Curious how do you guys fair against e46 m3s??
09-07-2004, 12:39 AM
#76
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by Speedraser
Anir,
Very well said, as usual.
Everyone,
FWIW, the NA 993 remains a very quick car even by the latest standards. C&D's road test of a '95 Carrera recorded 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, 0-100 in 12.1, and 0-120 in 18.3. Yes, an e46 M3 will beat that, but the margin is very small.
Very well said, as usual.
Everyone,
FWIW, the NA 993 remains a very quick car even by the latest standards. C&D's road test of a '95 Carrera recorded 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, 0-100 in 12.1, and 0-120 in 18.3. Yes, an e46 M3 will beat that, but the margin is very small.
09-07-2004, 12:53 AM
#77
Burning Brakes
i'm with mr. sullivan... let's not get out of hand here. the 993 is a lovely sports car for sure, and quite quick. but sub 5 seconds is simply false. the car just doesn't accelerate that quickly. not to mention- Car&Driver is 'always' ammusingly optimistic when stating test numbers.
09-07-2004, 12:56 AM
#78
Race Director
I have to agree with MrSullivan on this one. Both the E46 M3 and the E39 M5 do 0-60 in 4.8 sec. I have not seen a NA 993 in the 4 second range. The 993 spec. was 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, the 996 Carrera is 5 seconds and the 997 is 4.8 seconds. I would be really surprised if the 993 NA can do 0-60 in 4.7 seconds. In those ranges, an one-second improvement is a HUGE deal.
However, as I stated before, quantative numbers aside, the 993 is a much more engaging car to drive than the M3, and it would be my choice over the M3 any time, regardless how much faster the M3 is by comparison. Of course, in my case, the acceleration times of other cars (let alone an M3) are never a concern. That's the beauty of the RUF.
CP
However, as I stated before, quantative numbers aside, the 993 is a much more engaging car to drive than the M3, and it would be my choice over the M3 any time, regardless how much faster the M3 is by comparison. Of course, in my case, the acceleration times of other cars (let alone an M3) are never a concern. That's the beauty of the RUF.
CP
09-07-2004, 03:06 AM
#79
Three Wheelin'
C&D does always seem to have the quickest numbers. The figures I quoted are from their first road test of the 993 (I'll check the issue date). It appears NOT to be a fluke, however, because C&D did a long-term test of a '95 993 (different car from the first test), and they recorded 0-60 in 4.6! At 40,000 miles they re-tested it, and recorded 0-60 in 4.9 with a slipping clutch. I do believe that some European magazines recorded slightly sub-5 second times, and many did 5.0. A quick example in the right conditions, treated brutally, may manage the 4.7.
Porsche quoted 0-60 in 5.4, and they are notoriously conservative.
I have seen a best 0-60 figure of 4.5 for the M3 -- slightly quicker than the best 993 figure. The gap increases a bit by 100 mph.
I think part of the reason for the closeness of the 993 and M3 acceleration figures may be due to the Porsche's rear-weight bias and the resulting superb traction off the line -- it gets a very quick launch, quicker than the front-engined M3. So, in a brutal, high-revs drop-clutch launch, the 993 seems to be able to keep up pretty well with the M3. No, I never have and never would do that to my car or anyone else's -- I have too much mechanical sympathy.
On the street, the M3 is clearly more torquey, and I suspect this is partly why MrSullivan (and others) says there was a very noticeable performance difference b/w his M3 and his '98 C2S. From a rolling start, the difference would be greater than the road test figures suggest, and a 993 driver would really have to be in the right gear to stay with an M3 in a straight line. However, a C2S is not quite as quick as a standard Carrera -- it's a little heavier and has a little more aero drag. Most also are heavily optioned, adding still more weight. Of course, the C4 and C4S also add the 110 lbs of the AWD system, as well as its mechanical friction.
Ultimately, while not quite as quick in a straight line as some newer performance cars, the NA 993 remains a very quick car -- quicker than many here realize, especially in standard RWD Carrera form.
Porsche quoted 0-60 in 5.4, and they are notoriously conservative.
I have seen a best 0-60 figure of 4.5 for the M3 -- slightly quicker than the best 993 figure. The gap increases a bit by 100 mph.
I think part of the reason for the closeness of the 993 and M3 acceleration figures may be due to the Porsche's rear-weight bias and the resulting superb traction off the line -- it gets a very quick launch, quicker than the front-engined M3. So, in a brutal, high-revs drop-clutch launch, the 993 seems to be able to keep up pretty well with the M3. No, I never have and never would do that to my car or anyone else's -- I have too much mechanical sympathy.
