m3 the best handling car period?
10-16-2003, 04:07 PM
#31
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is CEL?
The M3 doesn't have a transaxle- how does it have such great weight dist- is the transmission in the rear? Is it possible to mount a tranny in the rear w/out combining it & making it a transAXLE?
Also, I KNOW people STILL put chips, etc on '96 & up cars, BUT, I also know the gains aren't as great as 95's. BUT, since the 96 & up is stronger anyway, they don't NEED to be- so, who knows- when the same basic mods have been done to both- chips, filter, exhaust, etc, WHICH one ends up stronger, or, do they end up the same? I've heard, by one person, that the 96 & up is STILL stronger when both have same mods, but just BARELY- the main benefit being that those mods are simpler & thus, cheaper- is this true? OR, would the 95 end up being stronger if BOTH were modded the same?
Also, gearing- can an E46 M3 trransmission & gear box be installed in an E36? If so, that would RULE (unless WAY expensive, which I assume it would be)- the E46M3 has almost PERFECT gearing!
I like the gears to redline about where the 951's do, but, w/an extra gear (6th) on top... something like:
PERFECT would be a car w/500+RWHP/TQ $ the following
1st- 45, 2nd- 75, 3rd- 110, 4th- 145, 5th- 180, & 6th- 215
E46M3's are somewhere around:
1st- 40, 2nd- 70, 3rd- 105, 4th- 140, 5th- 170, & 6th- 205- EXCELLENT for power up to the ~400range. Of course, the more power you have, the taller gears you can get away with- not tom mention that when you break 400, you can start narrowing in on the 200mph zone & start gearing accordingly...
The M3 doesn't have a transaxle- how does it have such great weight dist- is the transmission in the rear? Is it possible to mount a tranny in the rear w/out combining it & making it a transAXLE?
Also, I KNOW people STILL put chips, etc on '96 & up cars, BUT, I also know the gains aren't as great as 95's. BUT, since the 96 & up is stronger anyway, they don't NEED to be- so, who knows- when the same basic mods have been done to both- chips, filter, exhaust, etc, WHICH one ends up stronger, or, do they end up the same? I've heard, by one person, that the 96 & up is STILL stronger when both have same mods, but just BARELY- the main benefit being that those mods are simpler & thus, cheaper- is this true? OR, would the 95 end up being stronger if BOTH were modded the same?
Also, gearing- can an E46 M3 trransmission & gear box be installed in an E36? If so, that would RULE (unless WAY expensive, which I assume it would be)- the E46M3 has almost PERFECT gearing!
I like the gears to redline about where the 951's do, but, w/an extra gear (6th) on top... something like:
PERFECT would be a car w/500+RWHP/TQ $ the following
1st- 45, 2nd- 75, 3rd- 110, 4th- 145, 5th- 180, & 6th- 215
E46M3's are somewhere around:
1st- 40, 2nd- 70, 3rd- 105, 4th- 140, 5th- 170, & 6th- 205- EXCELLENT for power up to the ~400range. Of course, the more power you have, the taller gears you can get away with- not tom mention that when you break 400, you can start narrowing in on the 200mph zone & start gearing accordingly...
10-16-2003, 04:12 PM
#32
Nordschleife Master
10-16-2003, 04:14 PM
#33
Three Wheelin'
'95 is cheaper to mod, as the $$$ required to mod an OBD-2 car is more. Great place to check for examples of this is www.turnermotorsports.com. Just the "chip" (software upgrade) is $150 more for the '96+. Most of the places that do serious modifications to M3's recommend starting with the '95.
On the weight distribution. Look at the profile of a 3 series sometime. There's no nose. The front wheels are as far forward as possible, and the engine is set way back, thus the long hood. This moves the balance towards the rear. The long rear overhang helps, as well. Makes them pretty sexy, too, IMHO.
-J
On the weight distribution. Look at the profile of a 3 series sometime. There's no nose. The front wheels are as far forward as possible, and the engine is set way back, thus the long hood. This moves the balance towards the rear. The long rear overhang helps, as well. Makes them pretty sexy, too, IMHO.
-J
10-16-2003, 04:41 PM
#34
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the 95's are cheaper to mod & I know why- I'm asking which would be STRONGER if BOTH had the same mods...? You HAVE to mod a 95 just to make it keep up w/a STOCK 96, but again, assuming BOTH are modded the same. WHICH would be stronger?
