46 M3 not an S4.

EDIT: Also that's a dyno dynamics dyno, those read even lower than mustang dynos. Thanks for coming out.

Yes, so there are some extra drivetrain losses in there as well.

Edit to your edit- So? It's still a dyno...

[R-Audi]

Originally posted by luxor


Your S4 is AWD, that an AWD dyno? If not then did you disconnect your drive shaft to only measure one set of drive wheels? I want to see dynos from an E46 M3 not an S4.
EDIT: Also that's a dyno dynamics dyno, those read even lower than mustang dynos. Thanks for coming out bro.

While there are extra drivetrain losses associated with AWD, you are arguing over a single digit percentage.

After doing a quick google search I came up with a Dyno of 266whp in California at VF Engineering. (Dynojet)

http://www.vf-engineering.com/images/kit/bmw/e46_m3/dyno_st_stg291.gif

After that I cruised over to Wallace Racing and calculated the HP loss at our altitude for a NA car: 37.76 HP (~3770ft above)

http://www.wallaceracing.com/braking-hp.php


Id say the estimate of 220 whp is pretty damn close!
Sure dyno dynamics reads low, but the difference between that and most others is in the single digit percentage...

The M3 IS slow compared to other performance sedans at our elevation that are FI... and thats the truth. Dont take this as being a hater as I absolutely love the look of them, but performance wise there are better choices for your money.

[962 kid]

Originally posted by R-Audi


While there are extra drivetrain losses associated with AWD, you are arguing over a single digit percentage.

After doing a quick google search I came up with a Dyno of 266whp in California at VF Engineering. (Dynojet)

http://www.vf-engineering.com/images/kit/bmw/e46_m3/dyno_st_stg291.gif

After that I cruised over to Wallace Racing and calculated the HP loss at our altitude for a NA car: 37.76 HP (~3770ft above)

http://www.wallaceracing.com/braking-hp.php


Id say the estimate of 220 whp is pretty damn close!
Sure dyno dynamics reads low, but the difference between that and most others is in the single digit percentage...

The M3 IS slow compared to other performance sedans at our elevation that are FI... and thats the truth. Dont take this as being a hater as I absolutely love the look of them, but performance wise there are better choices for your money.

don't feed the troll... luxor is a nobody with the experience of a wet dish towel. He comes on every now and then and tries to pick a fight with his infinite knowledge of all things automotive but runs away in shame when proven to be hugely ignorant... he's kinda like a hotass chicken wing doused in hot sauce. No tact, makes my eyes water, tries to burn both ways but just ends up another chud in the toilet.

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by 962 kid
he's kinda like a hotass chicken wing doused in hot sauce. No tact, makes my eyes water, tries to burn both ways but just ends up another chud in the toilet.


hahahahahaah sigged

[benyl]

Originally posted by luxor


You got proof to back that bro?

333hp down to 270hp (-63 hp)? Really? Please tell another joke.

Your "point of view" is outrageous. Don't even get me started on the 220 whp part.


Knock knock. Who's there?

Hey bra. Let's look at some ETs from race city:

http://www.youtube.com/user/hidcoolmody#p/u/19/EnlDHuZsi6E

R/T: .360
60': 2.103
1/8: 9.297
1/4: 14.442
MPH: 96.00

Let say the cab weighs a generous 4000 lbs. (closer to 3800)

http://www.dragtimes.com/horsepower-et-trap-speed-calculator.php?et=14.442&trap=96&weight=4000&submitButtonName=Calculate+Horsepower+Estimate

269.33

So let's say the guy in the video is a bad driver.

Let's go with 14.2 at 99 mph. 3900 lb car.
http://www.dragtimes.com/horsepower-et-trap-speed-calculator.php?et=14.2&trap=99&weight=3900&submitButtonName=Calculate+Horsepower+Estimate

282 hp

But this car isn't stock. He has an aftermarket exhaust and a tune (shark injector). 12hp bump from my number of 270? ebay headers? meh. Whatever. Even if it doesn't make any extra horsepower, 282 is still low. Sure, 12 more than my estimate, but that is a 3.6% difference of the total of 333hp.

14.2 on this online calculator has it at 275hp
http://www.dragsource.com/index.php?navselect=calculators&calctoview=4

So now we are bench racing. But shit, I know nothing from actually owning and driving one. I am sure you are speaking from vast experience of owning an e46 M3 and other similarly powerful cars. Right?