On the street, the M3 is clearly more torquey, and I suspect this is partly why MrSullivan (and others) says there was a very noticeable performance difference b/w his M3 and his '98 C2S. From a rolling start, the difference would be greater than the road test figures suggest, and a 993 driver would really have to be in the right gear to stay with an M3 in a straight line. However, a C2S is not quite as quick as a standard Carrera -- it's a little heavier and has a little more aero drag. Most also are heavily optioned, adding still more weight. Of course, the C4 and C4S also add the 110 lbs of the AWD system, as well as its mechanical friction.
Ultimately, while not quite as quick in a straight line as some newer performance cars, the NA 993 remains a very quick car -- quicker than many here realize, especially in standard RWD Carrera form.
09-07-2004, 09:42 AM
#80
Yes, one of the car magazines in the UK tested a 964 C2 at 4.9 seconds back in 1990 or so. On the 964 board, we had a round of Gtech last year and found that anywhere from 5.0 to 5.5 secs was seen on the whole - and it varied between cabs, coupes etc.....some were under 5 secs but with mods....
The difference to 60 between the M3 and a 993 will be measured only in a car length or so, beyond that the M3 will pull away as we all agree. 0-60 times do not mean squat.
The difference to 60 between the M3 and a 993 will be measured only in a car length or so, beyond that the M3 will pull away as we all agree. 0-60 times do not mean squat.
09-07-2004, 09:53 AM
#83
Drifting
E46 M3 is a fine and strong car, and I think it's faster then a stock 993. When I drive on the Nordschleife [Nurburgring] I can not keep up with them, also 993's have problems with that. But rememer, BMW's are limited on top speed, but remember, at 156.25 m/ph it's all over at a stock M3, so......... on a answer to your question, stock Porsche agains stock M3......Porsche has a higher top speed.
09-07-2004, 09:59 AM
#84
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by Speedraser
C&D does always seem to have the quickest numbers. The figures I quoted are from their first road test of the 993 (I'll check the issue date). It appears NOT to be a fluke, however, because C&D did a long-term test of a '95 993 (different car from the first test), and they recorded 0-60 in 4.6! At 40,000 miles they re-tested it, and recorded 0-60 in 4.9 with a slipping clutch. I do believe that some European magazines recorded slightly sub-5 second times, and many did 5.0. A quick example in the right conditions, treated brutally, may manage the 4.7.
Porsche quoted 0-60 in 5.4, and they are notoriously conservative.
I have seen a best 0-60 figure of 4.5 for the M3 -- slightly quicker than the best 993 figure. The gap increases a bit by 100 mph.
I think part of the reason for the closeness of the 993 and M3 acceleration figures may be due to the Porsche's rear-weight bias and the resulting superb traction off the line -- it gets a very quick launch, quicker than the front-engined M3. So, in a brutal, high-revs drop-clutch launch, the 993 seems to be able to keep up pretty well with the M3. No, I never have and never would do that to my car or anyone else's -- I have too much mechanical sympathy.
On the street, the M3 is clearly more torquey, and I suspect this is partly why MrSullivan (and others) says there was a very noticeable performance difference b/w his M3 and his '98 C2S. From a rolling start, the difference would be greater than the road test figures suggest, and a 993 driver would really have to be in the right gear to stay with an M3 in a straight line. However, a C2S is not quite as quick as a standard Carrera -- it's a little heavier and has a little more aero drag. Most also are heavily optioned, adding still more weight. Of course, the C4 and C4S also add the 110 lbs of the AWD system, as well as its mechanical friction.
Ultimately, while not quite as quick in a straight line as some newer performance cars, the NA 993 remains a very quick car -- quicker than many here realize, especially in standard RWD Carrera form.
Porsche quoted 0-60 in 5.4, and they are notoriously conservative.
I have seen a best 0-60 figure of 4.5 for the M3 -- slightly quicker than the best 993 figure. The gap increases a bit by 100 mph.
I think part of the reason for the closeness of the 993 and M3 acceleration figures may be due to the Porsche's rear-weight bias and the resulting superb traction off the line -- it gets a very quick launch, quicker than the front-engined M3. So, in a brutal, high-revs drop-clutch launch, the 993 seems to be able to keep up pretty well with the M3. No, I never have and never would do that to my car or anyone else's -- I have too much mechanical sympathy.
