|
|
04-07-2008, 04:02 PM | #23 |
Major
156
Rep 1,429
Posts |
10 pages worth
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105678
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-07-2008, 04:05 PM | #24 |
zervos4
17
Rep 97
Posts |
Honesty, I don't know why this is even a comparison....you should compare the vette to a mustang gt500 or something along those lines, and keep the M3 in the realm that it is already in....
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-08-2008, 12:12 PM | #25 | ||||||||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I personally think the new Z51s ride quite well, but can't compare them to a new M3, since I haven't sampled one. My guess is that with adjustable shocks, the M3 will have a more supple ride when set on soft, but judging only by our E46 M3, the standard suspension on the new one will ride no better than a Vette. Quote:
Quote:
I personally think the optional Vette interior is nicer than the M3 interior, but hey, it's not as if either of them challenge Audi. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Look, from my point of view, both of these cars are truly excellent machines. Since I am a badge whore for pretty much all of the manufacturers (seen the new Hyundai coupe yet?), I get a little hot under the collar when somebody trashes a truly fine offering - from anybody. It doesn't matter to me whether that trash talk is generated out of ignorance, or in your case, it seems mostly on image grounds. Talk up the M3 all you want. It deserves praise, from my perspective. - But so does the Vette. It is clearly not your cup of tea, but measured against other offerings worldwide, it is a hell of a fine car. Bruce |
||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
04-08-2008, 06:18 PM | #26 | ||||||
Banned
61
Rep 908
Posts
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2000 E39 M5 - current [0.00]
2007 E92 335i - SOLD [0.00] 1996 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] 2000 E39 M5-SOLD [0.00] 2001 E46 M3-SOLD [0.00] 1995 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I consider it an accomplishment to rev a V8 to 8400rpm. Extracting 436 hp from 6.2 L is not an accomplishment on N/A car (forget performance for a moment). Pushrod is not an accomplishment. Leaf springs are old technology, regardless of position. Chassis is still a boat. Interior is disastrous, look at the new malibu, grandprix, G6...same green dials, same gray LCD, same plumbing grade PVC for buttons. GM is not stupid, there is a reason why you can get a non Z51 '08 vette out the door for $40k. Fancier plastic, vinyl, paint, rubber all costs a pretty penny. I do like to pick on vette's image, but don't take it to heart. For every image flaw vette has, BMW has one too. I just prefer BMWs. I would love to own a vette, but for $40k I would get rather get a 335i. |
||||||
Appreciate
0
|
04-08-2008, 06:35 PM | #27 |
New Member
4
Rep 25
Posts |
I do not intend to drag this out further, but I have to point out two things:
1) The M3 brakes that had heavy fade were from a car driven in a track overseas with race pads in place. That's why the writer was so perplexed. 2) I don't see the problem with a sports car have an OPTION for chrome wheels. Personally I like the polished look, but they're hard to keep nice even when clear coated. Chromes does not take away performance. I do agree that the Vette can be harsh. Kind of like using a sledge hammer to get the job done, while the M3 uses a finely sharpened knife. Some like one and some like the other. Talk about using a sledge hammer to get it done, the 60's A/C Cobra (Shelby, not Mustang)did just that and beat the Ferrari at it's own game and have go on to become a legend. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 07:12 AM | #28 | |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 36
Posts |
Quote:
As for everything else, stick to bench racing the mag times. Any real world experience would obviously have no relevance.
__________________
2014 Viper TA - Stock - 11.43@132.37mph, 1.95 60'
08 ISF - headers/exhaust - 12.25@117.78mph, 1.96 60' |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 08:56 AM | #29 | |||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Trust me that Vettes are a ton more benign than Porsches at or near the limit, and are in fact not much more difficult to go fast in than a BMW. This is one of those opinion things, and clearly you think that a car which is easier to take to its limits is better than one which is more difficult in that venue. But part of the Porsche mystique is that in order to go really fast, you've got to know what you're doing, and if you do, the car is rewarding in ways that pretty much can't be matched by anything else. To you, Porsches have a shortcoming compared to BMWs, but to others, they are immensely rewarding machines. Vettes are fast as hell when being driven well, and it's easier to drive one well than a Porsche. Quote:
Quote:
The extension of this logic is that you would turn your nose up at the M3 if it had the LS3 motor in it, even though it would be faster at the limit, handle a little better, be a ton faster in everyday driving and definitely get better mileage. You're clearly an intelligent person - but in this area (and from this prole's perspective), if you got any dumber they'd have to water you twice a week. I just want to know how it goes, stops, handles and sounds, and I don't give a damn if it's steam powered. Bruce |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 09:09 AM | #30 | |
New Member
4
Rep 25
Posts |
Quote:
modern?? I would venture to say that the BIGGER, more economical, and fastly more powerful (torque) engine is more modern. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 09:41 AM | #31 |
Lieutenant Colonel
20
Rep 1,504
Posts |
The cars are as different as their engines. Two different ways to go fast. I respect the C6 because it is a great car but it just is not for me. It doesn't bother me in the least that it is the faster car in the same way as the Z06 and GT-R. I like the approach BMW has taken with their M cars even though most would argue that they are not as pure as they used to be because they are heavier and ride better.
