# Which would you get, M5, M6 or the E90 M3?



## lawman800 (Dec 23, 2005)

BahnBaum said:


> I like kiwi.
> 
> Alex


I'm allergic to kiwi. I prefer mangos.


----------



## Lanc3r (Sep 5, 2004)

Out of those options, the M5. It is a far better value than the M6, and who knows what an E90 M3 will be like.

But actually in those price ranges, I start looking at Ferrari, Aston Martin, Wiesmann and Porsche.

The M6 is a pig, the M5 looks like any other 5 series, and the M3 doesnt exist. Thanks BMW.


----------



## lawman800 (Dec 23, 2005)

Buddy at work is looking at the Vantage. Got tired of his C4 cabrio already. Bastard!


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

It'd be the M6 for me. The six series is sexiest to my eye. And to my way of sports-car thinking the M3 is too heavy and even underpowered (one C6 Z06 or Ford GT please!).


----------



## lawman800 (Dec 23, 2005)

I could do without the unfinished carbon fiber roof of the M6 though. I do love the quad exhausts. It just reeks of the Japanese import aftermarket carbon fiber hood, trunk, fender, spoiler thing too much. Even Ducati paints their carbon fiber parts so that it won't show on their top of the line bikes.


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

Well, my local dealer has a Fiskar-modified 6-series on the floor. They tell me the bodywork is all CF but you can't tell (painted) and the engine is unmolested. CF is a modern race-car look so I wouldn't be unhappy with naked CF. Very radical front end change and absurdly 'proud' rims (you'll curb them in a hurry). Anyway, the sales price is somewhere around $200K <ouch!> and this dealership is ordered a dozen.


----------



## lawman800 (Dec 23, 2005)

Yeah, saw the Fiskars in this month's Automobile magazine. It's nice but a bit overdone. Not that I would complain, mind you....


----------



## hector (Jul 14, 2003)

lawman800 said:


> .
> 
> In any event, on the street, for most city or urban purposes, anything over 240hp is wasted. QUOTE]
> one frequently sees misinformed comments similar to this which must reflect the notion that hp is only used to generate top-speed. acceleration at any speed is a thrill and that is why more hp will always be useful/more fun whether its to go 0 to 30, 20 to 40 passing in town or 50-75 passing on the highway, etc. 500hp will be way more fun than 240 whenever acceleration is required!


----------



## lawman800 (Dec 23, 2005)

hector said:


> lawman800 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## hector (Jul 14, 2003)

lawman800 said:


> Thanks for the kind words of my misinformation, Hector. Torque actually generates the acceleration, HP is a measure of the power output which does translate to top speed generation. In any event:
> 
> I've accelerated in all kinds of vehicles and know what it is like. I have accelerated on my 170rwhp Suzuki down the front straight at Cal Speedway to an indicated 182mph. I have also endured the so-called acceleration on a 1987 Nissan Pulsar with 70hp at the crank. I have driven the M3 as recklessly as my college years have allowed me to on the street. I also tried to accelerate my Miata as much as it's 116hp at the crank would allow. Not to mention all the other bikes and cars I have owned and tried over the years.
> 
> ...


all of this leads me to the only possible conclusion; when you were doing 182 on your suzuki the air rushing through your nose must have slammed your brain into the back of your skull. while you do appropriately raise the issue of limits of adhesion, the 240hp figure that you stated is more relevant to a fwd car and particularly so at launch, a rwd car rolling in 3rd at 50mph can put to the ground a lot more than that although i don't have a ready calculation for you of the exact limit.


----------



## lawman800 (Dec 23, 2005)

hector said:


> all of this leads me to the only possible conclusion; when you were doing 182 on your suzuki the air rushing through your nose must have slammed your brain into the back of your skull. while you do appropriately raise the issue of limits of adhesion, the 240hp figure that you stated is more relevant to a fwd car and particularly so at launch, a rwd car rolling in 3rd at 50mph can put to the ground a lot more than that although i don't have a ready calculation for you of the exact limit.


Thanks for bringing it up that at those speeds, I am tucked behind the windshield of the motorcycle rather than sitting straight up to let the wind buffet me. The helmet also does a good job of keeping the air out of my nostrils, but then again, since you are too busy accelerating your theoretical 500hp car on the street, you wouldn't know what riders do on a track, would you? Have you ever been on a motorcycle? Have you ever been on a track on a bike or a car? Now then, let's get back to cars, shall we?