Originally posted by luxor

Given our altitude and hot air, realistically, from my calculations the most is a drop to 290hp. I would say it's safe to assume you still get a good 300hp from the S54 in the summer. Stop posting useless information.
By the way, the density altitude here in Calgary, especially in the summer is never 3770 ft. It is usually higher. But I don't have to tell you that.

If we take a typically 20 degree day. The DA (density altitude) at standard pressure would be 5000' +. As the temp increase, so does the DA.

So 25c puts us at nearly 6000'. A 30c day over 7000'.

Only when it is cold or late at night will you get Density Altitudes anywhere near 3770 or below.

Shall I tell more knock knock jokes?

270 hp with an 18% driveline loss puts down 221 whp. Even with a generous 15% loss, that puts it at 229.5 rwhp with my 270 hp number.

I think I have sufficiently fed the troll.

So, do you have any proof that the E46 M3 makes more than 270hp in Calgary?

[npham]

/thread

[rage2]

I started doing all the math on notepad before I read the rest of the post, scrolled down to post my findings only to see benyl has already done it. What a waste of 10 mins.

[n1zm0]

Originally posted by benyl
*snip*


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_785QaU5Lgvg/SSpHNTvhLQI/AAAAAAAABas/b1eNdA6EIAc/s400/YouGotServed.jpg

[94boosted]

Originally posted by 962 kid


don't feed the troll... luxor is a nobody with the experience of a wet dish towel. He comes on every now and then and tries to pick a fight with his infinite knowledge of all things automotive but runs away in shame when proven to be hugely ignorant... he's kinda like a hotass chicken wing doused in hot sauce. No tact, makes my eyes water, tries to burn both ways but just ends up another chud in the toilet.


:rofl: Fucking great!


And after benyl's post we won't hear from Luxor for a few more weeks.

[2002e46]

I have one for sale....I really like it and it has been a great car but I need a better car for year-round driving. This is its first winter and while its not bad traction wise, its too low for the roads around here and gives a rough ride!

Get an inspection done before buying one forsure, as in any car there can be huge hidden costs! I got mine inspected before I bought it last year and felt alot better knowing there were no items that looked concerning!

The car feels fast to me, coming from an 07 stock GTI. Im more interested in how beautiful I think it looks though, the power is plenty for me!

PM me if you have any questions and I have a for sale ad somewhere around here if you are interested at all. Hoping to sell in the summer.

[Ekliptix]

If you want a quick fun 2 door reliable sports car that's a great value, get a 02-04 Z06.

Seriously, tons of torque, 6600rpm redline, handles amazing, 32mpg on the highway, aftermarket support is huge.

They're about the same price.

[rojhero]

Haha. I did some quick calcs before and believe the output of the engine should be around 270-280bhp giving about 220-230whp as well. It really depends on the assumptions you make (I used avg temp during the summer months). In any case, I don't think Benyl's original estimate is out to lunch.

Hate to be picky since it's a moot point, but I believe R- Audi's HP loss calculation is off a bit. Although it asks for bhp in the Wallace Racing website, you should put in the whp (266) since you are subtracting from the whp. So the net loss should be more like 30hp.

These calcs really gave me an appreciation of altitude correction. I always thought it was around 10% for Calgary not 20%. Imagine living in Denver with a ~30% correction. Your 333hp NA car now has 230hp. That’s ridiculous! I should take a road trip to Vancouver this summer.

I agree with Ekilptix. The Z06 would be a great summer car to consider.

[miguex]

All the real calculator you need for DA, HP, etc...

here: http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-altitude-calculator.php

It has the track of Race City plus real weather data recorded.

[benyl]

I was bored while watching TV and decided to do more calculations...

Thanks Miguex. More "jokes" to prove my guestimate.

So, if that video was posted the same night it was taken (May 29th, 2009 was a Friday). And we guess that it was 8pm (sun is still up in the video).

That gives us a DA of 5500 feet.

Take 5500 feet * 3% / 1000 ft = 16.5%

333 * 16.5% = 55 hp loss. = 278 hp.
(This is a pretty close match to the calculated hp based on ET, Trap and Weight.)

I picked a random day in August where the temp was 28 degrees. DA was 6100 ft.

6100 * 3% / 1000 ft = 18.3%

333 * 18.3% = 61 hp loss = 272 hp.

hmmm.

[Accord_tunerx]

haha love it when you guys know your stuff, helps me out alot.

[R-Audi]

Originally posted by rojhero
Haha. I did some quick calcs before and believe the output of the engine should be around 270-280bhp giving about 220-230whp as well. It really depends on the assumptions you make (I used avg temp during the summer months). In any case, I don't think Benyl's original estimate is out to lunch.

