+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1. #1
    Registered Member
    Location
    Eugene, OR, United States
    Member No: 21850 jimdrivas has a little shameless behaviour in the past jimdrivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    7,936
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    Comparison E46 M3 vs E92 M3......................

    I found this comparison from "Autocar UK" on-line magazine. I looked up the data of a 2001 E46 M3 6-speed and the 2008 E92 M3. Both cars are fast...the E92 M3 of course faster. You can draw the conclusions. The numbers in brackets [ ] is the E92 M3 data. The conclusion I draw is the E92 M3 has traction problems off-the-line (slower 0-30 time); more grunt at the higher speeds (0-100 in 1.3 sec faster); mid-range power is about equal; pulls much better in the higher gears.

    E46 M3 [E92 M3]

    0-30 2.0 sec [2.1]
    0-60 4.8 sec [4.7]
    0-100 11.5 sec [10.2]
    0-150 no data [26.5]
    30-70 4.1 sec [3.7]
    0-400m [email protected] [[email protected]]
    0-1000m [email protected] [[email protected]]
    30-50 in 3rd/4th gear 3.0/4.5 sec [3.1/4.3]
    40-60 in 4th/5th gear 4.1/5.4 sec [4.1/5.2]
    50-70 in 5th gear 5.4 [5.0]
    60-0 2.6sec [2.62]


    All-in-all...if you are looking for the E92 M3 to be killer fast compared to the E46 M3, you will be disappointed. The E92 M3 will however be dazzling in the 6000-8400 rpm range where most of the power lies.


  2. #2
    Registered Member
    Location
    flemington, NJ, United States
    Member No: 56162 drjohn is an unknown quantity at this point drjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    42
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    hmmmm....

    the new M3 is close to a full second faster in the 5-60 street start and 7 mph faster in the 1/4 mile. That is a lot faster. Read the C&D article. The mag you quote got a nice fast E46 and a slowish E92. For a nice video comparo, watch top gears RS4 smoke a E46 M3 and second video watching that same RS4 getting smoked by the new M3. Will you beat a vette of carrera S...No, but it should be a clear differentiation between old and new.

  3. #3
    sayemthree
    Guest
    Location
    , ,
    Member No: sayemthree's Avatar


    Yes | No

    recent mag tests got 0-60 in 4.3 sec for the e92

    M3. and to 100 mph in under 10 sec.

  4. #4
    Registered Member
    Location
    Eugene, OR, United States
    Member No: 21850 jimdrivas has a little shameless behaviour in the past jimdrivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    7,936
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    Re: hmmmm....

    July, '02 SMG E46 M3 5-60mph: 5.0....equal to the E92. Long term test E46 M3 (6-speed manual) did 5-60mph in 5.2. I call that pretty close to 60mph.

    It's all relative: The car that will be the fastest will be the car with the jump off the line or the jump off a rolling start. If you go look at the videos of the M5Board where they pit all different brands of cars together, you will see for instance an M6 vs Z06....2 runs from a rolling start. The Z06 gets the jump and totally kills the M6. Next run the M6 gets the jump and the Z06 catches it and passes it, but not until they are going 120+ mph.

    The E92 M3 is quick...no denying it.....8.6 lb/hp vs the E46 M3 10.2 lb/hp. I love the power of the new M3....I wish there was more. I'm just saying the E46 M3 is also a very fast car and when you are only dealing with 295 lb-ft vs 262 lb-ft, flat torque curves, both cars will seem to accelerate at about the same rate, with ultimately the E92 M3 faster.

  5. #5
    Registered Member
    Location
    Eugene, OR, United States
    Member No: 21850 jimdrivas has a little shameless behaviour in the past jimdrivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    7,936
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    Yep...I was showing the results from the .........

    same magazine for the two cars. Car & Driver seems to have a way with low acceleration times. They really must trash the cars. Here are the two M3 from Car and Driver Magazine with the BEST times of the E46 M3 (they tested several over the last 7 years) which I've placed in brackets. All times are from Car and Driver.

    0-60: 4.3 [4.5]

    0-100: 9.8 [11.2]

    0-150: 24.3 [27.8]...SMG car

    5-60: 5.0 [5.0]...SMG car

    quarter mile: [email protected] [[email protected]]

    There really isn't a whole lot of difference and I suppose if you take the best E46 M3 vs the worst E92 M3, they would probably be equal. Of course the E92 M3 is faster...I love that 0-100 mph time under 10.0 seconds. That's going almost into the supercar territory.