The 240hp figure was the E36 M3's output. It was RWD, if you forgot already, as are all 3 series. My Boxster's rwd 201hp felt a lot better than my friend's fwd 270hp TL. So did the 116hp rwd Miata. What's your point? I am simply stating that having driven all the different cars and stuff, that 1995 E36 M3 with its 240hp rwd generated enough power and acceleration for most street applications.

Power also does not increase acceleration linearly so increasing power from 240hp to 500hp does not give an equal, linear increase in acceleration. There are limits, mechanically and physically to what you can accelerate given the contact patch, inertia, your reaction time, and all the other fun things that go in your street runs. IIRC, the 1995 M3 was quoted to do 0-60 in 5.7 secs while the 2005 M5 was quoted to do 0-60 in 4.5 secs. 10 years and 260hp more to gain 1.2 theoretical seconds which street drivers will never realize given their skill level and less than optimal conditions that the factory and magazine testers have at the track.

Read before you hastily reply. I don't mind waiting for your retorts even if takes longer, just read what you are replying to first and find out what you are talking about.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Well you can be happy with 240 HP. Many of us prefer more.

And yes, I do use the 333 HP on the street.


----------



## lawman800 (Dec 23, 2005)

Pinecone said:


> Well you can be happy with 240 HP. Many of us prefer more.
> 
> And yes, I do use the 333 HP on the street.


Where and how do you use your 333hp? Don't get me wrong, I love HP having my 360hp 650i and my 170hp GSXR, but the point is, how much can you use on the street? How many seconds do you need to take off a rolling 50-80 or 80-100 before you have a noticeable difference?


----------



## gbelton (Aug 3, 2003)

*Hands Down...*

I would choose the M6 Coupe for the following six reasons.

1> The M6 Coupe would be one of the lightest in its class (Carbon Fibre)
2> The M6 Coupe will have a wider stance (A few more mm really matter)
3> The M6 Coupe will have the latest in SMGIII technology (F1-style)
4> The M6 Coupe will be built in limited quantities (Exclusivity)
5> The M6 Coupe is seconds faster than all of its competitors (Yes it's limited)
6> The M6 Coupe design attributes are beautiful (In the Eye of the beholder)

6.5> The M6 Coupe now classifies as a Super Car! (What more can a machine offer)

That's my M6 worth.

GMAN


----------



## wheel-man (Sep 28, 2004)

gbelton said:


> I would choose the M6 Coupe for the following six reasons.
> 
> 1> The M6 Coupe would be one of the lightest in its class (Carbon Fibre)
> 2> The M6 Coupe will have a wider stance (A few more mm really matter)
> ...


Thank you for defending the M6... Jeez, so much negativity against it from so many B-festers. CAR and EVO have hailed it as automotive nirvana, a revelation. And I actually like how the 6-ers and M6 look... it's agressive and athletic, as well as brutally beautiful. The carbon roof is not 'ricer-ronie.' It's functional (contrary to what was posted before... look at a basic physics book) and the carbon fiber being exposed just adds to the motif of super car. I'm thinking when time comes, that's the next beast to add to my stable. :thumbup:


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

wheel-man said:


> Thank you for defending the M6... Jeez, so much negativity against it from so many B-festers. CAR and EVO have hailed it as automotive nirvana, a revelation. And I actually like how the 6-ers and M6 look... it's agressive and athletic, as well as brutally beautiful. The carbon roof is not 'ricer-ronie.' It's functional (contrary to what was posted before... look at a basic physics book) and the carbon fiber being exposed just adds to the motif of super car. I'm thinking when time comes, that's the next beast to add to my stable. :thumbup:


The M6 needs no defending. Nor does the M5, or M3.

At best they have to deal with envy. :thumbup:


----------



## Andre Yew (Jan 3, 2002)

lawman800 said:


> Where and how do you use your 333hp?


When you're WOT somewhere around 7900 RPM, and your tires aren't slipping. That's pretty doable at safe and legal speeds, like merging from an on-ramp in 2nd gear.