I enjoy cars based entirely on the experience and my purchases will never be tied to any set of performance numbers. I would say the same thing even if the M3 won every performance category against every competitor and was cheaper to boot. It just doesn't matter if the car isn't enjoyable to drive from my perspective. I would hope it would be the same for all of those people who are lining up for the new GT-R. I'm sure it's an incredible experience in it's own right, albeit a different one same as the Corvettes. Buy the one you enjoy the most. So far for me, that is the M3. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 09:56 AM | #32 | |
New Member
4
Rep 25
Posts |
Quote:
That's a great point. I am a Vette guy that is seriously consider moving to an M3 due to the above. I feel it has enough performance for me, but has better quality over all and has room for my family, so we can all have fun, not just two at a time. . . |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 02:35 PM | #33 | |||||||
Banned
61
Rep 908
Posts
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2000 E39 M5 - current [0.00]
2007 E92 335i - SOLD [0.00] 1996 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] 2000 E39 M5-SOLD [0.00] 2001 E46 M3-SOLD [0.00] 1995 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Using the same fallacy, I could say that Ford F350 dually is difficult to drive at the limit so, therefore it must be immensely rewarding, and as such, be a better track vehicle, all of which is absurd. But to address your Porsche example - limits on rear engine car are inherently higher in comparison to equivalent front engine/RWD configuration, that in comparison, Porsche will feel faster because it really is. This is the prime reason why it is rewarding - you can go 8/10 and be content. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Still a pushrod. Quote:
|
|||||||
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 04:04 PM | #34 |
Lieutenant General
612
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Guys, good discussion as usual with the "heat" that many of us are known for. My only comments are these:
1. I know you are going to get really sore about this Malter, but the Vette has an advanced multi link aluminum rear suspension. As I have said before, the spring element is pretty much independent of the arm configuration and geometry. You can have single arm with leaf, single arm with gas/spring shock or multi-link with both as well. 2. I agree that the small swept area of the Vettes rear brakes looks a but funny. But it was also intentional. A small swept area (per ton) typically does translate to ppor brake performance but you have to think about the entire system, brake heating/cooling, balance, initial bite, fade, pedal effort etc. and despite how they look the brakes on the car are pretty darn good. Bruce: What the heck was the comment about chemistry and physics and how that relates to body panel gaps. I totally missed the point. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 05:21 PM | #35 |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 06:48 PM | #36 | |
Captain
55
Rep 649
Posts |
Quote:
1) corvette has a computer assisted gear shift, meaning on low acceleration part throttle it will force a 1-4 shift. Meaning you can't go 1-2 (unless you are on more of the throttle) so in low speeds it will force 1-4 shift which keeps the RPMs low and thus burns less gas. Physics more HP (more RPMs) means more gas used. So a M3 is turning more revs and thus closer to the peak power. Many people disable this 'feature' on the vette since it serves performance driving nothing. Once it passes the EPA test GM could care less if you drive with the 1-4 shift feature. 2) the Corvette's gearing is very long. I mean probably if you look at the max speed in each gear the M3 will be like 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180 (if able to make top speed) and the Corvette may be more like 40, 70, 120, 160, 200, 240 (or such) meaning in 6th gear at 70 mph you will be like 3000 rpm in the M3 and 1500 rpm in the corvette. What that means is the Corvette gets better gas mileage and probably 5th gear in the Corvette will feel more like 6th in the M3. This makes the M3 feel quicker or as quick as the Corvette in spite of it's weight but it takes the toll on gas mileage. If BMW wanted the M3 to get better gas mileage it would have OD in more gears and in 6th gear it would be a dog since it would be turning 1500 rpms instead of close to 3000 rpms. The amount of power being used at 3000 rpm means worse gas mileage. I think the M3 is first a performance car, people want performance so they will give up fuel economy as long as the car feels (and is) fast. People don't want a long geared M3 which would be slower but get better economy. The Vette has a larger engine 50% more displacement and more TQ so it can live at lower rpms and still get good power/acceleration. If you look at my car the S2000 it has an even higher rpm so it can feel peppy, but it's gas mileage is not much better than th Vette because the S2000 may be 4500 rpm where the Vette is 1500 rpm at the same speed. The Vette is 3x larger engine than the S2000 engine, but the S2000 doesn't feels 3x slower cos it's burning a lot (or the same fuel) at the same speed. a S2000 at 4500 rpm may be making the same power as the Vette at 1500 rpm. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 08:22 PM | #37 |
Lieutenant General
612
