vroom

Oops - long post...

...well I've got one of each. A '97 M3 wit 118K miles and a 02 S2000 with 30,016

vroom

Yip - 97 -> (98 or 99). Same HP and according to BMW (take that with a grain of salt) exactly the same weight. It's actually supposed to be more rigid than the coupe.

Jason B

Well, one of my very good friends has a 99 M3. I've driven it and think the M3 is the closest coupe in performance/driver feel/handling to the s out of everything else out there. When you are driving the M, it's hard to believe there are actually two more seats in the rear! The S has a more "on rails" feeling and I think is still more fun to drive. It is faster and will pull on a stock E36 M3. The great thing about the M3 is easy moding that provides great HP gains, no so with the S, unless you S/C or Turbo.

Now my buddy has a new exhaust and track pipe (replaces cat) which added 20, yes 20 rwhp. Now, he pulls on me!

If you go to the S from the M, I don't think you are going to be having dreams at night wanting it back, unless you need the space.

Here are some pics of our cars.





Love the optional light weight M3 wheels. Very rare.

1slowM3

Did you get a E46 M3 or 3 series? I don't think there's any question as to whether i'd rather own a E46 M3 or s2k, the S54 333 hp M3 motor is incredible. I just wanted to get some views on the s2000 board since on bimmerforums and other bmw boards everyone is obviously gonna say keep the M3, hondas are pos's and low class etc.

I'll be doing a test drive in the near future, if anyone is in the Dallas, Tx area reading this i'd love to get a ride/drive your car if you'd be willing.

1slowM3

[QUOTE=vroom,Oct 5 2004, 07:24 AM] Oops - long post...

...well I've got one of each.

forsaken

When they said fast, I dont think they were referring to quartermile drag. I think its on the track. But i dunno..

Honda F1

E36 M3's weren't very impressive at all imo. The S2K trumps the E36 in many aspects. E46 M3 is another story, but there's really no hands down winner. It comes down to preference. Torque down low or hp up high (REALLY high)

1slowM3

Actually I think you're confused, it's actually the other way around. As the 3 series M generations have progressed the cars have become more and more refined taking out the raw road feel that was originally built into them. The only thing the E46 has over the E36 is more horsepower and a tad more torque.

Talk to any E46 owner and they'll tell you that it just feels like a heavier, less nimble and manuverable car than the E36. It looks sweet, has a way better interior and goes faster in a straight line but stock for stock the E36 M3 is much more of a drivers car.

Now on the otherhand, go talk to the owners of the E30 M3 and they'll swear that that generation is the only real M, i've ridden in all 3 and the E30 has HANDS DOWN the best raw road feel and gives you the feeling that you're connected when you're driving it, the E36 is pretty good about that and the E46 feels like the steering got a shot of novicane. If the s2000 feels like the E36 M3 as far as handling goes i'll be delighted i'm just looking for a lighter feeling car like the miata.

Oh yeah just thought i'd throw this out, it's from a 97 or 98ish car and driver article front page. And yes that's a 993 porsche, NSX and ferrari 355 behind it. And also the M3 does also have 240 hp and the average car dynos between 204-210 whp so they're slightly underrated+the fact they are rated around EIGHTY less pounds of torque stock from the factory.

kkyntmoon

laughable

vroom

Man..drawn in again . I'd promised to take a moratorium from posting, but when my two cars are concerned...

Don't know what 'laughable' refers to, but lets look at some issues. The M3 cannot be accurately compared to an S2000, 350Z, EVO 8, whatever, completely. It is (I believe) a 1992 design. The car in US form came here in late 94! It was around for 6 years before any of those cars arrived. It stopped selling before they arrived! For it's time it was a superb car. In many ways - taking into account when it's heyday was - mid to late '90's, it was a BETTER 'overall' car than an S2000.

There was nothing on the road 94 -99 that had it's agility, comparative acceleration, AND utility - they u word being why you can't bring RX-7s, Supra TT's C5's etc into play. The S is now more agile and possibly faster. For all that it has limited utility. My M (I'm one of the poor owners who doesn't have funds for multiple rides) has served as a pickup and grocery getter as well as daily driver AND track day/autocross special. The S can do the middle and latter items - the latter especially well, but the former no way. I've taken home 2x4X8s in the M (seat back down) and other hardware. I also could drive 7hrs to Mont Tremblant for a track day with my wife in the front seat, our luggage AND tires and track gear in the trunk.

Magazines may mean little, but once a car is old, they'll usually find it's flaws, yet for 5 years the M won EVERY comparo in every US mag (funnily enough, the English mags hated it - hmmm just like that dislike the S2000). When the car lost a comparo in 99 to an S4, it lost it on interior amenities - it's ~'93 design was showing it's age. It still beat the S4 on the track and "the car to have if you wanted to drive". Compare the car in the context of it's time and it's awesome.

I'm not one to use the "different cars" clich