BMW M3 E36

[AntB]

Chaps.

Looking around I see that the Beemer E36 M3 is now quite a lot of car for good money if you can get a good one.

Wondered is people have any experience with them.. Any major issues, things to look for etc etc?

Example of what I am talking about here:

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201023361002839/sort/locasc/usedcars/model/m3/make/bmw/keywords/evolution/page/2/postcode/tw151sx/radius/1500?logcode=p

Cheers
Anthony

 

[barks944]

My experience is that my Turbo is a little bit faster than a standard one . Know a few people that have had them, not heard of any major issues. Nice car and theres plenty about for not a lot of money like you say. I'd imagine a lot of them will have had fairly hard lives the ones I knew certainly got driven pretty hard.....

 

[JM1962]

Never had an M3 but I have had a Z3 M coupe which has the M3 evo engine. The main thing to look out for is the double vanos failing and becoming noisy and also causing significant loss of power. It can cost around 2k to put right and I have heard of them failing again shortly after. Top end of the engine will sound like a bag of spanners if its a problem, from under the bonnet, rev the engine and listen for a rattling noise as the engine slows down. I think the earlier M3 (non evo) only had a single vanos and doesn't suffer the same failure (neither does the E46 M3 which has a similar but different engine).

Check out vanos issues on the BM forums, you should find plenty of info.

Probably worth mentioning that none of the cars I drove felt like 320 bhp and when I traded mine in for a 964 its 250 bhp felt just as quick.

 

[Lowtimer]

From what I gather the semi-automatic SMG transmission was not BMW's finest hour, especially in this early form. The proper manuals are good, though.

Edited to add a link to a discussion on the subject amongst E36 owners:
http://www.tyresmoke.net/forum/bmw-m-forums/90865-e36-m3-smg-1-a.html
and
http://www.pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic.asp?h=0&t=280153&r=9180417&hm=41864

 

[DivineE]

Absolutely love them, have had two. Don't get too fussy about the 3.2 Evo, the 3.0 is in my opinion the better car. The gearbox is tougher and the vanos (slightly) less troublesome.

A actually know of a good one for sale (no connection - just saw it there when my friend picked up his 530d after a service) for sale at OSC motorsport if that's not too far from you. It's yellow but I think it looks pretty good, black leather and he said he'll take £3k when I asked.

Main troubles are bushes (too many to mention) some of the most expensive to replace are the ones holding the gearbox . You should ask/check history to see if they have been replaced because they will almost definitely need to be on anything 80k + mileage. All bush issues can be identified by a. taking it down a bumpy road and b. coming on and off the throttle sharply. If you hear or feel any clunking which sounds more than your average car then something is worn. They feel tight, responsive and solid when right.

Other common problems are rust to the top of the rear suspension mounts (not the body, just the top mounts) and rust round the arches, under the battery in the boot.

Engine wise they are fantastic! The vanos is not the HUGE issue people make out and in 99% of cases can be fixed by replacing the rubber seals inside that control the oil pressure used to alter the timing. This costs about £20 to do yourself (I didn't dare) or £300ish from someone like OSC who I mentioned earlier, I would almost say in fact that its prefereable to buy a car with a vanos issue because you'll hear it when it starts and could probably knock £1000 of the price of a good car because 90% of owners will think its a £1600-2000 problem (which is what BMW quote to replace it). To diagnose the vanos start the car from cold or hot once its been left 20mins with the bonnet open. Put your foot on the accelerator so its revs immediately when it starts and if there's any problems with the seals not holding pressure you'll hear an immediate clatter from the top end that sounds like a load of ball bearings bouncing around the cam cover. If its there you wont miss it. Should go away once its had a chance to build pressure after a couple of seconds otherwise there is permanent damage on the cam gears and it 'might' be worth leaving. Mine had a little bit of noise here but it was never a problem and the garage said a little wear on anything over 60k miles is not unusual or damaging. Just make sure it sounds smooth when driving and ignore the load ticking of the injectors audible from the cabin when your listening for noises they all do that.