  6. #6
    Registered Member
    Location
    , ,
    Member No: 13200 jason2 is an unknown quantity at this point jason2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    20,499
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    In the E46 - E39 era both were equally fast

    accelerating, the M3 and M5. Both cars had near identical acceleration with the M3 having 67 less hp but 600lbs less curb weight. BMW wasn't as insecure as they are today and could market and sell both with the M5 being the larger and more luxurious option and the M3 the sharper sportier option. Having the M6 back in the mix doesn't help either, but as I said before the car came out the new M3 should have matching acceleration to the M5/M6. It should also be lighter which is half the problem. This time around the M5vsM3: M3 has 86(67) less hp and 400lbs(600) less curb weight. M3 needs a bit more power and lot less weight.

  7. #7
    Registered Member
    Location
    Eugene, OR, United States
    Member No: 21850 jimdrivas has a little shameless behaviour in the past jimdrivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    7,936
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    Yep...the cars are getting so heavy........

    So instead for going all out to shed weight, they just keep adding horsepower....pretty much what Mercedes does.

  8. #8
    Registered Member
    Location
    , ,
    Member No: 13200 jason2 is an unknown quantity at this point jason2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    20,499
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    Agree, and Merc has them beat handily at that

    the new AMG C-Class is faster than the <i>M5 and M6</i> for M3 money.

  9. #9
    Registered Member
    Location
    , ,
    Member No: 29509 sayemthree is an unknown quantity at this point sayemthree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    I never saw a e46 60 mph time of 4.5??

    the best I recall was 4.7. where did you see that? link?

  10. #10
    Registered Member
    Location
    Eugene, OR, United States
    Member No: 21850 jimdrivas has a little shameless behaviour in the past jimdrivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    7,936
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    That C63 is looking better and better.


  11. #11
    Registered Member
    Location
    flemington, NJ, United States
    Member No: 56162 drjohn is an unknown quantity at this point drjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    42
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    sorry!

    yes, you are correct about the street starts times (sorry about my memory!), the times range from 5-5.3 seconds, check all your issues of CD--> HInt--2003. The trap speeds are more telling in this day and age, as cars are becoming more traction limited. E46s typically do 105-106 MPH in the 1/4 mile. The new M3 is 113. So figure about 8mph on a good day. Look at the list of cars that are 8 mph faster than the new M in the same test and you will note a few LAmbos and ferraris. Care to race one? The new M is also a second faster in the 1/4 than the older car. Again there is a car called the Gallardo Superleggara that is a similar amount faster than the M3 in the 1/4 mile. Would you say that it is only slightly faster? In all the back to back tests and drives between the old and new, the most common observation is the perception of increased power and the loss of steering feel.

  12. #12
    floyd
    Guest
    Location
    , ,
    Member No: floyd's Avatar


    Yes | No

    and piling on...

    Don't know if you've read the Dec '07 Car & Driver comparison of the M3, RS4 and MB C63AMG.
    Although the E92 M3 is heavier than the E46, it's the lightest of these three.
    It's not the fastest, but "... Roughly a half-second has been lopped off the previous M3's time to 60 mph, and owing to the massive increase in hp, 150 mph arrives _8.4 seconds_ sooner than it used to."
    The M3 is, btw, 460 lbs lighter than the C63. Just sayin, since you're so opposed to weight.

  13. #13
    Registered Member
    Location
    Eugene, OR, United States
    Member No: 21850 jimdrivas has a little shameless behaviour in the past jimdrivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    7,936
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    It was their long term test (40K)....

    the mileage was about 2K when they did the test. 0-60 4.5; 0-100 11.2; 1/4 mile [email protected] I'll go look it up and find the issue.

  14. #14
    Registered Member
    Location
    Eugene, OR, United States
    Member No: 21850 jimdrivas has a little shameless behaviour in the past jimdrivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    7,936
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    Oh I'm not denying the M3 is quicker .....

