The new M3's have around 330 horse with an inline V6!
high revving, 8k redline, like the Honda VTEC.
S2000 has 120hp/L, F360 has 400hp out of 3.6L.
It's pretty fast, tested at 13.2 in quarter mile, that's on par with NSX and Vette.
The downside is, did you ever see the option list on a BMW?
when you load it up, it won't be anywhere near $46k.
S2000 has 120hp/L, F360 has 400hp out of 3.6L.
It's pretty fast, tested at 13.2 in quarter mile, that's on par with NSX and Vette.
The downside is, did you ever see the option list on a BMW?
when you load it up, it won't be anywhere near $46k.
Easy: High compression/varible cam timing on both cams/individual intake runners to each port/header-like exhaust.
Originally posted by nismomax
How in the world did BMW get that much power with a 3.2 liter N/A engine? This car has 6speed, LSD, 18's, and 0-60 of 4.9 SEC. For $45,000 this is the car to get.
How in the world did BMW get that much power with a 3.2 liter N/A engine? This car has 6speed, LSD, 18's, and 0-60 of 4.9 SEC. For $45,000 this is the car to get.
awsome car, I posted seeing a new M3 before and everybody said there were none. But seeing the new photos it has the same 1" trunk lid spoiler and dual twin exaust like I had reported. Strange. It probably wasn't but from the rear it's like deja vous.
Originally posted by WoodEar
high revving, 8k redline, like the Honda VTEC.
S2000 has 120hp/L, F360 has 400hp out of 3.6L.
It's pretty fast, tested at 13.2 in quarter mile, that's on par with NSX and Vette.
The downside is, did you ever see the option list on a BMW?
when you load it up, it won't be anywhere near $46k.
high revving, 8k redline, like the Honda VTEC.
S2000 has 120hp/L, F360 has 400hp out of 3.6L.
It's pretty fast, tested at 13.2 in quarter mile, that's on par with NSX and Vette.
The downside is, did you ever see the option list on a BMW?
when you load it up, it won't be anywhere near $46k.
Originally posted by KL99SEA
awsome car, I posted seeing a new M3 before and everybody said there were none. But seeing the new photos it has the same 1" trunk lid spoiler and dual twin exaust like I had reported. Strange. It probably wasn't but from the rear it's like deja vous.
awsome car, I posted seeing a new M3 before and everybody said there were none. But seeing the new photos it has the same 1" trunk lid spoiler and dual twin exaust like I had reported. Strange. It probably wasn't but from the rear it's like deja vous.
Guest
Posts: n/a
333 HP.
It's not unreasonable to get that much power N/A, just uncommon...Honda makes that sorta HP/L all the time outta their VTEC motors. The Civic SI B16 1.6L makes 160 HP, and that's not all that incredible with their standards...1.8L Type R motor makes 195 (or 190?). If that SI motor geometry was worked into a 3.2L 6-cyl, that'd be 320 HP, similar to the M3.
The M3 makes 260 ftlbs of torque. The old M3 made 240, I think...same displacement...so the new M3 is more efficient, and has a definite boost in torque. Probably due to the increased compression ratio, lighter crankshaft...and I think they reworked the intake manifold as well. HP is simply a function of the torque an engine can make at higher and higher rpms...You could make a 1000 HP outta that engine if it made similar torque but spun up to 20,000 rpm (ludicrous, I know, but the point remains). The HP boost simply comes on due to the much better high rpm breathing. Credit the new dual-VANOS setup vs the old intake-only VANOS setup. VANOS is BMW's variable camshaft timing (very similar in operation to the 92-94 Maxima SE VE motor VTC system). That gives the M3 very hot camshaft timing to get good high rpm torque, hence HP.
I saw a news bit on Autoweek last weekend on the new M3. The engine sounds fantastic. The best sounding engine I've ever heard. Smooth, nice gutteral intake growl, with a mechanical winding sound. Fantastic. Even the incredible stats on the engine (333/260) don't do the engine justice...sounds soooo sweet!
[Edited by Keven97SE on 11-07-2000 at 12:07 PM]
It's not unreasonable to get that much power N/A, just uncommon...Honda makes that sorta HP/L all the time outta their VTEC motors. The Civic SI B16 1.6L makes 160 HP, and that's not all that incredible with their standards...1.8L Type R motor makes 195 (or 190?). If that SI motor geometry was worked into a 3.2L 6-cyl, that'd be 320 HP, similar to the M3.
The M3 makes 260 ftlbs of torque. The old M3 made 240, I think...same displacement...so the new M3 is more efficient, and has a definite boost in torque. Probably due to the increased compression ratio, lighter crankshaft...and I think they reworked the intake manifold as well. HP is simply a function of the torque an engine can make at higher and higher rpms...You could make a 1000 HP outta that engine if it made similar torque but spun up to 20,000 rpm (ludicrous, I know, but the point remains). The HP boost simply comes on due to the much better high rpm breathing. Credit the new dual-VANOS setup vs the old intake-only VANOS setup. VANOS is BMW's variable camshaft timing (very similar in operation to the 92-94 Maxima SE VE motor VTC system). That gives the M3 very hot camshaft timing to get good high rpm torque, hence HP.
