Lost to an E36 M3
Lost to an E36 M3
I was driving last night with my girlfriend and I saw a 1995 M3 manual with a aftermarket wing. She pointed it out to me and I followed it for a while. We then lined up at a light and when the light turned green I floored it. A Car got in the M3's way so he got behind me. I then shifted into second(perfect shift) and he got in the right lane and hung at my door all throughout second gear. I then shifted into third and in the middle of this gear he started pulling slightly till he was at my rear door at the 5500 rpms. This is where he started really pulling on me. From 5500 rpms 3rd gear to the middle of 4th gear he pulled maybe 3 cars on me. What the hell happened, I didnt miss any shifts or anything. I am wondering if the guy sprayed on me. I am a fan of BMW's and know that 95 was the slowest year, but they make a Euro intake system for that year and it supposedly adds 33hp for $1000 bucks.
Originally posted by MichaelAE
Yeah, my man...you were doomed from the start.
Yeah, my man...you were doomed from the start.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by MAX2000JP
How was i doomed?? The 95 had a 3.0 Liter engine with less torque than the 3.2L in the newer model E36's. They ran mid to high 14's in the quarter which is about the same as a 5th gen Max with the mods i have.
How was i doomed?? The 95 had a 3.0 Liter engine with less torque than the 3.2L in the newer model E36's. They ran mid to high 14's in the quarter which is about the same as a 5th gen Max with the mods i have.
Maybe he is upgraded too?
Originally posted by MAX2000JP
How was i doomed?? The 95 had a 3.0 Liter engine with less torque than the 3.2L in the newer model E36's. They ran mid to high 14's in the quarter which is about the same as a 5th gen Max with the mods i have.
How was i doomed?? The 95 had a 3.0 Liter engine with less torque than the 3.2L in the newer model E36's. They ran mid to high 14's in the quarter which is about the same as a 5th gen Max with the mods i have.
Originally posted by MichaelAE
The '95 had a 2.9Liter and was lighter than your 5-speed and produced almost 20hp more and a bit more torque. 1/4 mile times more like 14.2@99 (taken from the C&D long term test). 5-60mph in 6.0 and a 5.5 on the 0-60. With a few mods, I say you were doomed from the start.
The '95 had a 2.9Liter and was lighter than your 5-speed and produced almost 20hp more and a bit more torque. 1/4 mile times more like 14.2@99 (taken from the C&D long term test). 5-60mph in 6.0 and a 5.5 on the 0-60. With a few mods, I say you were doomed from the start.
Im trying to think which engine family is belonged to (the code name...I think it was S50)I also think this engine still had OBDI equipement. Car and Driver also got 0-60 time of 5.3seconds on the 1995 M3 in their comparision test with the 300ZX, SC300, Supra NA.
Re: Lost to an E36 M3
That's what racing is all about. You win some, you loose some ( and wonder what the hell happened ). You just hope to win more than loose and that you loose to worthy opponents...
It's all fun and games... until someone looses an eye.
It's all fun and games... until someone looses an eye.
Originally posted by MAX2000JP
How was i doomed?? The 95 had a 3.0 Liter engine with less torque than the 3.2L in the newer model E36's. They ran mid to high 14's in the quarter which is about the same as a 5th gen Max with the mods i have.
How was i doomed?? The 95 had a 3.0 Liter engine with less torque than the 3.2L in the newer model E36's. They ran mid to high 14's in the quarter which is about the same as a 5th gen Max with the mods i have.
a caddy STS has 300+ hp and torque, but i will put my money on auto 5th gen which has less hp and torque in a race.
I would have thought that a 95 M3 would be a good match with my car. I tam almost positive the guy had mods. I am gonna try and race my friend on his 97 M3 auto and see how it goes
.
Phatguy....you should have seen this guys wing, it was ricer!
. Phatguy....you should have seen this guys wing, it was ricer!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by MAX2000JP
I would have thought that a 95 M3 would be a good match with my car. I tam almost positive the guy had mods. I am gonna try and race my friend on his 97 M3 auto and see how it goes
.
Phatguy....you should have seen this guys wing, it was ricer!
I would have thought that a 95 M3 would be a good match with my car. I tam almost positive the guy had mods. I am gonna try and race my friend on his 97 M3 auto and see how it goes
. Phatguy....you should have seen this guys wing, it was ricer!
Chicken wing on an M3?
