BMW M3 E36

[edh]

ORIGINAL: sawood12

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!

Not sure that's accurate - the Evo car was aiming for an 8.00 full lap wasn't it? I don't know how close it got. The 944's 8.19 was BTG IIRC. So you need to add on another 20-25 secs to that.
Sport Auto did an 8.22 full lap in a stock M3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times#Lap_times. (Just noticed that is an M Coupe - sorry []) - i can see references to an Autocar test lap of 8.20, and a Sport Auto lap of 8.35 here http://www.911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=36861&sid=f5611084f0d7f6042ce9f94bdcf74729 though

Midrange torque of the 944 turbo may make it faster on the road, but it's not as significant on a race track where you spend most of your life in the upper reaches of the rev counter. The M3 motor feels a bit gutless, bit like a Honda VTEC, but really pulls at high revs. Any comparison is difficult because most track cars are modified in some way. Dial out the understeer, lose some weight, and the M3 is a quicker car than the 944 turbo. But of course a 944 Turbo with a 3.2 would leave it for dead []

I've never driven an Audi S2 - can't quite see the attraction though. I'd rather have almost anything than an Audi (Although we have an A2, and I'd be very happy with an R8 [])

 

[Suffolk944]

ORIGINAL: 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.

It had been chipped, had a boost enhancer fitted and had been dyno'd at 290 something HP though I dont know by what dyno and therefore how accurate the reading was. That sort of figure sounded a bit optimistic to me given the limited mods. Yes it had the 968 suspension and fancy tyres but wasn't stripped out in any way.

 

[zcacogp]

ORIGINAL: 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 an E36 M3 about 4 years ago. However, the image put me off. Yes, perhaps that's superficial, but walking along a road local to me one Saturday morning I counted 9 BMW 3-series drive past. Eight of them sported "M-series" badges or bodywork, although none of them were M3's. All 9 of them were driven by people of a non-indigenous demographic. Several looked as if passing an MOT would be a challenge.

I bought my S2 instead.


Oli.

 

[Diver944]

ORIGINAL: Suffolk944

It had been chipped, had a boost enhancer fitted and had been dyno'd at 290 something HP though I dont know by what dyno and therefore how accurate the reading was.

That was at the infamous Jamsport Dyno Day back in 2004. Subsequent testing at Dyno Dynamics seemed to indicate that Jampsort over read by about 10% []

Rick still has the scans and pics on his site:

http://www.cannell.co.uk/Dyno%20Day%20190604.htm

http://www.cannell.co.uk/Jamsport%20190604%202.htm

 

[Suffolk944]

ORIGINAL: Diver944

ORIGINAL: Suffolk944

It had been chipped, had a boost enhancer fitted and had been dyno'd at 290 something HP though I dont know by what dyno and therefore how accurate the reading was.

That was at the infamous Jamsport Dyno Day back in 2004. Subsequent testing at Dyno Dynamics seemed to indicate that Jampsort over read by about 10% []

Rick still has the scans and pics on his site:

http://www.cannell.co.uk/Dyno%20Day%20190604.htm

http://www.cannell.co.uk/Jamsport%20190604%202.htm

Well that would explain why it certainly didn't feel like nearly 300hp under the bonnet when I bought it. In fact it felt less lively than my previous 220 model that I had modded with the L2 kit and which pushed out 274hp on the rollers of truth. I was pretty confident that a superchip plus boost enhancer were not going to yield the dyno'd figure.

Pauly : The subsequent mods have made it alot better, the Promax kit pushed up the power and reduced lag considerably along with the exhaust. The APEX I gives a much better spread of power across the rev range and holds boost so much better too. The MAF makes the engine much more responsive and modern in feel and has added to the oomph some more again, though I have yet to get her dyno'd in her current state. I would hope she is now somewhere between 300 to 320 hp.

The KW suspension is light years better than the old 968 kit which was not only rock hard but I never really felt it was overly settled at the rear as on our cruddy roads it was just too bouncy.

 

[sawood12]

The boost enhancer is not going to fix a tired wastegate, and that is where alot of power is lost - certainly alot of the spool up time and lower RPM grunt. The L2 kit includes a DPW which will give you at least 20bhp on its own - a DPW was the first mod I did and was running at stock boost pressure and the rollers of truth had me at 240bhp. When I completed the L2 kit install and upped boost pressure to 1 bar the rollers of truth had me at 280bhp.

I think the full Vitesse L3 kit (which gives 350bhp at 15psi boost pressure assuming everything else is running in fine fettle) with KW suspension and uprated brakes will give you a very very nice and fast car with quick spool up and superb handling. My only regret with my car is that I didn't get the Vitesse kit when the exchange rate was 2$ for £1. Vitesse also does a modified head - called the 'Sledgehammer'. SOunds great and I read a running report on Rennlist a while back and the owner was raving on about that too. John at Vitesse is a guy who really knows his onions!

I agree with Pat - I can't get excited about a v8, but as an alternative to the option of upgrading a stock car to 3ltr or 3.2 ltr (not many turn-key cars of than nature around) is a very cost and time effective way of getting a 400bhp-ish car that will be reliable and will work out of the box.

If the Promax package does include KW suspension then that is actually would be a very potent car. I don't really consider a 928 as a viable alternative - it s a completely different type of car in my view.