--Andre


----------



## wheel-man (Sep 28, 2004)

chuck92103 said:


> The M6 needs no defending. Nor does the M5, or M3.
> 
> At best they have to deal with envy. :thumbup:


Amen.


----------



## lawman800 (Dec 23, 2005)

Andre Yew said:


> When you're WOT somewhere around 7900 RPM, and your tires aren't slipping. That's pretty doable at safe and legal speeds, like merging from an on-ramp in 2nd gear.
> 
> --Andre


7900rpm in 2nd on the new M3 would equal more than the legal 65mph you have in Santa Barbara, Andrew. Unless you are stepping on the clutch too in which case you are just revving the engine.


----------



## Lanc3r (Sep 5, 2004)

TopGear gave the M6 a nasty little review and Tiff from FifthGear liked it. :dunno: But both said they would prefer the M5 for the simple fact you get everything worthwhile the M6 has for 20,000 pounds cheaper, making the M5 the bargain.  

I'll wait to see what the M3 brings.But too pricey or exotic makes the proven Porsche just that more inviting. But then again with how the E90 grabs me so far, I will probably be sitting this design cycle out.


----------



## Andre Yew (Jan 3, 2002)

lawman800 said:


> 7900rpm in 2nd on the new M3 would equal more than the legal 65mph you have in Santa Barbara, Andrew.


I was referring to the E46 M3 since Terry mentioned 333 HP. I'm not sure what the gearing of the E90 M3 will be. Be that as it may, 1st gear at HP peak is pretty usable, too.

--Andre


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

lawman800 said:


> Where and how do you use your 333hp? Don't get me wrong, I love HP having my 360hp 650i and my 170hp GSXR, but the point is, how much can you use on the street? How many seconds do you need to take off a rolling 50-80 or 80-100 before you have a noticeable difference?


In traffic, needing to squirt away from idiots reading their newspaper or drinking coffee while talking on thier cellphone (handheld) while taking notes.

Passing on two lane roads (you can NEVER have enough HP for this maneuver).

Also at times just for the fun of it, it feels good.

And the funny thing is, if you think you don't use the HP, drive/ride a lower HP vehicle. I had a 325i loaner for a couple of days. Thought the car wasn't that bad, until I realized I was going everywhere with my foot about 1/4" from WOT throttle. Which gave less performance than the M3 at about 1/4 throttle. 

Same thing like computers. A newer faster computer doesn't feel faster, but then try and go back and work on your old computer after a week on the new computer. Like MOLASSES.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

lawman800 said:


> 7900rpm in 2nd on the new M3 would equal more than the legal 65mph you have in Santa Barbara, Andrew. Unless you are stepping on the clutch too in which case you are just revving the engine.


Yep, and everyone here always drives the speed limit. :rofl:


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Actually they are all wonderful cars. But the M6 is BIG and HEAVY compared to th3 M3. It FEELS big and heavy (at least the 645i did).

Which is fine for many people in many circumstances. The M5 is 4-door, which is great or some, but worthless for others.

Pick the one that suits you best, and be happy that you have the best car in its class.


----------



## hector (Jul 14, 2003)

Pinecone said:


> In traffic, needing to squirt away from idiots reading their newspaper or drinking coffee while talking on thier cellphone (handheld) while taking notes.
> 
> Passing on two lane roads (you can NEVER have enough HP for this maneuver).
> 
> ...


amen!


----------



## lawman800 (Dec 23, 2005)

Pinecone said:


> Yep, and everyone here always drives the speed limit. :rofl:


The context was that Andrew said he can drive his car at 7900rpm in 2nd and still be safe and LEGAL. Read his post and see why I said it won't be legal at that gear and rpm combination. Also, don't forget the 333hp is a peak figure from the manufacturer. You are not generating 333hp everywhere in the rev range. More likely than not, you are only getting about 220-250hp unless you have a habit of winding up your engine everywhere you drive in the city and if you live in a city that allows that, I envy you. In LA, you open up any modern performance car, you'll have to hit the brakes right away.

I also said that I do not hate hp. My 650i has 360hp and I am not complaining about it. What I am saying is that for normal street driving, nobody can really use more than 240hp (even less, really) unless you like watching your back for Johnny Law and seeing judges to explain why you need to keep your license.

Please take time to read other's responses, think of the context, and then reply. It would make the discussions more meaningful than just the typical, "Yeah! You suck too and I can do it and just because you don't like it, too bad." type of responses.

