Lexus better get on their horse...

Originally posted by LexusIS300:
Any of the following would do, IF they will ever arrive in RHD version.

Skyline GTR (Vspec or 400R)
4000GT
Impreza WRX (the real one or 22B)
Lancer Evo

Click to expand...

All of those are great cars and I'd love to have one of each in my garage, but what makes the M3 a little more special is that it combines luxury and street-practicality with ultra-performance sport.

Originally posted by LexusIS300:
But if I need luxury and ultra performance I would take the M5 instead. NOT to mention that the M5 is also a limited-production car. Other than slightly less agile, it beats the new M3 in every category. I have a deposit on one. The new M3, while a top-notch design, is a little too heavy for what it is supposed to be, similar to the late model 300ZX in the early/ mid 90s.
]

Click to expand...

If the M3 is a little too heavy, the M5 is a lot too heavy. Although I won't dispute your Nurburgring numbers, the two M5 owners I've talked to say that they preferred the M3 as a track car. At any rate, I'm torn between the M3 and the M5 for my next car. I'll probably put a deposit on both and make up my mind later. Or, if the NASDAQ cooperates, I'll get both. ^_^

I'd go as far as to say that the M5 owners were 'disappointed' with their cars on the track. They just understeer way too much.

One last point...the M5 is NOT faster 0-60 than the new M3. BMW now claims 4.8 seconds 0-60 for the E46 M3 and the number has been backed up by a couple of magazines. BMW claims 5.2s I think for the M5.

I've seen magazine numbers of 4.9s for the M5, but BMW's official claim is 5.2s. I wouldn't be surprised if some magazines managed better than the "official" 4.8s for the new M3. BMW numbers tend to be conservative.

Originally posted by LexusIS300:
The E39 M5 times are 4.6 s (Evo) and 4.8 s (C&D) for 0-60 and these are traction limited, because of the weight.

Click to expand...

The stars and planets must have been conjunction for EVO. The fact remains that BMW thinks the E46 M3 is faster 0-60 than the E39 M5. The numbers from BMW are 4.8s (M3) vs. 5.2s (M5). I'll tell you what, if you get your M5 and I get an M3, I'll race ya. ^_^




[This message has been edited by Young (edited October 27, 2000).]

Originally posted by LexusIS300:
Because these people do NOT know how to tune the suspension and the tires. I would go as far as to say that these owners do NOT belong to the track........

The reported track times you acknowledged is clear evidence.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... I don't know if these people don't belong on the track. One was a beginner, true. But the other was a race instructor.

As for acknowledging equality in track time...I DIDN'T. I just said I didn't dispute it because I haven't heard one way or the other. Could you point me at the source of your information?

Now that I think about it...I think I recall a post on bimmer.org that said that the E46 M3 was FASTER at Nurburgring than the M5.

Ah...here is a web site with Nurburgring numbers:
http://www.born-free.net/nordschleife.html

According to this site, the E46 M3 was two seconds SLOWER than the M5 AND the E36 M3 (euro version)! I'd assume though that conditions weren't equal or that the E46 they were testing wasn't quite ready for prime time . So I'd take these numbers with a large grain of salt. I'd be willing to bet good money that an E46 M3 will better these times sometime this year.

Ah...here is a web site with Nurburgring numbers:
http://www.born-free.net/nordschleife.html

According to this site, the E46 M3 was two seconds SLOWER than the M5 AND the E36 M3 (euro version)! I'd assume though that conditions weren't equal or that the E46 they were testing wasn't quite ready for prime time . So I'd take these numbers with a large grain of salt. I'd be willing to bet good money that an E46 M3 will better these times sometime this coming year.

Originally posted by LexusIS300:
By the way, many BMW enthusiasts prefers the older and lighter E30 M3, NOT even the more current and heavier E36 M3. You have mistakened what they refer to.

[This message has been edited by LexusIS300 (edited October 27, 2000).]

Click to expand...

They prefer both E30 and E36 M3s as track cars over the M5. Besides the two owners I've talked to personally, I've read many other opinions on this question. I posted this very question on both the M3 and M5 forums on bimmer.org a couple of months back. The verdict was UNANIMOUS ... the M3 is a better handling car and the one I should get if I wanted to take it to the track .... which I do.

Originally posted by LexusIS300:
Please stick with what is reported, unless there is clear evidence to support otherwise........

Click to expand...

Hmmm...how about a wager? If the E46 M3 is not on top of the E39 M5 at Nurburgring by the end of 2001, you get my M3 slot (I'll be putting down a deposit in the next few weeks). If you lose, however, I get your M5 slot. ^_^

There's a footnote at bmwusa.com that indicates they're using C&D's numbers. BMW used to claim 5.2s, with their own test drivers. Let's wait and see what C&D achieves with the E46 M3.