On the street, the M3 is clearly more torquey, and I suspect this is partly why MrSullivan (and others) says there was a very noticeable performance difference b/w his M3 and his '98 C2S. From a rolling start, the difference would be greater than the road test figures suggest, and a 993 driver would really have to be in the right gear to stay with an M3 in a straight line. However, a C2S is not quite as quick as a standard Carrera -- it's a little heavier and has a little more aero drag. Most also are heavily optioned, adding still more weight. Of course, the C4 and C4S also add the 110 lbs of the AWD system, as well as its mechanical friction.
Ultimately, while not quite as quick in a straight line as some newer performance cars, the NA 993 remains a very quick car -- quicker than many here realize, especially in standard RWD Carrera form.
09-07-2004, 10:37 AM
#85
Three Wheelin'
I'm confused. If one cannot believe the figures achieved by the magazines, what can we believe? 'My mate down the pub'?!
Clearly the current M3 is quicker to 60 than a stock 993 and nearly as quick as a 993RS
Clearly the 993 is much more fun than the M3!
Clearly the current M3 is quicker to 60 than a stock 993 and nearly as quick as a 993RS
Clearly the 993 is much more fun than the M3!
09-07-2004, 11:31 AM
#86
E46M3 is sporty sedan, very very fast sporty sedan.
I recently traded 2004 M3 for 993 as you know.
Once you drove M3, 993 is not fast at all.
However, we all know what makes 993 special and I love it.
I am little bit skeptical about all those numbers.
The car within the price range of 50000-70000 or even 80000 IMHO is considerably fast and just feels similar in the sense of speed whatever you choose.
I don't really think one can notice 0.5 sec in 0-60 that precisely let alone 1/4 mile in everyday situation.---> Correct me if I am wrong.
I mean how often you do launch control in your SMGed M3 everyday?
How often you drop the clutch in your 993 everyday?
Go on to high way, and how many cars can go faster than you in your M3 or 993? Not many, almost 1 out of 100 or more cars?
When we compare the cars, I think its only up to us subjectively. Numbers can help us but not entirely.
Only thing I look at when I see a magazine and imagine myself is torque if the car is around 5 sec range for 0-60.
I recently traded 2004 M3 for 993 as you know.
Once you drove M3, 993 is not fast at all.
However, we all know what makes 993 special and I love it.
I am little bit skeptical about all those numbers.
The car within the price range of 50000-70000 or even 80000 IMHO is considerably fast and just feels similar in the sense of speed whatever you choose.
I don't really think one can notice 0.5 sec in 0-60 that precisely let alone 1/4 mile in everyday situation.---> Correct me if I am wrong.
I mean how often you do launch control in your SMGed M3 everyday?
How often you drop the clutch in your 993 everyday?
Go on to high way, and how many cars can go faster than you in your M3 or 993? Not many, almost 1 out of 100 or more cars?
When we compare the cars, I think its only up to us subjectively. Numbers can help us but not entirely.
Only thing I look at when I see a magazine and imagine myself is torque if the car is around 5 sec range for 0-60.
09-07-2004, 11:44 AM
#87
King of Cool
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I don't care about straight line numbers that much and all experience I have M3s (or M5s) is at track and I've never had problems lapping them yet.
09-07-2004, 12:12 PM
#88
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by j09333
E46M3 is sporty sedan, very very fast sporty sedan.
I recently traded 2004 M3 for 993 as you know.
Once you drove M3, 993 is not fast at all.
However, we all know what makes 993 special and I love it.
I am little bit skeptical about all those numbers.
The car within the price range of 50000-70000 or even 80000 IMHO is considerably fast and just feels similar in the sense of speed whatever you choose.
I don't really think one can notice 0.5 sec in 0-60 that precisely let alone 1/4 mile in everyday situation.---> Correct me if I am wrong.
I mean how often you do launch control in your SMGed M3 everyday?
How often you drop the clutch in your 993 everyday?
Go on to high way, and how many cars can go faster than you in your M3 or 993? Not many, almost 1 out of 100 or more cars?
When we compare the cars, I think its only up to us subjectively. Numbers can help us but not entirely.
Only thing I look at when I see a magazine and imagine myself is torque if the car is around 5 sec range for 0-60.
I recently traded 2004 M3 for 993 as you know.
Once you drove M3, 993 is not fast at all.
However, we all know what makes 993 special and I love it.
I am little bit skeptical about all those numbers.
The car within the price range of 50000-70000 or even 80000 IMHO is considerably fast and just feels similar in the sense of speed whatever you choose.
I don't really think one can notice 0.5 sec in 0-60 that precisely let alone 1/4 mile in everyday situation.---> Correct me if I am wrong.