Tiny last tip: When you've bought the car change the plugs and make sure you use the proper jobbies at £12 each. The engine burns through regular cheap plugs at a rate of knots and even the expensive ones don't last more than 10,000miles. Chances are you'll feel a big power difference by changing them.

 

[DivineE]

ORIGINAL: JM1962

Never had an M3 but I have had a Z3 M coupe which has the M3 evo engine. The main thing to look out for is the double vanos failing and becoming noisy and also causing significant loss of power. It can cost around 2k to put right and I have heard of them failing again shortly after. Top end of the engine will sound like a bag of spanners if its a problem, from under the bonnet, rev the engine and listen for a rattling noise as the engine slows down. I think the earlier M3 (non evo) only had a single vanos and doesn't suffer the same failure (neither does the E46 M3 which has a similar but different engine).

Probably worth mentioning that none of the cars I drove felt like 320 bhp and when I traded mine in for a 964 its 250 bhp felt just as quick.

No reason to be embarrassed but you've highlighted here a number of the common vanos myths worth explaining.

The double vanos on the early 3.2 engine (pre E46) was the only one that suffered catastrophic failure (only part I'm unsure of in my research is the reason but I think it was due to BMW using cheaper bolts on the housing). Either way its not a problem because if it hasn't done it by 80k your car is not likely to fail now and if it has it will have been replaced because the engine will immediately dump about two litres of oil over the front of the car when if fails so it'd be hard to disguise.

Other than those rare failures it suffers from exactly the same problem as the 3.0 single vanos car but just has more solenoids and seals to fail so goes more frequently. The rubber pressure seals inside the early units harden and break up meaning it cant achieve the 4+ bar pressure it needs to operate the vanos and give you the more aggressive valve timing over 3500rpm (you should feel a noticeable pick up at these revs). If the seals are not replaced every 60k or so this will affect every car no matter how well its maintained/serviced so the likelihood is many of these cars on the road are not achieving their factory figures hence what you say above. By the E46 car they had changed the design and solved this issue.

p.s. Even a fully functional 3.0 M3 is no slouch. You would definitely not feel it was 250hp if its all running as it should.

 

[edh]

They are great cars and excellent value. A bit heavy in standard trim, ugly (IMHO) and prone to understeer. Ben has covered most of the problems. I believe the 3.0 can have oil pickup issues, and people seem to fit a lower x-brace on the front (from a Z3?) The steering is not a patch on the 944, and it's nowhere near as special to drive. You're driving a fast saloon rather than a sports car.

I ran with a mate's 3.2 Evo track car (4 door, stripped, caged, so a bit lighter than my 944 turbo (250 model, approx 300hp) around Donington last year and we were very close over a lap. The M3 had slightly better straight line speed, I was quicker under braking and round corners. When I had a go in the M3 I nearly drove it off at old hairpin on my first lap [:-] so marked was the difference between the steering and balance of the 2 cars. The engine sings to 7500 and pulls hard all the way. As you get used to the car it's surprising how stiff and controlled it feels (this was on Bilsteins) and not like a lumbering heavy saloon car.

How I wish the 944 had been built with a sweet sounding, high revving 6 pot motor!

 

[DivineE]

ORIGINAL: edh

it's nowhere near as special to drive. You're driving a fast saloon rather than a sports car.

That's funny that's exactly what I said about mine. I loved driving it when I was in it but it wasn't a special event. You wouldn't choose to go out for a drive just for the sake of it or be excited about the prospect of a long journey.

 

[Radar]

I've had 3 of these, all 3.2 evos. A saloon and 2 coupes. 2 good ones and one dog. They are a huge amount car for the money. Trouble is that they still require the maintenance of a car 10 times their cost to buy.

They're not temperamental if they've been cared for even if they've been driven hard but cared for. It can cost a lot to put a bad one right, but that goes for any car.