I saw a news bit on Autoweek last weekend on the new M3. The engine sounds fantastic. The best sounding engine I've ever heard. Smooth, nice gutteral intake growl, with a mechanical winding sound. Fantastic. Even the incredible stats on the engine (333/260) don't do the engine justice...sounds soooo sweet!
[Edited by Keven97SE on 11-07-2000 at 12:07 PM]
I think Honda could make some mega hp engines like you said Keven. But for some reason, they don't. The Acura cl sport is rated at 260hp, which is nice. Donno, to me two different sets of cams ala vtec seems to have more torque/hp potential than just retarding/advancing the same cam. I highly suspect if Honda really wanted to make a 300 hp+ from a 3.2, they could. And still offer a Honda like warranty. I do suspect that Honda doesn't want to make a mega hp FWD car. Too many kids would be make 90 degree left turns when the mashed the gas. NSX is the only high output Honda/Acura I guess.
Originally posted by Keven97SE
333 HP.
It's not unreasonable to get that much power N/A, just uncommon...Honda makes that sorta HP/L all the time outta their VTEC motors. The Civic SI B16 1.6L makes 160 HP, and that's not all that incredible with their standards...1.8L Type R motor makes 195 (or 190?). If that SI motor geometry was worked into a 3.2L 6-cyl, that'd be 320 HP, similar to the M3.
The M3 makes 260 ftlbs of torque. The old M3 made 240, I think...same displacement...so the new M3 is more efficient, and has a definite boost in torque. The HP boost simply comes on due to the much better high rpm breathing. Credit the new dual-VANOS setup vs the old intake-only VANOS setup. VANOS is BMW's variable camshaft timing (very similar in operation to the 92-94 Maxima SE VE motor VTC system). That gives the M3 very hot camshaft timing to get good high rpm torque, hence HP.
I saw a news bit on Autoweek last weekend on the new M3. The engine sounds fantastic. The best sounding engine I've ever heard. Smooth, nice gutteral intake growl, with a mechanical winding sound. Fantastic. Even the incredible stats on the engine (333/260) don't do the engine justice...sounds soooo sweet!
333 HP.
It's not unreasonable to get that much power N/A, just uncommon...Honda makes that sorta HP/L all the time outta their VTEC motors. The Civic SI B16 1.6L makes 160 HP, and that's not all that incredible with their standards...1.8L Type R motor makes 195 (or 190?). If that SI motor geometry was worked into a 3.2L 6-cyl, that'd be 320 HP, similar to the M3.
The M3 makes 260 ftlbs of torque. The old M3 made 240, I think...same displacement...so the new M3 is more efficient, and has a definite boost in torque. The HP boost simply comes on due to the much better high rpm breathing. Credit the new dual-VANOS setup vs the old intake-only VANOS setup. VANOS is BMW's variable camshaft timing (very similar in operation to the 92-94 Maxima SE VE motor VTC system). That gives the M3 very hot camshaft timing to get good high rpm torque, hence HP.
I saw a news bit on Autoweek last weekend on the new M3. The engine sounds fantastic. The best sounding engine I've ever heard. Smooth, nice gutteral intake growl, with a mechanical winding sound. Fantastic. Even the incredible stats on the engine (333/260) don't do the engine justice...sounds soooo sweet!
Will somebody please give me a really high-paying job, so I can afford one. I think this can be classified as a need, and not a want. And no matter how much HP a Honda is pushing, it will never feel like a BMW.
Originally posted by WoodEar
high revving, 8k redline, like the Honda VTEC.
S2000 has 120hp/L, F360 has 400hp out of 3.6L.
It's pretty fast, tested at 13.2 in quarter mile, that's on par with NSX and Vette.
The downside is, did you ever see the option list on a BMW?
when you load it up, it won't be anywhere near $46k.
high revving, 8k redline, like the Honda VTEC.
S2000 has 120hp/L, F360 has 400hp out of 3.6L.
It's pretty fast, tested at 13.2 in quarter mile, that's on par with NSX and Vette.
The downside is, did you ever see the option list on a BMW?
when you load it up, it won't be anywhere near $46k.
Originally posted by nismomax
How in the world did BMW get that much power with a 3.2 liter N/A engine? This car has 6speed, LSD, 18's, and 0-60 of 4.9 SEC. For $45,000 this is the car to get.
How in the world did BMW get that much power with a 3.2 liter N/A engine? This car has 6speed, LSD, 18's, and 0-60 of 4.9 SEC. For $45,000 this is the car to get.
The Euro-spec 3.2L I6 has made 321hp @ 7400rpm and 258lb/ft @ 3250rpm for years. The U.S.-spec 3.2L I6 of the E36 made 240hp @ 6000rpm and 236lb/ft @ 3800rpm (the older 3.0L version made 240hp @ 6000rpm and 225lb/ft @ 4250rpm). The Euro-spec engine gains its power advantage through the use of six separate throttles, one for each cylinder. This allows for more high-rpm power, as well as quicker throttle response. It also uses Double-VANOS and an 11.3:1 compression ratio, compared to the U.S.-spec 10.5:1 compression ratio. For the E46, the power will be increased to 343hp in Euro-spec trim and (naturally) slightly detuned for the U.S. for emissions.
