Nabeel

Funny, the guys on the Audi board frequently complain about how flexy the B5 ('00-'02) S4 chassis is, and the consensus there is that the newer V8 S4 (B6 body) has a far superior chassis in regard to stiffness and rigidity. I guess car designs evolve quite quickly, it seems almost ever new car introduced makes claims of hading a stiffer (in bending as well as torsional rigidity) chassis than the car it replaces.

I really don't know how out 944 chassis stacks up to the rest, but if I were to venture a guess I would say probably not that well, given the huge rear hatch, large sunroof (on most cars anyway...), and its overall age. The 924 was being designed in the early to mid-70s, which must be quite a long time in terms of chassis evolution. I'm sure our cars had very formidable chassis in their day, but I have my doubts as to how they fare when stacked up against much newer platforms. I've heard some people remark that even a non-sport package equipped Boxster can give nearly all 944 series cars a serious run for their money, and often even beat them, through a set of twisties or on a tight track. I've never seen this proven first-hand, but if true it provides an example of how far chassis technology can progress, given that a convertible platform from '97+ can run with coupes of 10 years earlier.

Epic2112

As far as I'm concerned, it would be damn close, the cars are pretty well matched in all ways except price . Here are the numbers of the US M3, if anyone cares. I was wrong before when I said the US version was 197hp.

Peak bhp 195 bhp (6750rpm)
Peak torque 170 ft lbs (4600rpm)
Displacement 2302cc
Compression 10.5:1
0-62mph 6.9 sec
Top speed 143 mph
Weight lbs 2724 lbs (I don't know if this is wet or dry etc., but I suspect dry)
ZF 25% LSD Final drive ratio 4.10:1


As far as braking goes, I don't know what it is, but the M3, with it's wimpy single piston brakes seems to stop a lot faster than my 951, which has the massive M030 928 S4 brakes. That's just by the seat of the pants, though. One thing I know for sure is that when you hit the brakes hard in the M3 it sort of tucks in the way I've heard 914s do, whereas the 951 seems to really shift a lot of weight forward. I don't know which actually has a better stopping distance though. Both of my cars have reasonably fresh dampers, all suspension is stock on both cars.

Chase, the only way you're going to ever find out who would win for sure is to try, and I support your decision of skipping the competition. It sounds like you would never hear the end of it if you lost. Honestly I'd say you have a slightly better chance in the S2, but it's certainly not in the bag. The S2 is a much more reasonable car when it comes to driving, but if this guy knows how to get the power out of his S14 (which I seriously doubt, I sure don't know how to drive it to its potential at least) you'll be done for. If both of you are of equal skill, you'd probably win.

Robby

So many great points to respond too....

Hosrom- the E30 M3 WAS a 2304cc 4cyl- they did not make the E36 6cyl M3 until '95...

Kevin- I'm not trying to argue here- I'm sure you know that, as we've talked here many times before, &, even if I wanted to, I wouldn't concern myself w/3HP to anyway... But, I just dug up two E30 M3 tests, I wanted to compare to your stats... Many magazines test the same car & get dif results- sometimes even in terms of weights & measurements, so, it's hard to say which is really correct- in some cases it's a variance b/t production examples, not to mention driver & location variables...

Did the US M3 really break 200HP at some point? When did they quit making it & was '87 the 1st year?

Fall '87 MT (Sports Cars Of The World) shows:
192HP @ 6750rpm & 170TQ @ 4750rpm
redline: 7300 rpm
0-60: 7.6 (BY FAR the worst I've EVER seen for E30 M3)
Top Speed : 143mph
11.2" rotors F&R
Twin tube gas shocks (what kind are they???)
205/55/15 tires
Wheelbase: 100.9"
Track: 55.6/56.4"
Length: 171.1"
Width: 66.1"
Height: 53.9"
Curb weight: 2735lbs

VERY CLOSE in size to our cars...