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Hmmm not so sure. Most the the M3s fenders are composite as well. SMC (sheet molding compound) I believe. Composites can have a tailored CTE but I don't think there is much you can do with SMC besides change the basic constituents. Either way if this is the real reason the Vette has poor body panel fit then the M3 should have it as well.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 10:27 PM | #39 | ||
Banned
61
Rep 908
Posts
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2000 E39 M5 - current [0.00]
2007 E92 335i - SOLD [0.00] 1996 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] 2000 E39 M5-SOLD [0.00] 2001 E46 M3-SOLD [0.00] 1995 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] |
Quote:
Quote:
We are comparing two cars that have 400lb of difference. Fat one has considerably skinnier tires, is taller and narrower, but it is able to brake better and generate higher numbers on skidpad. What does this tell you about chassis design, brakes, suspension and engineering? You have 2.2 L less displacement, 20hp less, 110ft.lb torque less, but you have pretty much EXACT numbers to 60mph and 1/4 trap speeds, AGAIN while having 400lb more. There is NOTHING to argue which car is better. Zero. Nada. Nil. You get what you pay for, always was and always will be like this in the world. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 10:53 PM | #40 | ||||||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Look, let me give you a case in point. The E46 M3 was pretty easy to take to its limits (compared to, say, a 911), but it wasn't very rewarding to do that with the car. In fact, it was an understeering pig on track, and all the track guys I know were looking for ways to fix that basic problem. Hell, I could stay with the E46 cars through the twisty bits with my SRT4, although they'd walk away on the straights with another 100 HP on tap. From what I've read so far, the new M3 is better than the old one in that regard, but you have to know that hype abounds right now. The real story will come out only over time. This is true of any "important" new car release, by the way, so I'm not picking on the M3. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Fuel economy? One of my sons drives fast planes and fast cars. His '05 GTO is rated at 17/25 under the old EPA standard, which should equate to, what, 16/23 under the revised standard? It weighs 3800 pounds. Superior? Strong word. I would say the LS3 is better than the M3 engine in many respects. It probably only loses out in overall smoothness and "zinginess" - I think. Maybe not. Quote:
By the way, I'm turning into an M3 fan, and am certainly a fan of the engine. Perhaps I'm falling for routine hype, but I'm starting to salute. With the new automatic it very well may be something special, I think. Bruce PS - I left your elitest comment in there just because I wanted people to enjoy it one more time. Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 04-10-2008 at 11:34 PM.. Reason: Spelling |
||||||
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2008, 10:58 PM | #41 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Bruce Edit: PS - Next time you come upon a Vette, check the gaps between parts that have no room to expand without contacting another body panel. Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 04-10-2008 at 11:42 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-11-2008, 12:17 AM | #42 | ||||||||||||
Banned
61
Rep 908
Posts
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2000 E39 M5 - current [0.00]
2007 E92 335i - SOLD [0.00] 1996 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] 2000 E39 M5-SOLD [0.00] 2001 E46 M3-SOLD [0.00] 1995 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] |
Quote:
But lets get something clear here. Earlier you said the following: I personally believe that the new M3 will be easier to drive at the limit than almost anything else - because in my experience that's a BMW trait, going back to my early track experiences with our '95 M3. and now you are saying: We don't agree that the M3 is superior at the limit. Please pick a stance, and then we can move on to discussion. If I have to copy and paste random contradictions then we are not going anywhere. Quote:
I agree with you here. Fluff and hype will settle down like on any other car once problems surface. 95 M3s were oversteering, 96-99 M3 were understeering. It was a matter of slightly different sway bar setup and staggered setup on latter years. I owned both years and it is super easy to turn either year in whichever setup you prefer. Same thing with E46. I don't think it will be any different with new M3, but I could be wrong. I believe 911s tend to go from undesteering to snap oversteer, which again is mostly attributed to their bizzare rear engine setup. M3s are perfectly balanced and as such, much easier to setup. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, more weight, less power, less torque and making identical numbers speak volumes. I honestly don't understand what are we arguing about? Quote:
Quote:
-Regards, Elitist&fanboy |
||||||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
04-11-2008, 01:27 AM | #43 | |
Lieutenant General
612
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-11-2008, 01:33 AM | #44 | |
Lieutenant General
612
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Either way to me wide body gaps = poor quality, period. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|