Think of how you REALLY drive. Do you drive like a race car driver or rally driver everyday and take advantage of ALL your massive horsepower that your car has? Or do you really just like having the hp and think of using it and open up your engine once in a while to get the thrill before you slow down and drive normally again like most people do?


----------



## hector (Jul 14, 2003)

lawman800 said:


> Also, don't forget the 333hp is a peak figure from the manufacturer. You are not generating 333hp everywhere in the rev range. More likely than not, you are only getting about 220-250hp unless you have a habit of winding up your engine
> 
> the fact, which you correctly point out, that in daily driving one isn't bouncing off the rev limiter all the time, is all the more reason to have the extra power, when i wrote that one could put down more than 240hp i was referring to the nominal peak figure expressed by the manufacturer and i think that you were as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## jrp (Nov 11, 2004)

hector said:


> you need the extra HP to make a car satisfying at reasonable rpm and sub-full throttle.


:stupid:

Legalities aside, if the E46's didn't do the 30-90mph dash significantly better than my older cars, I might still be driving my '95 and '99 M3's.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

lawman800 said:


> The context was that Andrew said he can drive his car at 7900rpm in 2nd and still be safe and LEGAL. Read his post and see why I said it won't be legal at that gear and rpm combination. Also, don't forget the 333hp is a peak figure from the manufacturer. You are not generating 333hp everywhere in the rev range. More likely than not, you are only getting about 220-250hp unless you have a habit of winding up your engine everywhere you drive in the city and if you live in a city that allows that, I envy you. In LA, you open up any modern performance car, you'll have to hit the brakes right away.
> 
> I also said that I do not hate hp. My 650i has 360hp and I am not complaining about it. What I am saying is that for normal street driving, nobody can really use more than 240hp (even less, really) unless you like watching your back for Johnny Law and seeing judges to explain why you need to keep your license.
> 
> ...


a) Redline in 2nd gear in an E46 M3 is 65.27 MPH, so basically it is legal with a 65 MPH speed limit.

b) Not everyone lives in LA, in fact, this may be hard to believe, but MOST of the country does not live in LA. And many of us do not live in big cities at all. So how YOU have to drive has nothing to do with how WE can drive. And some of us don't even commute in a car, so we drive for FUN.

c) And if the car has a peak of 240, you are rarely using more than about 150 160, things scale, but if I had 400+ I would use it. Do I use it ALL the time? no. But I do use it, and I do use the entire 333HP, as in redline in more than one gear. See b).

d) Using HP is not only about top speed, it can make getting to that speed MUCH more enjoyable.

e) And BTW enforcement activity varies around the country also.


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

Lawman, I have used 405 HP on the street ('03 Z06 dyno'd 352 at the wheels). You are arguing peak HP versus usable area under the HP curve. If I'm in 2nd or 3rd gear in the Z06 I can appreciate having more throttle response. I'll admit I needed to spend very little time at peak HP (near redline) but it is useful to have the power available. Aside from some very peaky single-turbo engines, we tend to get more useable torque down low as peak HP rises.

I like the HP theory that goes, you have enough power when you can leave two black stripes from the apex of one corner to the brake zone of the next. Necessary on the street? No. But even 200 HP (e.g. 325i) could be considered more than anyone "needs" on the street.


----------



## DougE46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Stuka said:


> E90 M3, assuming that it weighs less than the current piglet.


Yeah, the 996 Turbo is kind of piggly.


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

DougE46 said:


> Yeah, the 996 Turbo is kind of piggly.


My manual states 3395. :dunno: How much does the E46 M3 weigh? 

And that's with all the AWD gears in there. BMW can only manage 3430? on the E46 M3 with RWD only.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

One could say that on the street anything over 100 HP is more than enough. Heck, my first sports car had a whopping 54 HP.


----------



## wheel-man (Sep 28, 2004)

Pinecone said:


> One could say that on the street anything over 100 HP is more than enough. Heck, my first sports car had a whopping 54 HP.