    It's just that we are approaching the limits of cars with big engines that are compensating for the weight. Also I don't see much difference in a car that does 0-60 in 4.3 seconds vs a car that goes to 60 in 4.8 seconds. That .5 seconds could easily be the difference of launching the car perfectly vs. 1000 rpm higher and getting lots of wheelspin. I tried to clock my M3 with my GTech meter and found the best (4.7 seconds) 0-60 came when I used the "launch control" where it held the rpms at 1800. Absolutely no wheelspin with my Pilot sport Cups. However if tried the launch control where the car actually runs up to 2100 rpms (step down fast and launch before it settles to 1800 rpm), the tires would go up in smoke, the revs go straight to 8000 and I have to short shift the car. My times then would be right around 6.0 seconds. I'm just saying that 4.3 to 4.8 is really not much difference. The only real difference will occur at the higher speeds. As an example with very rough calculations: E92 M3 0-100 in 9.8 seconds vs 11.2 for the E46 M3....difference of 1.4 sec. At 100mph the E92 is traveling 147 ft/sec. So as a rough calculation, the E46 is 1.4 seconds behind traveling around close to 95 mph or 139 ft/sec. So at 100 mph, the E92 is pulling away at a rate of 8 ft/sec or about 1/2 a car length every second. Is that a fast rate? I don't know. To me it seems like the cars are still pretty close to one another. If we just used that rate of 8 ft/sec for every 1.4 seconds throughout the acceleration curve (no, not accurate, but an estimate), in 20 seconds the E92 is 114 ft ahead (about 8 car lengths). 8 car lengths in 20 sec....seems close to me. Again, very rough approximations.

    Now the E92 M3 comes in at about 8.7 lb/hp where the E46 M3 is about 10.2 lb/hp. To be equal to the E92 M3, the E46 M3 could shed weight or add hp. If it adds hp, it would need about 395 hp. To lose weight, it would need to weigh 2863 lbs. What wonderful M3's we could have if we kept the 6-cylinder with 333 hp and the car weighs even 3000 lbs. That car could run circles around both M3's. Car manufacturers just keep adding more and more hp to compensate for the weight....case in point.....C63 AMG. It just seems a shame when they say the M3 at 3570 lbs or so is the lightest of the group. They should be saying that about SUV's, not sport sedans.

    Do I like the E92 M3?....yep. I'll buy one as soon as the M DCT becomes available. Will I use it on the track?...yep. Will I like the weight?...nope. Will I like the weight at the track?...nope.

    I like the E92 M3 but I'm sort of disappointed that BMW is just adding more and more hp to compensate for the weight, while having numb steering, rubbery shifter, and single piston brakes. I was kinda hoping for more out of the $70K+ car it will be with options.

  15. #15
    Registered Member
    Location
    Eugene, OR, United States
    Member No: 21850 jimdrivas has a little shameless behaviour in the past jimdrivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    7,936
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    C & D March, 2003


  16. #16
    floyd
    Guest
    Location
    , ,
    Member No: floyd's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Catch 22

    In some respects, it's kinda the other way around.
    To add more HP and torque, you need a stonger structure to put the engine in and attach the wheels. Self defeating to a large degree.

    Considering the amount of torque the 335d engine generates, the fact that they need structure in the front for the awd versions' suspension and drive wheels, etc., I'm surprised that it's not as heavy as the Audi S4.

    Unless they go to an entirely composite body like the Ferrari F40, go the Lotus Elise route, etc., and then the NVH goes way up.

  17. #17
    sayemthree
    Guest
    Location
    , ,
    Member No: sayemthree's Avatar


    Yes | No

    That C63 is looking REALLY ugly to me.


  18. #18
    sayemthree
    Guest
    Location
    , ,
    Member No: sayemthree's Avatar


    Yes | No

    so that is the best time for the e46 in 7 years

    give the e92 7 years and some mag will score a o-60 in 4.0 flat.

  19. #19
    Registered Member
    Location
    , ,
    Member No: 32557 nkochary is an unknown quantity at this point nkochary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,819
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    Goes to show you how much you get with a 335i...

    I think the in current BMW lineup this is the "best bang for the buck" car right now.

    With a smallest mod my 335i now pumps out 300RWHP which puts it into a ~345HP range for just over 40 grand--------------------------------------------------------
    If it ain't got a hofmeister kink, it ain't got room in my garage<br>
    <img src="http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t28/nkochary/newsig.gif">

  20. #20
    Registered Member
    Location
    , ,
    Member No: 29509 sayemthree is an unknown quantity at this point sayemthree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,836
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes | No

    0-60 mph in 4.1 seconds and 100 mph in 9.4

    according to the latest R and T road tests for the new M3.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

     

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
1e2 Forum