I raced a new M3 in the summer and it pulls like crazy! I lost the battle but won the war though. He pulled on my like mad in third and fourth. But I had the good path and he got caught behind cars in the fast lane while I flew by him in the middle. I did it to him twice but damn they very fast!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by PhatGuy
I raced a new M3 in the summer and it pulls like crazy! I lost the battle but won the war though. He pulled on my like mad in third and fourth. But I had the good path and he got caught behind cars in the fast lane while I flew by him in the middle. I did it to him twice but damn they very fast!
I raced a new M3 in the summer and it pulls like crazy! I lost the battle but won the war though. He pulled on my like mad in third and fourth. But I had the good path and he got caught behind cars in the fast lane while I flew by him in the middle. I did it to him twice but damn they very fast!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Telus.net
Because you raced an M3, now the M3 people would laugh how about Maxima owners saying that Maxima is trying to race them......
Because you raced an M3, now the M3 people would laugh how about Maxima owners saying that Maxima is trying to race them......
M50 95' 3.0L 240HP@5300rpm 207pft@3950 0-60 5.7seconds
M52 97' 3.2L 241HP@6900rpm 236pft@3600 0-60 ???
s50/s52 were Euro only, and of course the real thing. the US m3 buyers were gypt out of about 40-80HP depending on year. that motor was the same engine engine you could find in a 328i just more displacement and more compression. The M\\\ engines do have a lot of HP, but it's all above 5000RPM! I have an S38 motor from a 88'M5. with a chip and no cat it's good for almost 300HP. going to go into my CS coupe (3200lb car) should be fun. If you really wan't a screamer but will still carry 5 get yourself a e34M5 94/95' 311HP stock 340+ with a simple chip upgrade! all for around $20-$26K
S50 286HP@7000rpm 236pft@3600
go here for more info: http://www.bmw-m.net/techdata/
http://www.bmwworld.com/models/m3_e36.htm
M52 97' 3.2L 241HP@6900rpm 236pft@3600 0-60 ???
s50/s52 were Euro only, and of course the real thing. the US m3 buyers were gypt out of about 40-80HP depending on year. that motor was the same engine engine you could find in a 328i just more displacement and more compression. The M\\\ engines do have a lot of HP, but it's all above 5000RPM! I have an S38 motor from a 88'M5. with a chip and no cat it's good for almost 300HP. going to go into my CS coupe (3200lb car) should be fun. If you really wan't a screamer but will still carry 5 get yourself a e34M5 94/95' 311HP stock 340+ with a simple chip upgrade! all for around $20-$26K
S50 286HP@7000rpm 236pft@3600
go here for more info: http://www.bmw-m.net/techdata/
http://www.bmwworld.com/models/m3_e36.htm
Originally posted by MichaelAE
The '95 had a 2.9Liter and was lighter than your 5-speed and produced almost 20hp more and a bit more torque. 1/4 mile times more like 14.2@99 (taken from the C&D long term test). 5-60mph in 6.0 and a 5.5 on the 0-60. With a few mods, I say you were doomed from the start.
The '95 had a 2.9Liter and was lighter than your 5-speed and produced almost 20hp more and a bit more torque. 1/4 mile times more like 14.2@99 (taken from the C&D long term test). 5-60mph in 6.0 and a 5.5 on the 0-60. With a few mods, I say you were doomed from the start.
I think you got the torque figures wrong >>>>>
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 73tiiguy
[B]M50 95' 3.0L 240HP@5300rpm 207pft@3950 0-60 5.7seconds
M52 97' 3.2L 241HP@6900rpm 236pft@3600 0-60 ???
for the 95 model, I beleive that the correct figure is 236 ft/lbs. Also what makes the M3 faster is the gearing of the BMW's. BMW's are geared very well, meaning very close, the 5th gear on a BMW is not over drive like most cars but a 1:1 ratio.
[B]M50 95' 3.0L 240HP@5300rpm 207pft@3950 0-60 5.7seconds
M52 97' 3.2L 241HP@6900rpm 236pft@3600 0-60 ???
for the 95 model, I beleive that the correct figure is 236 ft/lbs. Also what makes the M3 faster is the gearing of the BMW's. BMW's are geared very well, meaning very close, the 5th gear on a BMW is not over drive like most cars but a 1:1 ratio.
Re: I think you got the torque figures wrong >>>>>
yes you right about me being wrong I think the 3.0L tourque was 225fpt@4250RPM. This taken from official bmw tech ref for the 1995 model year.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JULIAN
[B]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JULIAN
[B]
Originally posted by 73tiiguy
M50 95' 3.0L 240HP@5300rpm 207pft@3950 0-60 5.7seconds
M52 97' 3.2L 241HP@6900rpm 236pft@3600 0-60 ???
for the 95 model, I beleive that the correct figure is 236 ft/lbs. Also what makes the M3 faster is the gearing of the BMW's. BMW's are geared very well, meaning very close, the 5th gear on a BMW is not over drive like most cars but a 1:1 ratio.