One could also say we should all be rolling in Segways. But, thank g-d there are people who believe the more power the better. :thumbup:


----------



## SmoothCruise (Jul 23, 2005)

wheel-man said:


> Right. Dollar for dollar, the SRT-8 duo provide the most bang for the buck in a straight line. But what eludes most test drivers from Car and Driver, and American drivers at that, especially when they make a 'horsepower war/acceleration' test is the fact that not only can the M5 smoke most things on the road with its V10 powerplant making 500 beautiful ponnies and redline at a dizzying 8250rpm, it brakes and turns with aplomb and provides that beautiful, yet difficult to define balance of interaction and communication between driver, machine and road called handling... allowing it to best the competition on the course in light of having the least sticky tires of the bunch (lowest skid pad numbers), and by quite a significant margin (1.5sec is huge).
> 
> Yeah, throw in a big-a$$ motor into a heavy pig and it will go like a scalded hog ala the SRT-8 twins (and most AMG products for that matter), but that extra level of driver consciousness afforded by the M5's chasis, the ability to turn and know the limit of the vehicle is missing.


How do you know car and driver uses a straight track to test their vehicles? Most of the time when I read their articles, there is little to no mention of the road geometry they use to test their vehicles.


----------



## SmoothCruise (Jul 23, 2005)

wheel-man said:


> Out of curiousity, just was wondering what people would get if money wasn't an issue (which it is, and I'm not looking to spirng on a new car for at least 4yrs. Quite content with my E46 ZHP, thank you very much) and they were looking into buying a new car... and all three or two of the three, or some other make are not acceptable answers.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know which one I would buy... though I prefer the convenience of four doors, but the M6 looks hot. And for the sake of discussion, lets assume the upcoming M3 will have a two and four door version as well... And, why not throw in the possibility of wagons of both the M5 and M3... lot of choices.
> 
> ...


If money wasn't an issue, get all 3. That's what I'd do.

If you are looking to spend $125k for an M6, why not spend maybe 25k more, and wait a few years for the Audi R8 Lemans Concept to become a reality? The R8 blows away any BMW 6 just on looks alone.

If you are into the M6, why not consider the other 6? I'm talking about the Z06  It's lighter than the M3.

This is how light it is: It's lighter 140lbs lighter than the 2006 Z4M... unbelievable!!

Now, regarding the M6's weight. It weighs 3769lbs. To give you an idea of how heavy this is, let's compare it to some SUVs:

The 2004 Chevrolet Malibu is about 300 lbs lighter.
The 2005 Kia Sportage is about 200-500 lbs lighter.
The 2003 Subaru Forester is about 600 lbs lighter.

By the way, the M5 is actually heavier than the M6.

I think BMW has fattened up from their success. In an effort to increase profits (all companies do) by widening market shares, they are making bloated cars trying to cater to those drivers who are very casual racers, if they race at all.

The 2006 BMW Z4 M roadster weighs 3273 lbs.
The 2006 Pontiac Solstice weighs 2860 lbs.

I just wish that BMW keep the weight of their new cars down. I know they can do it.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Yeah and new Porsche 997 Turbo is going to be in the 3600 pound class.


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

Pinecone said:


> Yeah and new Porsche 997 Turbo is going to be in the 3600 pound class.


Yep, which is why many of the 996 Tubo owners won't be getting one. You should check out the up roar on rennlist. :tsk:


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

Yeah, BMW can do "lighter" but we can't afford it. Ever see the price tag on that M3 Light? That's a lot of money for not THAT much weight savings (250-ish lbs, IIRC).


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Penforhire said:


> Yeah, BMW can do "lighter" but we can't afford it. Ever see the price tag on that M3 Light? That's a lot of money for not THAT much weight savings (250-ish lbs, IIRC).


Also new cams and tuning, plus limited production.

But you try and get 250 pounds out of an E46 M3 and still have carpet and backseat, etc.


----------



## lawman800 (Dec 23, 2005)

Pinecone said:


> But you try and get 250 pounds out of an E46 M3 and still have carpet and backseat, etc.


(this is true): To lose 250 pounds in my friend's car, he just tells his wife to get out!

:rofl:   :dunno: :bigpimp:


----------



## BmW745On19's (Aug 12, 2005)

M6 all the way! M5 looks too large and slow with its 4-doors, which it is definatly not. The M6 has the best balance of styling and performance in my book.

Alot of people will have an M3 no matter what the price since it will be obtained rather easy and alot will be produced, which is on the contrary of the M6.


----------