BUT, November '87 C&D shows a few things different, as well as adds several things that the MT left out:
Frontal Area: 20.0 sq/ft
Cx: .33
Ground Clearance: 5.0"
CURB weight: 2857 (122lbs MORE than MT shows....)
Weight dist: 52.9/47.1
fuel tank: 15.3g
Redline: 7250rpm
0-60: 6.9
0-100: 19.6
0-110: 25.3
1/4 mile: 15.2 @ 92mph
Top speed: 141mph
70-0 braking: 179ft
300ft skidpad: .81

I was impressed to see FA & Cx shown- the 944S2/951/968 is 20.4sq/ft & .33, so, the BMW has a tiny advantage here....

Kevin- do you have a G-Tech? If so, would you PLEASE test both of your cars from 60-0 just to see what you get? I know exactly what you mean about smalller single piston brake systems still stopping cars shorter than ours... Does the E30 M3 have ABS? Traction control? I never thought about that... PLEASE tell me they never had air bags....?

Nabeel- that IS interesting info about the Audi S4 chassis- I remember when C&D FINALLY tested a car that they rated higher than the M3- it was the Audi S4 in '99 or 2000 & they said it was a stiffer chassi- they tested the two cars w/several others IIRC- C&D had ALWAYS rated the E36 M3 higher than EVERY OTHER car they had EVER tested- this included the Supra TT, RX7 TT, 300ZX TT, 3000GT VR4, C5 Vette, etc... It was never the fastest, but, always the most well rounded, well mannered street car to them... I didn't know they were saying the S4 V8 chassis was better than the old S4's, BUT, it does NOT surprise me... I don't like the V8 S4's though- I don't like the way they look inside OR outside, as well as the previous ones... I ALSO prefer the V6 TT, at this point, but, that could change if the V8 turns out to be highly moddable like the S4- I like the idea of taking an E36 M3 OR V6TT S4 chassis & sticking a modded Supra TT engine in it- IF the M3, then, putting the Audi dash/console in it.... I know.... I don't ask for much, do I?
"I guess car designs evolve quite quickly, it seems almost ever new car introduced makes claims of hading a stiffer (in bending as well as torsional rigidity) chassis than the car it replaces."

EXACTLY! This is exactly why I've become so interested in all this chassis stuff & would like to know more about our's, etc.... would also like to know just how much increase in stiffness (torsional & bending) is enough to make a noticeable dif & how much one really needs before anymore becomes overkill & a waste of time....(?) IF that point even exists...(?) Anyway, the only prob I can see w/these newer chassis is the extra weght they add...

I've heard the same thing about Boxsters too- not sure it's really true though- I REALLY think a Turbo S would keep up w/it in the corners, as well as a 968 M030 (which would be even better)- of course, the 951 IS a little undersprung- stiffer springs w/the right shocks will make a huge dif, as will going to the largest sways avaiable- 968 M030 or aftermarket....

BUT, the one thing you mentioned that I'm not too sure about Nabeel, is, that about the SR on 951's weakening the chassis... I've read that the SR cars are actually STIFFER than NON-SR cars- something about the steel reinforcement bars in the top of the car- they supposedly had one more in the SR cars, or, something.... not sure if there's any truth to this or not, but... I DO notice a dif in handling when I REMOVE my SR panel & throw it in the back of the car- it's 19lbs & is the highest point in the car, so, it makes a little sense- a guy here used to race his 944's ONLY w/the SR OUT... The car feels better balanced & slightly more responsive to me....

Epic2112

Robby, I'm not trying to argue at all, sorry if it seemed as though I was. I'm just sticking up for what I think is a fantastic car. It seems like it's often a taboo to praise other makes here on rennlist, which I honestly think is quite silly. In a lot of ways the M3 is a superior car, and in a lot of ways it's not, but I have a hard time considering criticism from anyone who hasn't driven both before making a judgement.