As for HP... very few evos show more than 300 on rolling roads. The 321 figure was for the marketing types so they hit the magic 100/litre. It is worth noting that it was 321ps not 321bhp.

The Vanos issues have already been mentioned so I won't mention them again. As a matter of course you should also change the Vanos screen at each service, they cost less than £1 and take about 2 minutes to change. There is enough known about this weak spot now so really there shouldn't be any excuse to get burnt here anymore. When I had my first one under warranty my local BMW dealer put a new unit on as a matter of course as they were unsure at that time what was causing the failures.

Rear suspension mounting points are weak and will pull through if driven hard. The solution is to fit the reinforced Z3 top mounts which are cheap enough, or if looks matter there are some awesome looking machined ones available for a few more £££'s

Brakes are a contentious issue. For road use they're fine but for track use they're no better than OK. The best I had was BMW discs with RS29 pads running 5.1 fluid and braided hoses. EBC pads wouldn't last 1 track day. If I had persevered any longer I would have been going for a big brake kit that would have cost more than the car was worth.

You also need a braided hose for the clutch. The standard rubber one gets softened by the ambient heat if you sit in traffic for any length of time. Then the clutch wont operate as well... The braided hose solves this problem completely.

6 speed gearboxes are notoriously rattly. The 5 speed is undoubtably better for track use. My heart prefers 6 to 5 in the same way as it prefers 3.2 to 3.0. Hence I could never bring myself to get a 3.0 despite many 3.0s producing better rolling road numbers than 3.2s.

The cross brace mentioned above bolts straight into the post '95 cars and can be found on Z3s and convertible 3 series. I'm not sure how much difference it makes, they're easy to come by at wreckers and not even that expensive new.

On the motorway mine had little trouble keeping up with an early 996 C4. There's not much difference in power and the C4 is heavier. When it got twisty the tables were turned however.

They are a fun car to own, there's plenty aftermarket kit available for them. If you know one end of a spanner from the other you can do a great deal yourself too.

 

[944Turbo]

Never driven one but overtaken a few, they seem to lack torque compared to a good 944 Turbo. How does the weight compare?
Tony

 

[ukmastiff]

I do try to avoid agreeing with Scotty [] , but if ever there was a Chav car then there you have it on the nail. I was seriously tempted by one quite recently and looked in to them purely because I want a true 4 seater for the family / shows etc but couldnt get away from feeling they weren't 'me'. I'm now seriosly considering another modern performance classic as my non Porsche which 'famously' has 4 wheel drive []

I find it hard to believe any standerd 944 would beat a standerd M3 TBH and of course M3's can be tuned just as much as 944's , have suspension played with etc ? but I'd have the 944 for class every single day.

Regards
Mas

 

[pauljmcnulty]

Shame they didn't do a RHD estate version, that would appeal to me.

Are the gearboxes as bad as the awful one in the M5? If it wasn't for the fact that he can't bring himself to lose so much money in two years a friend of mine genuinely hates the thing.

 

[homesea]

Over rated, under steering and over weighted. Non Evo is slow, Evo's kill the twin Vanos (made by Rolls Royce I think). Clutch pipes are rubbish. Early SMG's are a joke, E46 SMG still a joke and have intermediate shaft failure issues. Buy a Audi S2/S4 they handle just as bad but the engines are strong.

 

[ukmastiff]

Tom I like your choice of alternative. Guess what well known 92 ish 4 wheel drive I'm seriously hooked on as per my above post ( it has a two in it and begins with s) []

If a good one comes under my nose at the right money I'm not sure I could resist it.

Mas

 

[morris944s2john]

I'm with you on that one. I'd much rather have an Audi S2 or S4 than a BMW. Interesting that some suggest that a 250BHP 944 could be faster than a 321BHP BMW.

But then I'd rather have a lot of cars rather than a BMW, sometimes for less than logical or sensible reasons. Chav is a good reason not to have a bimmer. Plus the three series is more common on UK roads than the Mondeo!

