S2000 Street Encounters Stories of on-the-road exploits and encounters.

Anyone gone against an M3?

Thread Tools
 
Old Nov 14, 2000 | 07:10 AM
  #1  
frayed's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
From: Austin
Default

Just curious, since the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are pretty close between these cars.

Of course, when the going gets twisty, stock against stock, I would expect the s2k to crush an M3.
Reply
Old Nov 14, 2000 | 07:14 AM
  #2  
VaporTrail's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
From: Tampa
Default

I've raced a...
4 door M3. Had it by 2 cars by 90mph.
2 door M3. 1 car by 90mph.
5 Series station wagon, 4.4 V8, supercharged - too close to call (then again, living in this state we'll have to recount that).
Reply
Old Nov 14, 2000 | 07:19 AM
  #3  
VA S2K's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,204
Likes: 0
From: Glen Allen
Default

I've never raced or driven an M3, but the M is supposed to be one of the best handling car around. The HP in both cars is about the same (excluding E46 M3) so I'd figure the two cars are about equal......tie goes to the S2K
Reply
Old Nov 14, 2000 | 07:19 AM
  #4  
hype's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
From: Memphis
Default

I'm worried about the new M3 Roadster coming out. I'm hearing 320 to 330 HP, which would be enough to beat our beloved S2Ks.
Reply
Old Nov 14, 2000 | 07:27 AM
  #5  
jwarner's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Seattle
Default

I've driven an M3. The E36 model is probably pretty close to an S2000 in terms of acceleration. It's an amazing car (hence the accolades over the past few years).

The new 2001 M3 will eat an S2000 alive in a sprint. 333 hp and 0-60 times in the 4.5-4.8 second range. Road handling should be pretty amazing also.

Then again it will be 20k more than an S2K

Jason
Reply
Old Nov 14, 2000 | 07:39 AM
  #6  
Silver S2K's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: RTP
Default

Had a '97 M3 coup till 99. The cars are very equally matched. The S can out handle the M, but the M is much easier to drive at 10/10ths. This makes the handling closer to a tie for practical purposes. The M has more grunt off the line but lacks the top end go that the S has. Again tied for practical purposes. So that leaves you with 4 seat luxury or 2 seat topless action. In a race, the better driver would win.

[This message has been edited by Silver S2K (edited November 14, 2000).]
Reply
Old Nov 14, 2000 | 07:55 AM
  #7  
Dented S2K's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
From: Royal Oak (used to be Austin)
Default

Silver S2K has it right.

I spent 4 hours out in Texas hill country (winding deserted 1.5 lane roads) 1 on 1 racing a '99 M3 sedan. We were back and forth all day... One thing I noticed on a straight line 0 - 60 type comparison is that it isn't a shoo in for the M3. I lost about 1/2 a car length at the launch due to the M3s better grip and lowend torque. He had to shift just slightly before me in each gear, and I would lose ground if I wasn't in VTEC, but if I was I would steadily pull on him. At the end of 2nd gear I would be about 1/2 car length ahead.

One place where the M3 shines is on bumpy long sweeping corners. The S2K would get a little jittery while the M3 kept a better footing.


At one point we went over a little dip bridge that crossed a very small creek. The bridge was about 8 feet below the level of the road, and the road had a very sharp decline on both sides down to the bridge and back up on the other side. I was able to comfortably cross it at a steady 45 mph without losing control or bottoming out. I jumped into my friend's M3 and he flew over the bridge at about 55 without any problems. I went back to my S2K and took it at 50 - bad idea. I didn't hit the road but I hit the limits of the suspension. It was jarring enough that I almost lost control of the car.

Overall, the two cars are about as close in performance as one could expect given their dissimilarities. (sp?) They have similar hp, but vastly different torque curves. The BMW is about 700 lbs heavier and a different body style.
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Nov 14, 2000 | 08:00 AM
  #8  
Sev's Avatar
Sev
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,125
Likes: 0
From: Montreal
Default

These cars are too close to declare one a guaranteed winner over the other.

Like the guys are saying it comes down to the driver, like always, but even more so in this case.


Reply
Old Nov 14, 2000 | 08:03 AM
  #9  
ENZO's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Default

I had 95 E36M3 Coupe before S2000 and drove 97 quite a bit. S2000 should beat stock 95, but pretty close to 96 and on 3.2L models.

Handling wise, 95 was very nutral, but 97 was positioned toward safety. Too much understeer on race track. You can swing tail out if you liked to, but it was either understeer or heavy oversteer. S2000 is more fun with nutral to modelate oversteer, I think. Car and Driver said E46M3 understeer even more than E36. BMW is going too much toward laxually than sporty lately.

I got to drove my friend M3 again last weekend at Willowprings, and I was amazed how easy it was to drive. I do miss that German car feeling, and its direct steering feel which S2000 lacks.
Reply
Old Nov 14, 2000 | 08:04 AM
  #10  
lako's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Default

I met one at a light once, was all ready to launch, then I looked over and saw this guy's little boy in the car seat. I backed off and the guy tore out of there.

I'm increasingly amazed at what people will do with their children in the car.


Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:14 PM.