Last post on Jun 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM
You are in the BMW M/M3/M6
What is this discussion about?
BMW M3, Coupe, Convertible
#136 of 250 Re: 2002 - 2003 M3 Reliability? [blumtown]
Feb 01, 2008 (7:42 pm)
The M3 is so much better than the G35. The M3 runs neck to neck with porsche carerra and msrp was $20,000 less then carerra. Depending what price you are looking for, you might find a 2003 with extended warranty which ends in 2009. Also, if you are going to get infiniti, the new G37 is a much better car. 330 HP for $32,000 msrp vs the m3 333HP for $48,000 msrp. But then again, I love my used M3 and not sure if the G37 can handle like the M3. Just make sure you get the M3 to BMW for a full inspection, test drive and compression test by the mechanic and that will give you most of the warning signs that you will have to face.
#137 of 250 Re: 2002 - 2003 M3 Reliability? [gmonkies]
Feb 02, 2008 (9:41 am)
In terms of sporting abilities, I agree the E46 M3 is a step up from the G37 (not necessarily in HP, but in handling/chassis dynamics). But to compare it to a Porsche 911 is absurd.
The M3 is a bloated, understeering land barge compared to the 911.
#138 of 250 Re: 2002 - 2003 M3 Reliability? [fedlawman]
Feb 02, 2008 (12:18 pm)
but is the carerra really worth $20,000 more? Which is more car for the $. There are so options to improve the M3 with extra $20,000 that can make the M3 out perform the carerra at tht point. Let's face it, unless some people buy the porsche for the name to show off their wealth, otherwise most people buy it for the excitement from the performance side and the M3 performance spec is pretty comparable if you put them side to side.
#139 of 250 Re: still trying to fix the oil seperator. help please!!!!! [gmonkies]
Feb 02, 2008 (12:49 pm)
If anyone know the specification or know who I can speak to that can help me, I would appreciate the assistance.
You might try posting your question on some other M3 forums. I'd also recommend joining the Yahoo E46 M3 group. If all else fails, you can always go to the BMW NA Online Tech site and pay $30 for 24 hours of access.
#140 of 250 Re: 2002 - 2003 M3 Reliability? [gmonkies]
Feb 02, 2008 (12:56 pm)
otherwise most people buy it for the excitement from the performance side and the M3 performance spec is pretty comparable if you put them side to side.
True enough, but I have to agree with fedlawman in that the 911 is more agile and involving, primarily due to its lighter weight and compact size. Don't take it as a knock on your M3, as it's a great car. Still, given the choice I'd also go with the 911- assuming I didn't need a usable rear seat...
#141 of 250 Re: 2002 - 2003 M3 Reliability? [gmonkies]
Feb 02, 2008 (1:55 pm)
"is the carerra really worth $20,000 more?"
Is the M3 worth $20,000 more than a Honda Accord V-6?
"There are so options to improve the M3 with extra $20,000 that can make the M3 out perform the carerra"
There are so many options to improve the Accord with the extra $20,000 that can make the Accord outperform the M3.
"the M3 performance spec is pretty comparable if you put them side to side."
BMW E46 M3 - 3415 lb curb weight; 107.5" wheelbase; 0-60 in 4.8 secs; 1/4 mile in 13.6 secs
Porsche 911 - 3075 lb curb weight; 92.5" wheelbase; 0-60 in 4.3 secs; 1/4 mile in 12.8 secs
No comparison. The M3 is a Grand Tourer - the 911 is a Sports Car
#142 of 250 Re: 2002 - 2003 M3 Reliability? [fedlawman]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Feb 02, 2008 (3:35 pm)
Such DIFFERENT driving experiences! The comparison seems forced to me.
#143 of 250 Re: 2002 - 2003 M3 Reliability? [Mr_Shiftright]
Feb 02, 2008 (5:41 pm)
I agree - the comparison just doesn't work on so many levels.
I can only guess that GMonkies has never driven a Porsche.
#144 of 250 Re: 2002 - 2003 M3 Reliability? [fedlawman]
Feb 05, 2008 (10:03 am)
Wow, I never realized I can ruffle so much feathers with my believe based on the info from magazine report. I was only trying to give a fellow BMW enthusiast a point of view based solely on the 1/4 mile time as one of many measures. But I will entertain the comments and continue with this debate one more time. My recollection was that when Road and Track magazine introduced the 2001 E46 M3, they have listed the M3 to be 0-60 4.8 and 1/4 miles to be 13.3 sec msrp at $48,000. On that same magazine it listed the 2001 porsche carrera to 0-60 4.6 sec and 1/ mil to be 13.2 sec msrp ~$70,000. 13.2 sec is a big difference to 12.8. I could be wrong but I think 2001 porsche turbo was around 12.8. Too bad I no longer have that magazine anymore, otherwise I could have scan it and e-mail it to anyone that wants proof. If I'm talking out of my ass with the spec then, it's really the magazine's fault for wrong info. Luckily we have google and there is a site that listed the porsche spec from both 2 magazine which backed up my numbers.
I have to admit I have only been a passenger in a porsche and have not had the opportunity as a driver yet. But I'm not here to knock down porsche or saying that the M3 is better, I'm just expressing my personal believe, "what is more car for the dollar". And to tell the truth, since porsche and bmw are both german built, rear wheel drive car dedicated to racing, It's not so insane to compare the 2. But comparing a front wheel drive Japanese built honda accord is probably more absurd. When I first started in the import scene 10 years ago, our goals were to spend less and yet still be able to spank a porsche, vette, viper..etc. And yes, I know kids out there that had a turbo civic/integra and out ran Ferrari and Lambo on the street. So Yes, I can spend $20,000 to rebuild the motor and put a turbo into an accord so it can outrun the M3 and the porsche turbo easily in 1/4 miles. But as a front wheel drive car, it can only get enough traction with drag slicks, not street tire. But drag slick cannot handle road course. Lastly, there are some road course that favors front wheel drive car and some that favors rear wheel drive car. So comparing front wheel and rear wheel drive is hardly a fair comparison. Comparing the M3 to the new G37 for example is a fair comparison cause they are both rear wheel drive so they can fairly compete on the same road track. Several magazines had compared the s2000 to the porsche boxster. Yes the S2000 requires more effort then the boxster. But the lap time and 1/4 mile time is very competitive. So is up to individual's opinion which is a better car for the $ and if it's worth the extra $. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this.
As a Honda lover my I've spent enough $ building several civic and integra for drag and road course to have been able to buy a new m3 cash. I am still able to admit that there are other car more for the money. As much as I hate domestic, Dodge neon SRT 4 is a lot more car for the $ to "ME" than the acura rsx type s. But that's just my opinion.
I was told once by a wise man, opinion is like Ahole and everyone's got one. With that said, I will step off my soap box now and stand by my believes while others can do the same.
#145 of 250 Re: 2002 - 2003 M3 Reliability? [gmonkies]
Feb 05, 2008 (11:39 am)
No ruffled feathers here, I'm just saying I disagree with you. Believe it or not, I don't own a Porsche (I actually own a BMW).
There's simply a lot more to a car than magazine test numbers for 0-60 MPH and 1/4 mile acceleration.
If driving the Porsche is like swimming in a crystal clear swimming pool, the BMW, by comparison, is like swimming in maple syrup.