This doesn't affect those who want 4-drs, however, as they have no choice but to have OBDII...
This doesn't affect those who want 4-drs, however, as they have no choice but to have OBDII...
10-16-2003, 05:22 PM
#36
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
There's one handling trait of the 951 that sometimes annoys me. I'm surprised that not many people mention this. When taking fast corners over bumpy pavement, the rear end hops and takes a step sideways (bump steer). This is in a Turbo S on its stock suspension. I know it's not a case of worn shocks or springs because the car has done this since new. Also, at least one magazine review has criticized this same behavior. It always makes you think twice before diving into a bumpy corner. This is an area where I think the better suspension designs (M3 maybe) are superior.
The following users liked this post:
creakid1 (06-13-2022)
10-16-2003, 05:31 PM
#37
Nordschleife Master
Even bump steering.... The 944 HAS A AMAZEING amount of grip on bumpy surfaces. It actually has one of the best suspention setups for this. The Bumping is just the on,off traction nothing more.
http://www.iroc-zpostforum.com/NewsIROCvsPOR2.htm
Botttom of page (just as some proof of what I am talking about)
Just look at the loss on the z28 compared to the 944... This is common on most cars compared to the 944.
http://www.iroc-zpostforum.com/NewsIROCvsPOR2.htm
Botttom of page (just as some proof of what I am talking about)
Just look at the loss on the z28 compared to the 944... This is common on most cars compared to the 944.
10-16-2003, 06:12 PM
#38
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I used to own a 944 NA and it does have quite a different "feel" to the handling than my 951S. The 944 NA feels nimbler and lighter on its feet, as long as you stay within its handling limits. Of course, the limits in the 951 are much higher, but the feel is different. Also, I think the 944 NA handles the bumpy stuff better on its softer, more compliant suspension.
10-16-2003, 06:30 PM
#40
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the 951 has a few handling traits that aren't perfect & I've noticed the bump prob too... I remember a test of the Turbo S- Corky Bell at WS ran a 1:41- said the regular turbo was almost 5 full seconds slower & felt much less stable in some corners. Fact is, the 951 is getting surpassed by some newer cars- the susp isn't the best design- E36M3 is way ahead- handles bumps MUCH better, accelarates harder, stops shorter, etc... Turbo tops out higher partly b/c of the M3's short-*** gearing. The M3 is IMPRESSIVE!!!
You've got to remember where you're posting- lot's of people here (& I'm NOT referring to anyone here in particular) like to think the 951 is the king of the world. Sometimes it's a case of "Hey- German engineering is perfect so I have to say that if FEELS perfect to me- so like, I'm a Porsche dude- perfection- hand in glove, etc..." Some just don't want to admit that MAYBE these cars can be surpassed- sort of an elitist attitude... Not trying to knock on anyone though- I'm glad to hear people enjoying these cars- I wish everyone could be as happy as they possibly could w/their cars. BUT, the 951 has been surpassed by a few- SupraTT's for instance, can take a Turbo S in every area- chipped Turbos can hang in straightline w/stock SupraTT, but slap a few grand on SupraTT & the 951 could NEVER catch up- of course, w/the supra, you have to deal w/all the annoying F&F people- maybe a supraTT engine in a Lexus is300? RX7TT's are ahead of the 951S too, but not by much- M3's, S4's (w/chips) etc, there are a few cars out there- the 951 gives them a run for their $ though & does great for it's age-it's just getting dated, that's all- thank God for the aftermarket & people who still care to keep them alive...
Hell, I've noticed a few times, when just drving around that some of the newer cars aren't having as much problems dealing w/normal roads as my Turbo S- a few months ago, I was following a girl in a MR2 Spyder- I was keeping up, but barely- I was close to the threshold & could tell her car was holding stable as if she had more in it- I talked to her later, but never mentioned it- it was just more stable & solid- of course, PART of my prob is worn out shocks & bushings- that will make a big dif, but I've seen it a few times & have noticed that I could DEFINATELY run through certain roads faster in my '89 Integra- Muegen bushings, Tokico 5-way's w/Eibachs, but, stock T-bars (front) & stock sways- it could have been better, but still hung the corners faster than my Turbo S- I think if everything were perfect, as if new, the Turbo S would be close, but wouldn't quite match it- unless modified too- & at least the Turbo S is more WORTH modding- IMO...