All I am saying is that drivers and conditions being equal, the E46 M3 will be a better track car than the E39 M5. And I'd be willing to wager something real on it. The M5 has the M3 beat in luxury, but it's just very hard for me to believe that a lighter car with newer drivetrain technologies and the same or better accelerative capabilities is NOT better on the track. It just doesn't make sense. You're the very first person I've heard say that the M5 is just as good a track car as the M3. You must know something that a lot of M3 and M5 owners don't! Have you even driven an M5? I can't say I have. I did though test drive an E36 M3 and 540i back to back, and though the 540i may be significantly quicker in the straightaways, the cornering leaves much to be desired. The M5 may be a different beast, but it has the same weight problem the 540i has and the laws of physics have not been repealed.

By the way, take those Nurburgring numbers with a HUGE grain of salt. Check out the time for the Audi RS4. Ten seconds faster than the M5 and five seconds faster than the Z8! What's not clear from the list are the drivers, the mods, and the conditions for the lap times.

Of course I know. So tell us, Mr. Genius, how did it beat a 993 Bi-Turbo with more horsepower around the track? That RS4 must have been HEAVILY modded. Note that there's another entry for the RS4 that's 5 seconds slower than the M5...that's more like it. And note that there's a second entry for the M5 that is 6 seconds SLOWER than the E46 M3.

[This message has been edited by Young (edited October 27, 2000).]

Originally posted by LexusIS300:
You must attend the horse track very often. I make a living on speculation. I move 7 figures in and out of the markets everyday........

Open your eyes and observe the evidence instead of arguing just for the sake of it. The E39 M5 beats the E46 M3 in a straightline as well as on the track, according to ALL reported times so far. Either BMW did a godly job for the E39 M5 (a high-speed cruiser) or they under-engineered (relatively speaking) the E46 M3 (a sports coupe). But it is fact that the E39 M5 is better all around. I did test drive an E39 M5 several times before I placed the deposit. It is awesome and you should try too. As far as the understeer is concerned, it is tunable, otherwise how did the car perform so well on the track at 4,024 lb. I have already said, the E46 M3 should be more agile. But it is a little heavy as a sport coupe and hence, losing to a top-of-the-line high-speed cruiser on the track. As far as the straightline is concerned, I have already calculated the acceleration times and top speeds with the published gear ratios, HP numbers, RPM limit, torque numbers, wheel diameter,........ etc. They revealed that the E39 M5 (as long as traction holds) should be ~6 % more accelerative at any speeds plus the top speed is ~10 MPH higher. And they are consistent with the reported numbers so far. I do NOT need any popular support........

This is NOT to say the E46 M3 CANNOT be improved. But once again up-to-date, the E39 M5 is better all around.

Click to expand...

Nope, I've never been to a horse track. I only bet on sure things.

Yes, I'm sure they can tune a M5 to be a track monster. Remove everything but the driver's seat. Yank the A/C. Give it God's own suspension. Etc. But they can tune an E46 M3 as well. Why do you think BMW is using a tuned E46 M3 in the American LeMans series and not a tuned M5?

As for straightline speed, they're very close. I'll reserve judgment until we can compare apples to apples (e.g.., C&D's numbers for the M3 vs. C&D's numbers for the M5) as to which is actually faster. At any rate, the big factor that makes the M3 better than the M5 for the track (unless its a NASCAR or USAC oval), is the weight and cornering. 500 pounds is a HUGE difference.

Originally posted by LexusIS300:
I suppose you have never been passed by some Civics or Miatas on the track. Go there more often and you will know.

Click to expand...

My point EXACTLY. Those numbers have to be taken with a HUGE HUGE grain of salt. A good driver in a Daewoo can beat a bad driver in an M3 around a tough track...particularly a track as tough as Nurburgring. All I am saying is that with driver and conditions and mods being equal, the M3 is a better track car. This argument is indeed getting to me...because you are too dense to get that simple point.

Originally posted by LexusIS300:
Like you said, BMW can tune both the M3 and the M5. And yet the M5 won.

Click to expand...

Do you actually have ANY IDEA of what mods were made to the M5 and M3? For all we really know, the M5 may have been modded to the max while the E46 M3 was totally stock. Do you claim to know better? I don't.

Somehow I tend to believe current M5 owners, including a race instructor, over you. We shall see.

Meanwhile, why not put your money where your mouth is? If you're moving 7 figures around on a daily basis, losing a measly M5 slot is nothing to you.