That 7.6 sec 0 - 60 time is absurd , I'm fairly sure 6.9 is correct. At least that seems to be the consensus among the E30 M3 owners that I've talked to. As far as hp rating, who knows and as you said the couple of horses isn't going to make a huge difference. I'm pretty sure 195 is correct, that's the only reason I posted, not trying to argue at all.

I don't have a G-Tech, if anyone nearby does and they want to time my cars let me know. I dunno if/how much the near freezing road surface and my summer tires are going to effect my times though. I think ABS was standard on all M3s, I'm not sure but mine has it. What I said before about how it stops was without triggering the ABS on both cars. I think you can stop significantly faster if you can brake just to the point before the wheels would lokc up than if you stomp the pedal and let the ABS do the work, does htat sound right? I think a driver's air bag was standard in 1990 and 1991, I have one in mine, which I'm happy about, but I think the majority of E30 M3s do not have them. As far as I know there was never an option for a passenger air bag.

And no, the US M3 never broke 200hp. All the ones in this country are the same version, they all have either 192, 195, or 197 hp, whichever it is that they have, they all have it. We got the slowest version. Ithink the standard Euro version was either 200 hp or 215 hp, but I could be wrong about which one they got, or it could vary per country.

FredK

First off, let me say that Rennlist is an excellent forum from what I've seen so far. I came to see what I can do about a friend's 944 that has an in-cabin fuel smell, and my eyes were magnetically drawn to this thread.


The US may have gotten the lowest power output version of the E30 M3 but for everyday driving it is right around as fast as the European versions because it has a 4.10 final drive whereas the Euro version had 3.25. It is true that the engine (S14) is sort of peaky, but as long as you keep the car in the powerband I bet it will be a drivers race.

The engine can be stroked using the a crank and larger pistons found in the European 2.5L engine. Though this is mega money, you can either end up with a S14 with an excellent torque band (realistic torque realized by ~3000 rpm) or a peakier engine that has impressive peak power (~300 crank hp).

The E30 M3 is not cheap to maintain either. A full on engine rebuild (+stroke) will cost $6 - 8K. But then again, you could end up with truly impressive numbers.

Robby-the M3 does not have traction control. It has ABS. It has an airbag starting I believe in 1990.

Robby

Kevin- I never thought you were arguing at all man... I only said that b/c I wanted to make sure YOU didn't think I was second guessing you back & forth- I had mentioned the 192 figure once or twice already & knew that you had mentioned the higher 195/197- for some reason, I can't stop replying to this thread So, after seeing your stats, I decided to dig up the older magazines, as I was pretty sure I could find at LEAST one test for the E30 M3 w/out much trouble- I got lucky & found TWO w/in minutes. I only mentioned that first b/c I was about to quote all of the stats from my tests & didn't want you to think I was posting that stuff, to counter your stats or anything, as I was not- I was only trying to throw a few more test #s in the mix b/c whenever I hear a question about a car's performance, I like to take an AVERAGE of several tests, as I feel it gives a more likely estimate for the car in question- hell, even w/actual manufacturers specs, the magazines sometimes seem to vary- the Turbo S usually always showed 2998lb curb weight & ~3150lb test weight- BUT, C&D & R&T BOTH showed the Turbo S as >3100lb curb & ~3300lb test.... That is WAY high- MY car weighed ~3160 w/a FULL 22.1g tank & all otions, spare in back, etc.... Mine seems to be pretty much dead-on based on other's weights from here... so, agian Kevin... You didn't come across as argumentative at all- I only wanted to make sure that it didn't seem as though I was- especially since YOU actually OWN one & I've never even ridden in one...