 

[Suffolk944]

ORIGINAL: pauly

ORIGINAL: Suffolk944

Pauly : The subsequent mods have made it alot better, the Promax kit pushed up the power and reduced lag considerably along with the exhaust. The APEX I gives a much better spread of power across the rev range and holds boost so much better too. The MAF makes the engine much more responsive and modern in feel and has added to the oomph some more again, though I have yet to get her dyno'd in her current state. I would hope she is now somewhere between 300 to 320 hp.

The KW suspension is light years better than the old 968 kit which was not only rock hard but I never really felt it was overly settled at the rear as on our cruddy roads it was just too bouncy.

Thanks for the info Jon, I have the KW's but the power is starting to feel a bit ordinary so it's time to uprate and I like the look of the Vitesse stuff.

The Vitesse MAF is certainly the knees of the bees so no doubt his other products are too.

 

[Lizard]

ORIGINAL: edh

ORIGINAL: sawood12

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!

Not sure that's accurate - the Evo car was aiming for an 8.00 full lap wasn't it? I don't know how close it got. The 944's 8.19 was BTG IIRC. So you need to add on another 20-25 secs to that.
Sport Auto did an 8.22 full lap in a stock M3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times#Lap_times.   (Just noticed that is an M Coupe  - sorry []) - i can see references to an Autocar test lap of 8.20, and a Sport Auto lap of 8.35 here http://www.911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=36861&sid=f5611084f0d7f6042ce9f94bdcf74729 though 

Midrange torque of the 944  turbo may make it faster on the road, but it's not as significant on a race track where you spend most of your life in the upper reaches of the rev counter. The M3 motor feels a bit gutless, bit like a Honda VTEC, but really pulls at high revs. Any comparison is difficult because most track cars are modified in some way. Dial out the understeer, lose some weight, and the M3 is a quicker car than the 944 turbo. But of course a 944 Turbo with a 3.2 would leave it for dead []

I've never driven an Audi S2 - can't quite see the attraction though. I'd rather have almost anything than an Audi  (Although we have an A2, and I'd be very happy with an R8 [])

I should hope a 944t will do 8.19 btg when 160bhp old mk2 golfs on worn rubber can do 8.30 odds.

Is Dave Mailings on here? hes doen many a ring lap in his old 944t before he sold it

Nicely fettled e36 m3 will regually do sub 8 btg in good hands, I've seen the logs regular 7.56/7.57/758 btg laps stock engine just track modded.

Happy e36 m3 track car owner here []

ps hello all, my 1st pcgb post, recognise many names on here from PH etc

 

[zcacogp]

ORIGINAL: Lizard
ps hello all, my 1st pcgb post, recognise many names on here from PH etc

Well well well - Mr Lizard! Good to see you here. Welcome - and do stick around; I'm sure you have much to contribute. []


Oli.

 

[Suffolk944]

ORIGINAL: Lizard

[
Is Dave Mailings on here? hes doen many a ring lap in his old 944t before he sold it

That is the very man and car mentioned within this thread. He used to be on here until he sold the car.

Oh and hello and welcome !

 

[Lizard]

Chav indeed pah!

Heres my track beauty

 

[DivineE]

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.

Just a quick one to all the guys saying they'd have an S4 over the E36... really? Have you driven one? Owned one? I had the 2.8 30v Quattro (last of that shape and top spec). It was rather similar to the S4, I loved it but I wouldn't put it inthe same bracket as an M3? It was more a mercedes type car.

The M3 feels and sounds like someone took a racing car and fitted it with leather and number plates. It's a lovely raw, mechanical and pure expereince. The audi is a fast barge for long journeys? The two don't compare.

 

[Diver944]

ORIGINAL: Lizard

Chav indeed pah!

Heres my track beauty

Welcome back Alex - long time no see []

 

[morris944s2john]

"uote:

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.



Just a quick one to all the guys saying they'd have an S4 over the E36... really? Have you driven one? Owned one? I had the 2.8 30v Quattro (last of that shape and top spec). It was rather similar to the S4, I loved it but I wouldn't put it inthe same bracket as an M3? It was more a mercedes type car.

The M3 feels and sounds like someone took a racing car and fitted it with leather and number plates. It's a lovely raw, mechanical and pure expereince. The audi is a fast barge for long journeys? The two don't compare.

"

Yes, that's why I'd rather have the S4! A racing car is not the best for long journeys!

 

[sawood12]

Depends what you're after. If you want a car that is fun and involving to drive you'd go M3 all the time. Audi's are dull to drive, but the quattro ones have so much grip they'll be hanging on round the corner long after the M3 will have gone sideway and be oversteering out towards the oncoming traffic.

There was a TG or Fifth gear episode once that showed this. M3 and RS4, same speed, same corner, the Audi drove round with no drama, no over or understeer. The M3 oversteered off - much fun on the track maybe, but not on the road.

 

[edh]

Let's not confuse grip with traction - 4wd doesn't give you any more wheels in contact with the road and cannot give you more grip.

If it did, Imprezas and Audis would be super fast on dry trackdays (instead of being understeery and slow ) Why would anyone believe anything on top gear anyway? I find it very hard to believe an Audi saloon can corner quicker than an M3 unless you provoke the BMW. I would also expect both cars, with road geo, to understeer off when attempting to round a corner too quickly.

It can improve traction when things get slippery, no doubt, but 4wd means extra weight and drivetrain losses.

 

[Lizard]

ORIGINAL: Diver944

ORIGINAL: Lizard

Chav indeed pah!

Heres my track beauty

Welcome back Alex - long time no see []

Hi fella []