You've got to remember where you're posting- lot's of people here (& I'm NOT referring to anyone here in particular) like to think the 951 is the king of the world. Sometimes it's a case of "Hey- German engineering is perfect so I have to say that if FEELS perfect to me- so like, I'm a Porsche dude- perfection- hand in glove, etc..." Some just don't want to admit that MAYBE these cars can be surpassed- sort of an elitist attitude... Not trying to knock on anyone though- I'm glad to hear people enjoying these cars- I wish everyone could be as happy as they possibly could w/their cars. BUT, the 951 has been surpassed by a few- SupraTT's for instance, can take a Turbo S in every area- chipped Turbos can hang in straightline w/stock SupraTT, but slap a few grand on SupraTT & the 951 could NEVER catch up- of course, w/the supra, you have to deal w/all the annoying F&F people- maybe a supraTT engine in a Lexus is300? RX7TT's are ahead of the 951S too, but not by much- M3's, S4's (w/chips) etc, there are a few cars out there- the 951 gives them a run for their $ though & does great for it's age-it's just getting dated, that's all- thank God for the aftermarket & people who still care to keep them alive...
Hell, I've noticed a few times, when just drving around that some of the newer cars aren't having as much problems dealing w/normal roads as my Turbo S- a few months ago, I was following a girl in a MR2 Spyder- I was keeping up, but barely- I was close to the threshold & could tell her car was holding stable as if she had more in it- I talked to her later, but never mentioned it- it was just more stable & solid- of course, PART of my prob is worn out shocks & bushings- that will make a big dif, but I've seen it a few times & have noticed that I could DEFINATELY run through certain roads faster in my '89 Integra- Muegen bushings, Tokico 5-way's w/Eibachs, but, stock T-bars (front) & stock sways- it could have been better, but still hung the corners faster than my Turbo S- I think if everything were perfect, as if new, the Turbo S would be close, but wouldn't quite match it- unless modified too- & at least the Turbo S is more WORTH modding- IMO...
Last edited by Robby; 10-17-2003 at 06:50 AM.
10-17-2003, 06:40 AM
#43
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Fishey
Iloveposches...
I was just poiting out that its nervous but still it has more grips then your normal car.. Not that it feels any better
Iloveposches...
I was just poiting out that its nervous but still it has more grips then your normal car.. Not that it feels any better
I would completely agree here...
10-17-2003, 09:08 AM
#44
Drifting
I have a 98 M3. In C&D it wasn't compared against Camrys or Accords, get real!! Not only is the M3 an unbelievable competitor for cars $100K more in price, it is also one of the best daily drivers. Take it from an owner of a Porsche and BMW, to think anything negative of the M3 is complete rediculousness.
10-17-2003, 10:33 AM
#45
Three Wheelin'
Robby,
Regarding the engines, from what you're describing ( a no-holds barred constest), the 3.2 liter is going to be better, just because it has larger displacement. With unlimited funds and/or no emissions/ECU requirements, the 3.2 will develop more hp. Like I said, that's why the 3.2 are a relatively common swap into the '95 chassis.
A guy that I work with has this in his '95. 3.2 liter supercharged '98 engine. All things equal the 3.2 will win, just because of the increase in displacement.
The whole answer lies in how much you want to spend. A great resource would be bimmerforums.com. These guys aren't bench racing, they've done it, and can give you most of the info first hand.
Ultimately, the real S50 is the engine I would opt for. 321 hp out of a 3 liter N/A engine is about all I could ask for. To bad BMW didn't think it was worth the added expense to import to the US.
-J
Regarding the engines, from what you're describing ( a no-holds barred constest), the 3.2 liter is going to be better, just because it has larger displacement. With unlimited funds and/or no emissions/ECU requirements, the 3.2 will develop more hp. Like I said, that's why the 3.2 are a relatively common swap into the '95 chassis.
A guy that I work with has this in his '95. 3.2 liter supercharged '98 engine. All things equal the 3.2 will win, just because of the increase in displacement.
The whole answer lies in how much you want to spend. A great resource would be bimmerforums.com. These guys aren't bench racing, they've done it, and can give you most of the info first hand.
Ultimately, the real S50 is the engine I would opt for. 321 hp out of a 3 liter N/A engine is about all I could ask for. To bad BMW didn't think it was worth the added expense to import to the US.
-J