Also Kevin- I agree w/everything you said- there are a LOT of cool cars out there- they ALL seem to have their pros & cons, just like 944's, but, the E36 M3 has always been one of my favorites- the E30 was always one I wanted to drive- the more I learn about the E30, the more I want to find one & go for a ride....Also, it's weight dist is 52.5/47.5- is that what your stats show Kevin? The worst I've seen for the E36M3 was 50/50- the best 49/51- I think it's honest weight dist is more like 49.5/50.5- what I don't understand though, is- if the E30 M3 has a similar wheelbase & shape, design, size, etc..... it ALSO has a 4cyl engine as opposed to the 6cyl- I would assume the 4 is lighter than the 6, so, I would think if anything, that the E30 would have a little MORE rearward dist than the E36, but....

As for braking just before the threshold... I understand what you're saying, but, ABS is SUPPOSED to BE the threshold, when it's invoked. it is supposed to control each wheel indivdually at each wheel's individual threshold- there is no way a driver could hold each wheel independent of each other. The 951 actually has a 3-ch system- lot;s of cars back then had this controlling rear wheels as a pair w/hte one w/least traction governing the other Porsche said it helped add stability during trail-braking. Many drivers say they can stop shorter w/out ABS, but, I remember the late Eric Shroeder (former senoir editor of C&D) was the first test pilot for thei first 0-150-0 test- HE said the Vipers were the longest braking cars in that test b/c of their lack of ABS- he said that one just couldnt reach the threashold fast enough from that speed & would waste precious feet trying to find it..... In any event, it sounds like you are VERY close to that threadshold anyway, &, if you're able to keep it right to that point of ABS ALMOST being invoked, but, not quite, then, it sounds like you're just about maxed out no matter what- whether or not you would reduce your distances by another foot or two is anyone's guess- maybe one day someone will loan you a G-Tech & you can check your 60-0 distances- no one here ever seems to check 60-0. they usually only check acceleration, not DEcceleration....

Also, thanks for all the input on this Kevin- I've always been interested in the E30 M3's & learned a decent amount thanks to this thread....

Fred- thanls for your info too- a longer stroke M3 sounds COOL! Welcome to Rennlist!

mreed

I checked the BMW CCA Club Race and PCA Club Racing results for Mid-Ohio this year and the fastest times for stock class e30M3 and 944S2 were:

M3 (J Stock): 1:42.82 (race)
944S2 (F): 1:43.2 (qualifying)

As somebody mentioned earlier, there are so many factors (driver, tires, track conditions) that effect these times but it would appear that the cars are fairly evenly matched.

I would think that the 944S is more of an match to the E30 as they share similar torque, HP and HP to weight ratios.

Michael.

Robby

One of the tests I mentioed before compared the E30 M3 to the 944 S SEVERAL times throughout the article.....

Nabeel

I have the September '99 C&D where the B5 S4 beats the E36 M3. I've been a subscriber for a while, and I have most of the previous issues where the M3 beat every other car it was compared to. I also prefer the B5 S4 body to the B6, although the B6 chassis is likely superior. I heard that the V8 is really crammed into the engine bay in the B6 body; modding becomes somewhat of a challenge mainly due to limited space and tight clearances to work around. With that said, I believe there is a company developing a supercharger kit for the car. That should make it quite a rocket. Also, the factory is coming out with an RS4 based on the B7 body (basically a B6 with the '05 'facelift', which includes the huge new Audi grille, among other things). The RS4 is supposed to have a subsantial power increase over the reguler V8 S4. I'm not sure hwo they are adding the power, but it should be something to look forward to.

As for the sunroof issue, I've also heard that the sunroof cars may be stiffer due to the added reinforcement. I'm not sure of this, but it sounds interesting. However, the roof of the car is probably the last place where you would want added weight, being that it elevates the center of gravity and makes the car more top-heavy. For that reason the non-sunroof cars may be more desirable for racers, along with the reduced weight. Or perhaps its just one of those situations where rare= more prized, regardless of benefit . I'd imagine the differences between the sunroof/non-sunroof cars to be minimal, noticable only when pushed hard on the track.