I'd also rather have some cars that I consider hugely technically inferior to the BMW for reasons of their superior character- eg a V6 Alfa, Jag XJ6 or, indeed any Jag (except the X type- that is a Mondeo!), a Saab or even a (pre 96) Merc. Come to think of it, I'd much rather have an old 190 Merc Cossie than a Bimmer M3. I'd even have a classic Lancia (Delta Integrale) over a bimmer or even an 80's or early 90's Maserati.

 

[JamesBall]

ORIGINAL: ukmastiff

Tom I like your choice of alternative. Guess what well known 92 ish 4 wheel drive I'm seriously hooked on as per my above post ( it has a two in it and begins with s) []

If a good one comes under my nose at the right money I'm not sure I could resist it.

Mas

Mas - you want the one with a two in it and begins with an r then an s! Now that's a proper car, plus you are justified in bringing it to Porsche meets

 

[sawood12]

ORIGINAL: morris944s2john

I'm with you on that one. I'd much rather have an Audi S2 or S4 than a BMW. Interesting that some suggest that a 250BHP 944 could be faster than a 321BHP BMW.

But then I'd rather have a lot of cars rather than a BMW, sometimes for less than logical or sensible reasons. Chav is a good reason not to have a bimmer. Plus the three series is more common on UK roads than the Mondeo!

I'd also rather have some cars that I consider hugely technically inferior to the BMW for reasons of their superior character- eg a V6 Alfa, Jag XJ6 or, indeed any Jag (except the X type- that is a Mondeo!), a Saab or even a (pre 96) Merc. Come to think of it, I'd much rather have an old 190 Merc Cossie than a Bimmer M3. I'd even have a classic Lancia (Delta Integrale) over a bimmer or even an 80's or early 90's Maserati.

The real-world comparison I like to refer to here is the Evo magazine mission to take one of these round the ring in under 8 mins for £15k total price. They bought a car, stripped it, caged it, installed big AP Racing brakes, suspension, light wheels, semi-slick tyres and stuck a decent driver up front and though I didn't finish reading the series I don't think they managed to get to 8mins. As a comparison an almost stock 944T with 968CS suspension (hardly state of the art these days) and semi slicks driven by a ring-meister off this forum managed a time of 8m:19s. So thought the Evo M3 may have beaten that time it was far from stock whereas the 944 was not far off stock - certainly nowhere near 300bhp if I recall correctly. For me that is a good comparison to indicate the relative capabilities of these cars.

The M3 appears to have the engine, the 944T has the chassis, would be nice to bring the two together!

 

[pauly]

ORIGINAL: sawood12

As a comparison an almost stock 944T with 968CS suspension (hardly state of the art these days) and semi slicks driven by a ring-meister off this forum managed a time of 8m:19s. So thought the Evo M3 may have beaten that time it was far from stock whereas the 944 was not far off stock - certainly nowhere near 300bhp if I recall correctly. For me that is a good comparison to indicate the relative capabilities of these cars.

The M3 appears to have the engine, the 944T has the chassis, would be nice to bring the two together!

If we are thinking about the same turbo it was chipped. I remember Fen saying there wasn't much difference between the 2 cars at the ring.

 

[Copperman05]

Agree with Scotty, ugly and chavtastic! Its what you buy if you want a performance car but have no taste...

Edd

 

[ukmastiff]

I know th RS2 is a good car but if I just wanted a fast modern car I'd have loads to choose from.

I just think that the S2 is the next ' Audi Quattro ' and is sure to gain the acceptance it deserves as a classic one day. Most folk who are not real car enthusiasts like ourselves [] dont realise that the S2 is the better Quattro than its far more famous earlier cousin.

For me it has to be one of the most under rated cars going, and sexy looking in a manly way to boot !. I just wish the 1992 6 speed car was an ' 80's car ' then it would be ideal for me.

Sorry to drag it off topic , the M3 rep is as bad as I thought it was by the sound of it.

Mas