Originally posted by fivelitrekiller
It's truly the car to beat. It rivals the M5 for power because of it's 600lb weight difference, and it's 30k cheaper[/I]
It's truly the car to beat. It rivals the M5 for power because of it's 600lb weight difference, and it's 30k cheaper[/I]
The E46 M3 will be at least $55k when you load it somewhat.
Hmm...about the M5 thing. That was my "planned" future car.
I've been visiting bmw dealers a bit recently with a friend who's getting one very soon, once he finds "the one" he likes. While I was there, I was looking at the M5. Yes, the starting price is supposed to be around $70k. But after adding the options to the car (which I don't think any m5 would come without, so probably impossible to find one under $85k), and after taxes, the car comes our to nearly $100,000. Of course, this depends on how many options and stuff like that you add to the car. BMW's never seem to get sold for anywhere near their starting prices. After seeing this, I might as well get a Ferrari if I'm gonna spend this much on an M5. I think BMW sucks for jacking prices up so high all the time. I'd rather get another Maxima or something.
Just my two cents, don't mean to offend anyone.
I've been visiting bmw dealers a bit recently with a friend who's getting one very soon, once he finds "the one" he likes. While I was there, I was looking at the M5. Yes, the starting price is supposed to be around $70k. But after adding the options to the car (which I don't think any m5 would come without, so probably impossible to find one under $85k), and after taxes, the car comes our to nearly $100,000. Of course, this depends on how many options and stuff like that you add to the car. BMW's never seem to get sold for anywhere near their starting prices. After seeing this, I might as well get a Ferrari if I'm gonna spend this much on an M5. I think BMW sucks for jacking prices up so high all the time. I'd rather get another Maxima or something.
Just my two cents, don't mean to offend anyone.
Originally posted by cheapo
Yes, the starting price is supposed to be around $70k. But after adding the options to the car (which I don't think any m5 would come without, so probably impossible to find one under $85k), and after taxes, the car comes our to nearly $100,000.[/I]
Yes, the starting price is supposed to be around $70k. But after adding the options to the car (which I don't think any m5 would come without, so probably impossible to find one under $85k), and after taxes, the car comes our to nearly $100,000.[/I]
check carpoint.com to price it.
Is that without options for around $70k? I remember reading that being the starting price for an M5 too, but I went to a BMW dealer about 2 weeks ago. They had one for about $98,000!!! I asked the dealer why that price was so expensive. They just told me that they were all like that, and that it was impossible to get one anywhere near the starting price. That was RIDICULOUS! I had my heart set to get one of those once I had enough money. Arghh.. BMW dealers suck. They also made me and my friend wait 2 hours for someone to show us a 3 series, when there were 4 guys sitting on beach chairs under a canopy at the front door. I guess it was just a bad day for me.
But seriously, Woodear, which BMW did you go to? Did they really have an M5 at that low of a starting price?
But seriously, Woodear, which BMW did you go to? Did they really have an M5 at that low of a starting price?
18 months ago it was like what you described, $100k, pay more to get it first.
now it's not that crazy anymore, any BMW dealer will accept your order at msrp, which is really $72k fully loaded, and it only takes half year to deliver.
If you want it like NOW, then you might have to pay $5k-$10k more for the ones that's in stock.
now it's not that crazy anymore, any BMW dealer will accept your order at msrp, which is really $72k fully loaded, and it only takes half year to deliver.
If you want it like NOW, then you might have to pay $5k-$10k more for the ones that's in stock.
pancake it and make it a flat inline vee. 
I will always pick the M5 over the M3 regardless of the price difference. I hate squeezing myself into such a small cockpit.
The AMG CLK is always a good alternative.

I will always pick the M5 over the M3 regardless of the price difference. I hate squeezing myself into such a small cockpit.
The AMG CLK is always a good alternative.

Originally posted by ZuMBLe
Inline V6 is like an oxymoron. Like a square shaped circle. =)
ZuM
Inline V6 is like an oxymoron. Like a square shaped circle. =)
ZuM
Originally posted by focker2889
The AMG CLK is always a good alternative.
[/I]
The AMG CLK is always a good alternative.

[/I]
if it's true, we are talking about 2 ton luxury cars with all the comfort and convinence while running with Viper and 911TT side by side

scary.
Guest
Posts: n/a
someone in my hood just bought a m5 he said he paid 73k for it, let me tell u that car is worth every penny he actually was nice enought to let me drive it i couldnt believe it the thing has power out the ying yang and is real tight and the luxry is great. with my new promotion at work i think that is my next car.
DEBO
DEBO
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ArcticMax
General Maxima Discussion
23
Jan 5, 2001 01:37 PM