Hate to be picky since it's a moot point, but I believe R- Audi's HP loss calculation is off a bit. Although it asks for bhp in the Wallace Racing website, you should put in the whp (266) since you are subtracting from the whp. So the net loss should be more like 30hp.
.

At this point you are arguing about a few hp... I think from all the calculations on the page being within ~10hp it leads you down one road.

[rojhero]

Originally posted by R-Audi


At this point you are arguing about a few hp... I think from all the calculations on the page being within ~10hp it leads you down one road.

Yea, I probably shouldn't have mentioned it since it doesn't make much difference. My bad. I think we all agree and I'm not trying to argue at all. Strange thing is that if it's a 30hp net loss, then you're estimating around ~235whp. I think that the calculator isn't as accurate because it doesn't take into account factors such as Temp and RH to get the DA.

[OBDIIM50]

I fucking love my E46. I'd never trade it for any other car.. Especially a fucking GTI..:facepalm:

[redline]

Originally posted by OBDIIM50
I fucking love my E46. I'd never trade it for any other car.. Especially a fucking GTI..:facepalm:

I will trade mine but i drove Rage2's GTI and that was a slow pile...

E46 M3 Dog slow.... pretty quick dog... I think all the Rage2 nuthuggers on this site need to give there head a shake

[R-Audi]

Originally posted by redline

E46 M3 Dog slow.... pretty quick dog... I think all the Rage2 nuthuggers on this site need to give there head a shake

Once you've driven 'fast' cars... you would not say the M3 is fast. If you typically drive slow cars you will think the M3 is fast. That help?
In the same current price range, you can get quite a few other cars that are much quicker at our altitude...

I was shopping in that category two years ago, and both the BiTurbo V6 S4 and the Supercharged C32 felt WAY faster then the M3. Im sure the STi, and Legacy GT are in the same boat.

[OBDIIM50]

Yea but it's still an Audi lol.

[Accord_tunerx]

me and my friend had a quick pull on stoney when i had my s4 he smoked me in his bmw m3 2003 lol

[OBDIIM50]

Dont buy an 02. Buy a 2005/2006. Youll love it. I adore mine =)

[redline]

Originally posted by R-Audi


Once you've driven 'fast' cars... you would not say the M3 is fast. If you typically drive slow cars you will think the M3 is fast. That help?.

Did not say the car was fast, just said it was not dog slow. that help?

[R-Audi]

Originally posted by OBDIIM50
Yea but it's still an Audi lol.

LOL Yeah, still a 450hp Audi. But its my Audi, and I wouldnt trade it for anything else in the same price range.


The whole 'Dog Slow' thing would be in comparison to other performance cars in the same range.. not cars in general. Keep in mind thats also at our elevation... I would have a different opinion at Sea Level.
Don't read this as me putting the car down (for owners who seem to be taking offense) I think they are beautiful cars.. just dont feel they are thrilling to drive. The last one I was in was far from stock too.. not FI though.

[rage2]

Originally posted by redline
I will trade mine but i drove Rage2's GTI and that was a slow pile...

E46 M3 Dog slow.... pretty quick dog... I think all the Rage2 nuthuggers on this site need to give there head a shake

Originally posted by redline
Did not say the car was fast, just said it was not dog slow. that help?
Lemme clarify. For the record, it was benyl that called it dog slow.

The M3 lacks torque, and combined with our crappy air up here, really hurts it. There's no doubt that the M3 is faster than the GTI when it's at speed, but off the line, the GTI is pretty damn fast compared to the M3, losing out a very little by 100. Not bad for a slow pile. Yes, the GTI is slow too, which is why I got rid of it.

I also ran a coupe M3 against my old E55 benz (the 349hp NA one) and the 2 cars were dead even. The E55 felt much faster though, because again, torque.

For a 333hp car, it sure doesn't feel like a 333hp car. Feels kinda bland, even when accelerating from 100-200.

[911fever]

Originally posted by rage2


Lemme clarify. For the record, it was benyl that called it dog slow.

The M3 lacks torque, and combined with our crappy air up here, really hurts it. There's no doubt that the M3 is faster than the GTI when it's at speed, but off the line, the GTI is pretty damn fast compared to the M3, losing out a very little by 100. Not bad for a slow pile. Yes, the GTI is slow too, which is why I got rid of it.