I mean how often you do launch control in your SMGed M3 everyday?
How often you drop the clutch in your 993 everyday?
Go on to high way, and how many cars can go faster than you in your M3 or 993? Not many, almost 1 out of 100 or more cars?
When we compare the cars, I think its only up to us subjectively. Numbers can help us but not entirely.
Only thing I look at when I see a magazine and imagine myself is torque if the car is around 5 sec range for 0-60.
09-07-2004, 01:04 PM
#89
Addicted Specialist
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Just an FYI:
I checked my porsche lit and found the article referenced by Todd (thanks, you jarred my memory). Indeed, the sub-5.0 numbers did in fact come from Car&Driver doing a "Long-term" test of a C2 with LSD. In that article, it said that the same car had done 4.6 seconds when it first arrived. For this article's test, the car had accumulated 40000 miles and then logged 4.9 seconds 0-60. They attributed the difference to a slipping clutch, not to the car getting "tired" in any way. I wouldn't disparage C/D's numbers just because they are low. Variations in testing times are due to the numerous variable at hand, not least of which is the driver, then ambient temp, humidity, elevation, tires, track condition, to name just a few. And we all know that "identical" cars can feel just a bit different due to slight manufacturing differences. Just thought I'd chime in
Edward
I checked my porsche lit and found the article referenced by Todd (thanks, you jarred my memory). Indeed, the sub-5.0 numbers did in fact come from Car&Driver doing a "Long-term" test of a C2 with LSD. In that article, it said that the same car had done 4.6 seconds when it first arrived. For this article's test, the car had accumulated 40000 miles and then logged 4.9 seconds 0-60. They attributed the difference to a slipping clutch, not to the car getting "tired" in any way. I wouldn't disparage C/D's numbers just because they are low. Variations in testing times are due to the numerous variable at hand, not least of which is the driver, then ambient temp, humidity, elevation, tires, track condition, to name just a few. And we all know that "identical" cars can feel just a bit different due to slight manufacturing differences. Just thought I'd chime in
Edward
09-07-2004, 01:34 PM
#90
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had an E36 M3 a few years back and sold it to get an E46 M3... at that time the E46 M3 just came out and most (if not all) magazines were raving about it... I guess I fell into the hype and bought one of the first E46 M3s here.
What a big mistake
I was really excited when I got the car but a few weeks later, I found out that I missed my E36 M3 a lot (I still do). Personally I like the E36 M3 much more than the E46. Yes the E46 is faster, etc., but the steering feel is worse (vague?) compared to E36 M3. I've never driven an E30 M3 before so I can't compare it with that car.
I sold my E46 M3 to get my dream car... a 993 (I still remember the feeling of "oh my, i can't believe I am driving a 993, let alone owning one... totally a dream came true")
At any rate, as far as comparing the E46 M3 with a 993, the driving experience of the 993 makes me forget about the E46 M3. The E46 M3 is a faster car on the straight and I've been passed by several E46 M3s on the track and I've passed some of them as well (it's the driver, not the car - actually last time I went out to the track, I passed an E46 M3 with Kim's Miata - it's the driver, not the car). So with that respect, I don't think that I'd based my decision on buying a car on whether or not car A is faster than car B on paper.
I think it's basically a matter of personal preference. If you like raw driving experience, you'd love the 993 more but if you like comfort, big practical car that's fast, you'd probably prefer the E46 M3.
Just my 2-cents, other people's experience may vary
What a big mistake
I was really excited when I got the car but a few weeks later, I found out that I missed my E36 M3 a lot (I still do). Personally I like the E36 M3 much more than the E46. Yes the E46 is faster, etc., but the steering feel is worse (vague?) compared to E36 M3. I've never driven an E30 M3 before so I can't compare it with that car.
I sold my E46 M3 to get my dream car... a 993 (I still remember the feeling of "oh my, i can't believe I am driving a 993, let alone owning one... totally a dream came true"
)At any rate, as far as comparing the E46 M3 with a 993, the driving experience of the 993 makes me forget about the E46 M3. The E46 M3 is a faster car on the straight and I've been passed by several E46 M3s on the track and I've passed some of them as well (it's the driver, not the car - actually last time I went out to the track, I passed an E46 M3 with Kim's Miata - it's the driver, not the car). So with that respect, I don't think that I'd based my decision on buying a car on whether or not car A is faster than car B on paper.
I think it's basically a matter of personal preference. If you like raw driving experience, you'd love the 993 more but if you like comfort, big practical car that's fast, you'd probably prefer the E46 M3.
Just my 2-cents, other people's experience may vary