Anyway....as for the E30 M3 vs. 944S2 discussion, I don't know. My hunch would be that the S2 would win, basically due to more horsepower and torque. I think, as noted before, that the 944S would be more of a comparison to an E30 M3. Same type of peaky powerband, similar handling tendancies, etc. Best bet would be to go out on the track and find out! At the very least, you'll find out who the better driver is .

pole position

The E30 M3 was a homlogation special for racing in Germany , similar to the Porsche cup etc. Because of that is has more competition oriented features than the 944 like individual throttle bodies and a integrated rear windshield for added stiffness for example. It shines on the racetrack but has the same inherit weakness of the 944/951 engines to spin rodbearings due to the wet sump.

Check out www.e30m3performance.com if you are interested in more specific info.

joseph mitro

back to the original question: in a straight line the E30 M3 is probably just a tad slower than a stock 944S2. I raced a buddy of mine who had an 89 M3 vs my stock 944S, and we were pretty close, although over about a mile he slowly pulled one to two car lengths on me.

his car: 2.3L 16 valve inline 4 with 195 bhp
my car: 2.5l 16 valve inline 4 with 188 bhp

my E36 M3 would have no trouble beating any 944 except for the 951. and it's completely stock. on the track, it's a drivers game, like the rest of you have alluded to. My M3 on the track has made me feel very quick and comfortable, although i'm a novice. I love its torquey engine and fantastic handling, but truth be told I prefer my 944 for competitive driving. it's a bit smaller, slightly lighter (quite a bit lighter with all my weight reduction), has more steering feedback, and is more responsive. I would love to have another 944 turbo, but that will have to wait....

comparing E30 vs E36 vs E46 - haven't driven an E30 much, but they say it is much more peaky. the E46 i drove once felt like an E36 on steroids - fantastic! better power, better handling, better brakes, all with the same familiar cockpit.

Chase72

Joseph: thanks for sharing your experience! Yup, it's a driver's game in the end I believe. Great to hear you love both cars and I have to agree that I believe the 944 to have better steering feedback. My daily driver is an E36 323 iC--handles great, but I'd rather take my S2 to the track!

Fishey

Yea, I agree on feedback on the E36M3 and also I find that it needs more off center weight.

M758

Guys this discussion is really a waste.

The only meaningfull data came form Mreed with PCA vs BMWCCA club race times at Mid ohio.

Shows the cars might be close.


In a really race on a real track alot will depend on driver skill and modifications made to the cars. Not sure how similar PCA vs BMWCCA "stock" class rules are, but the cars not really stock at that level. Still things like track conditions can impact race lap times by 1-2 seconds.

As for modifications around these parts there is a E30 M3 that is well driven and can run lap times close to stock class 993RS. Both are well driven cars. Not sure what mods are on the M3. My point is that given enough work anything can be fast. Hey there is also a rather stock looking 914-6 that can run with that 993RS and E30 M3. Of course its far from stock, but out would not know it from looking. Of course it is well driven. On the counter arugment my last race saw me held up by a racing viper. No this was not DE. Hmmm 131 rwhp vs 400+..... on paper I had no chance. If the driver had and skill I had no chance. Well the guy was actully hold me-up...

So... discussions like this are useless. Who will be who on the track with what. Well.... if you are with in 50 hp and about 300 lbs and both cars are relativly stock then well maybe. Now if the other guy races for SCCA national titles in spare time then all bets are off and you can be up 200 to 300 hp and 500 lbs and still get your but waxed.

PS... any guy that talks about how fast he is and how his car will beat your probably can drive his way out of a paper bag.

joseph mitro

it's interesting how everybody feels about this issue. i don't think it's a useless argument, just not well-defined. maybe we should clarify what "faster" means.....does this mean faster in a straight line from a stoplight? faster from a 20mph roll? faster on a track in stock form? faster with modifications?

so just like in science, there are lots of variables that affect the outcome, so controlling all the variables is the only way to really compare apples and oranges (since that's what the M3 and 944 are).

who cares, we're all just having fun here, right?