I also ran a coupe M3 against my old E55 benz (the 349hp NA one) and the 2 cars were dead even. The E55 felt much faster though, because again, torque.

For a 333hp car, it sure doesn't feel like a 333hp car. Feels kinda bland, even when accelerating from 100-200.

so true. It feels bland from 100-200. Also, it doesn't respond very well to mods at all (like intake/header/exhaust, etc). HPF or AAutowerks S/C it or go home if you have to mod it.

[redline]

Originally posted by rage2



The M3 lacks torque, and combined with our crappy air up here, really hurts it.0.

how much torque do you need? do you pull tree stumps with your car??

[msommers]

What made you get rid of that M3 anyways Rage? The HPF kits are pretty slick.

[JAYMEZ]

Originally posted by benyl
Actually, that was coming from my point of view when I had a 300hp STi and a e92 335 coupe.

Both cars have less horsepower than the M3. The M3 suffers huge because of our altitude.


I agree with both these , had all the same cars , M3 is slow

[Ekliptix]

Originally posted by redline


how much torque do you need? do you pull tree stumps with your car??
What's the most torque you've had in a (gasoline) car you've driven?

[bastardchild]

M3 is far from dog slow. Its just not FAST by any means.

A prime example of what is slow and torque-less is a Mazda RX-8.

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Not a direct Comparison, but my dads Z4M ran 13.9@102mph here in Calgary, not fast by any means. By comparison my moms 135i ran [email protected] here in Calgary.

[slinkie]

A lot of hate on the rx-8, I guess speed is all relative but I found it very easy and fun to drive at (or near) its limit. Sounds like Chris Angels lawn mower though

[bastardchild]

Originally posted by slinkie
A lot of hate on the rx-8, I guess speed is all relative but I found it very easy and fun to drive at (or near) its limit. Sounds like Chris Angels lawn mower though

I had one a few years back.

-It was slow (actually), its got like 180 torque
-Bad on gas (350km to a tank if lucky)
-Unreliable (goes through engines like crazy)
-Looks weird from many angles
-Overpriced & terrible resale value
-Fellow RX-8 drivers are all women

The only thing I liked was the gauge cluster & way it shifted which to me isn't worth the 40k price tag.

[rojhero]

There’s too much circular commenting here. I think the main topic of discussion can be summarized into the paragraph below. Although incorrect, I will continue to use the term “speed” interchangeably with “acceleration”.

Although quite funny, the E46 M3 coupe is not “slower than dog shit on a hot day”. I think everyone can agree on this (even benyl, who probably wrote it as a joke). Speed is relative and can be quite subjective. For those that have driven faster cars, the M3 is slow. Even compared to turbocharged equivalents (hp, weight), the M3 will be slower in a straight line due to our elevation. If you’re talking about a track, perhaps the M3 may not be slower compared to turbocharged equivalents. Handling doesn’t suffer from altitude and quicker throttle response (ITB’s and no turbo lag) might help a bit too.

I think this will keep previous and current owners happy. I don’t think any of the current owners believe that the E46 M3 is the fastest car out there for the price or based on hp. We just believe it’s a reasonably quick car, especially compared to some we’ve driven in the past.

In any case, if any of you with faster cars (C63, M5, S4, 911,335,135 etc.) want to show us how slow the M3 is and make us believers, I’m always available to ride along when the weather is better =).

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

I wish we could get a big Top Gear style multi car drag race going. Would be a lot of fun but in reality there isn't really anywhere to do it.

[miguex]

e46 M3 is made for tracks. all the M are.
If you want a drag race, a FI is necessary. There are HFP turbo (800HP) or AA/ESS supercharger (400-500HP). All M rev to the moon.

Here is a proof of TOP GEAR (BMW M3 e92 vs MB C63 vs Audi RS4).... the winner is...... :thumbsup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaZExdTHHjY

Track: M3 > C63 > RS4
Drag: C63 = RS4 > M3

[slinkie]

Originally posted by bastardchild


I had one a few years back.

-It was slow (actually), its got like 180 torque
-Bad on gas (350km to a tank if lucky)
-Unreliable (goes through engines like crazy)
-Looks weird from many angles
-Overpriced & terrible resale value
-Fellow RX-8 drivers are all women

The only thing I liked was the gauge cluster & way it shifted which to me isn't worth the 40k price tag.