M50 95' 3.0L 240HP@5300rpm 207pft@3950 0-60 5.7seconds
M52 97' 3.2L 241HP@6900rpm 236pft@3600 0-60 ???
for the 95 model, I beleive that the correct figure is 236 ft/lbs. Also what makes the M3 faster is the gearing of the BMW's. BMW's are geared very well, meaning very close, the 5th gear on a BMW is not over drive like most cars but a 1:1 ratio.
Re: Re: I think you got the torque figures wrong >>>>>
here is the link:
http://www.bmw-m.net/techdata/95m3.htm
Also take a look at the data for 5th gear! yes, it's 1.00
http://www.bmw-m.net/techdata/95m3.htm
Also take a look at the data for 5th gear! yes, it's 1.00
Re: Re: Re: I think you got the torque figures wrong >>>>>
I care to disagree about racing on paper ... here is why. All you need to know which car would win a race (forget the driver ... they will rarely be equal), 3 main factors come into play:
1) Car's weight.
2) Engine's torque and more importantly it's torque curve, which dictates HP.
3) Transmission's gearing.
If car 1 on paper has better stats than car 2, 99 times out of a 100, which equal drivers, car 1 will win. However, the driver is usually the one who loses the race in most cases. This is how someone in a stock Corvette Z06 can sometimes beat someone in a stock Viper. Paper says otherwise, but it happens due to the Viper driver either misshifting or shifting at the wrong time or just not paying attention.
1) Car's weight.
2) Engine's torque and more importantly it's torque curve, which dictates HP.
3) Transmission's gearing.
If car 1 on paper has better stats than car 2, 99 times out of a 100, which equal drivers, car 1 will win. However, the driver is usually the one who loses the race in most cases. This is how someone in a stock Corvette Z06 can sometimes beat someone in a stock Viper. Paper says otherwise, but it happens due to the Viper driver either misshifting or shifting at the wrong time or just not paying attention.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you got the torque figures wrong >>>>>
Yes your statement does have merrit FastCougar. Case in point; I have a freind that owns a new E46M3, if you put him on the track and my Mother on the track in the same car, my Mom would kick his azz. I'm just really jelous thought. this punk has a car that needs to be driven as it was intended to! He won't let me drive it. Not because he thinks I'd wreck it, but probalbly because he's to cheap to pay for the dry-cleaning after he shat in his pants!
Originally posted by FastCougar
I care to disagree about racing on paper ... here is why. All you need to know which car would win a race (forget the driver ... they will rarely be equal), 3 main factors come into play:
1) Car's weight.
2) Engine's torque and more importantly it's torque curve, which dictates HP.
3) Transmission's gearing.
If car 1 on paper has better stats than car 2, 99 times out of a 100, which equal drivers, car 1 will win. However, the driver is usually the one who loses the race in most cases. This is how someone in a stock Corvette Z06 can sometimes beat someone in a stock Viper. Paper says otherwise, but it happens due to the Viper driver either misshifting or shifting at the wrong time or just not paying attention.
I care to disagree about racing on paper ... here is why. All you need to know which car would win a race (forget the driver ... they will rarely be equal), 3 main factors come into play:
1) Car's weight.
2) Engine's torque and more importantly it's torque curve, which dictates HP.
3) Transmission's gearing.
If car 1 on paper has better stats than car 2, 99 times out of a 100, which equal drivers, car 1 will win. However, the driver is usually the one who loses the race in most cases. This is how someone in a stock Corvette Z06 can sometimes beat someone in a stock Viper. Paper says otherwise, but it happens due to the Viper driver either misshifting or shifting at the wrong time or just not paying attention.
Re: Re: Lost to an E36 M3
Originally posted by FastCougar
Flatter torque curve + gearing + possible mods = you loose
Does this really surprise you?
Flatter torque curve + gearing + possible mods = you loose

Does this really surprise you?
one from off the line start and the second one on freeway...
first car was 5 speed for sure, but not quiet sure about the second one..but the second one was slower than i thought so maybe he was an auto..but he was also more-fixed up one too.
the first car, we were able to hit first 3 gears before the next light, and we were really neck to neck until 2nd gear, and in 3rd i pulled away slightly..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
KabirUTA13
5th Generation Classifieds (2000-2003)
19
Oct 17, 2015 02:15 AM