Agree on all of these, my buddy just got what he called his 'scheduled engine replacement' at 70k and looks terrible IMO. A lot of fun on the onramps though but in daily driving that kind of car gets old fast, especially on Calgary roads

[redline]

Here try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZGwpifULe4&feature=related

[OBDIIM50]

Originally posted by Twin_Cam_Turbo
Not a direct Comparison, but my dads Z4M ran 13.9@102mph here in Calgary, not fast by any means. By comparison my moms 135i ran [email protected] here in Calgary.


Lol you always have something to say. Is your mom Danika Patrick? Drag racing and shizz!!?

[davesparky6]

Originally posted by Twin_Cam_Turbo
Not a direct Comparison, but my dads Z4M ran 13.9@102mph here in Calgary, not fast by any means. By comparison my moms 135i ran [email protected] here in Calgary.
Pics of ur Mom?:dunno:

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

OBDIIM50 what's your problem, you mad I didnt buy your car when I came to see it? And no you don't want to see pictures of my mom. My parents like their cars and they take them to the track and use them.

[slinkie]

Originally posted by Twin_Cam_Turbo
OBDIIM50 what's your problem, you mad I didnt buy your car when I came to see it?

aww hell naw

[OBDIIM50]

OH NO YOU DIDNT!

[Scope951]

emri is mad

[Cos]

So I am considering an M3 for my next car. Once my truck sells thinking that I want to pick one of these up for an all year round car.

I know bastardchild is selling his but I dont think anything with suspension mods will be good for the winter. Over at E46fanatics it seems a lot of people winter drive them. I would drive from here to downtown and home. Plan would be to get winter and studded tires.

Any further comments?

Also what is a decent price for these things? I have found 2 or 3 of them in the 15-17 range (which is what I want to spend) then I find some in the 30k range. What the hell? All similar mileage and years.

[redline]

I drove my lowered E46 M3 all year around , with winters in the cooler months, the only days I did not drive it was really heavy snow days cause i did not want to be a snow plow and wreck the front bumper.

I good car to drive around all year!

[Euro_Trash]

Originally posted by Cos

Also what is a decent price for these things? I have found 2 or 3 of them in the 15-17 range (which is what I want to spend) then I find some in the 30k range. What the hell? All similar mileage and years.

You will end up getting what you paid for. I waited around a long time to find the perfect example, and I paid a little extra for it. Could be a little presumptuous, but I doubt the cars in the 15-17 range have been taken care of.

Other than that, with a good set of winters these cars would be perfect winter cars - just make sure you find one with the cold weather package.

[Cos]

Originally posted by Euro_Trash


You will end up getting what you paid for. I waited around a long time to find the perfect example, and I paid a little extra for it. Could be a little presumptuous, but I doubt the cars in the 15-17 range have been taken care of.

Other than that, with a good set of winters these cars would be perfect winter cars - just make sure you find one with the cold weather package.

So what is a good price point then? The ones in the 15 - 17k range are a bit older (2002 or 2004) and have a bit higher KM (100 - 150) but they seem to be well taken care of. For example one is BastardChilds 2002 from the US. It has 130,000 miles or something.

[benyl]

That's 210K kms... That is why the price is so low.

[President Obama]

I've been in bastard childs M3 and its pretty impressive and well taken care of

[redline]

Originally posted by Cos


So what is a good price point then? The ones in the 15 - 17k range are a bit older (2002 or 2004) and have a bit higher KM (100 - 150) but they seem to be well taken care of. For example one is BastardChilds 2002 from the US. It has 130,000 miles or something.

My 2006 with SMG, warranty and only 50,000 KM sold for $35,000

[Euro_Trash]

When I was looking I pretty much only found good ones (as in low km, babied, well maintained) for 30+

[Cos]

Originally posted by redline


My 2006 with SMG, warranty and only 50,000 KM sold for $35,000



Originally posted by Euro_Trash
When I was looking I pretty much only found good ones (as in low km, babied, well maintained) for 30+


Thanks for the input guys. For what my goals are and what an M3 costs I think it will have to wait until I buy a dedicated summer car.

I will still check out bastardchilds though :D

[Euro_Trash]

Originally posted by Cos






Thanks for the input guys. For what my goals are and what an M3 costs I think it will have to wait until I buy a dedicated summer car.

I will still check out bastardchilds though :D

Just keep in mind the maintenance costs for a 200k+ BMW M car - make sure you research the VANOS and subframe issues, as well as inspection 1 and 2 costs

[cam_wmh]

Originally posted by redline


how much torque do you need? do you pull tree stumps with your car??

Need? What the hell you talking about need? You misclick Beyond for the Prius forum?