My Mods:
Supersprint replica headers
2.5'' single pipe header back
3.5'' HFM
24# inj.
Stickley chip
JB Racing 10# LTW flywheel
2.93 LSD (105mph in 3rd gear:redspot)
*Just wanted to mention that switching from a 3.73 has made my car a lot quicker in head to head races.*



I was heading towards my friend house late last night and as I pull into one of the left turning lanes at an intersection, I notice an M5 next to me. I look over and see a well groomed guy, while here I am with my hoodie on looking like a punk, lol, so I just give him a nod...and hope he'd like to do a run.

Well arrow turns green and we procede. He goes somewhat slow and is behind me and I'm watching my rearview to see if he was going to catch up and do anything. I suddenly see him approaching quite quickly and as he's about to pass so I hit it but bog for a little cause I left it in 3rd @ 3k:shifty So I chase him a bit and am able to hang with him after both of us having to slow down to get around a couple cars.

As we slow down for an intersection I see him enthusiastically throw the thumbs up:)

We turn right at the intersection and I pull up next to him and roll my window down, "What do you have in that thing!?". Just told him it's the '95 M3 engine.

I then suggest we go head to head. He gives me a beep to let me know he's game. I put her in 2nd and begin beeping for the start. In 2nd I get a little jump on him, maybe 1/4 of a car length, but once I shift into 3rd I pull really hard and he's behind me as I shift into 4th. As I pull another half car he backs off and goes on his way.

To say the least I was quite happy with the outcome, but also surprised it wasn't faster than it was, especially when I thought it would pull away at high triple digit speeds when I was chasing after him, since he has more HP and better aerodynamics. Doesn't look like it would take much for an E36 M3 to be able to be quicker.

The E60 M5 would be a breeze to outpace...as long as they don't touch that M button ;)

Still love those E39 M5's though :drool:

:confused

With 260 bhp, I still can't see you pulling on him, especially at high speeds. And how has going to a longer FD ratio made your car a lot quicker overall? Usually, it's the opposite. :confused

Still, nice kill, I'd just like to know how it's possible. Do you have weight reduction, too? Even if you're 2,500 lbs., he still has 140hp and a tad bit less torque on you.

made 243rwhp on a Dynamics dyno which reads about 6% lower than local Mustang Dyno. Car weighs 2730# w/ half tank and me

Raced a friend in his Z4MCoupe which made 303rwhp on same dyno (he has mods of course) and we were dead even up to when we shut it down around 95mph.



I cruise with my buddy a lot which owns an '98 E36 M3 and he always likes go at it. Well, with my 3.73 he always seemed not too much slower than I. Now with that 2.93 I pull a lot harder on him.

This is my reasoning why it's probably quicker:

1. Not losing time shifting too often

2. Everytime you shift the suspension unloads and then quickly loads again which absorbs a fair amount of energy. Go ride a mountain bike with no rear suspension and then a bike with rear suspension put on soft...you will feel a great reduction in acceleration.

3. And if starting from peak torque in 2nd, you won't start sliding.:D


Shorter gears, in my opinion, are only going to greatly benefit you in higher gears/speeds.

those e30's can be really fast. i have a friend in phoenix with pretty much the same setup as you, except in a tan e30. i think he ran a 13.7 on the quarter at firebird raceway. he would pull on my 540, but im pretty confident my m5 would pull on him :shifty

EDIT: just read your last post...thats pretty impressive!

Interesting. An E39 M5 would likely also take a slightly modded Z4M Coupe at triple digit speeds, as well. What speeds did you guys get to, anyway?

those e30's can be really fast. i have a friend in phoenix with pretty much the same setup as you, except in a tan e30. i think he ran a 13.7 on the quarter at firebird raceway. he would pull on my 540, but im pretty confident my m5 would pull on him :shifty

EDIT: just read your last post...thats pretty impressive!

I've ridden in that tan car before I finished my car and it seemed a little gutless. I think it's his oversized exhaust. Dual 2.5'' is pretty radical.

Interesting. An E39 M5 would likely also take a slightly modded Z4M Coupe at triple digit speeds, as well. What speeds did you guys get to, anyway?


When chasing him...I'm guessing 130mph..maybe more(I was paying attention to the road:)) He couldn't gain one foot.

You know those things weigh 1000+#'s more than my car right:stickoutt

I've ridden in that tan car before I finished my car and it seemed a little gutless. I think it's his oversized exhaust. Dual 2.5'' is pretty radical.

ya maybe. thats funny you know my buddy colton, his older brother bryan is building the motor for his red e30 :)

ya maybe. thats funny you know my buddy colton, his older brother bryan is building the motor for his red e30 :)

Never met Colton, Bryan is the one that actually took me for a ride in it.

Interesting. An E39 M5 would likely also take a slightly modded Z4M Coupe at triple digit speeds

:nono z4 mcoupes are fast..
stock vs stock (m5 has no passenger advantage)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JstFbHqRFn8

When chasing him...I'm guessing 130mph..maybe more(I was paying attention to the road:)) He couldn't gain one foot.

Well, good kill... your car must be pretty sick. Note that it is possible his M5 is running less than perfectly. They are very finicky cars. The MAFs are often bad or failing without the owner even noticing (gradual loss of power), and CPSs, etc.

You know those things weigh 1000+#'s more than my car right:stickoutt

Yeah. But they also have power/torque all over the rev band.

You have 10.38 lb/hp. The E39 M5 has 9.5 lb/hp. So he still has a better power-to-weight ratio. :)

:nono z4 mcoupes are fast..
stock vs stock (m5 has no passenger advantage)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JstFbHqRFn8

M Coupes are not that much faster than E46 M3s. They will trap a bit higher and run maybe .1-.2 sec faster in the 1/4. Typical 1/4 mile runs (by good drivers; there are plenty of M Coupe drivers running horrible times) seem to be 13.0 @ 109 or so, versus 13.2 @ 107 for the M3. And I know the M3 would get walked by the M5 at high speeds, so I have a hard time believing that the M5 would be almost even with the M Coupe. To be fair, though, he had 1 CL on the M Coupe. :stickoutt But I would have expected that the M5 would fare better.

Well, good kill... your car must be pretty sick. Note that it is possible his M5 is running less than perfectly. They are very finicky cars. The MAFs are often bad or failing without the owner even noticing (gradual loss of power), and CPSs, etc.



Yeah. But they also have power/torque all over the rev band.

You have 10.38 lb/hp. The E39 M5 has 9.5 lb/hp. So he still has a better power-to-weight ratio. :)
how did you figure the power/weight ratio?

my calculations get the e30 in the lead but double check me on it:

let's assume 15% drivetrain loss for the mazur so we get ~280hp at the engine based on his conservative dyno reading (243rwhp).

let's assume mazur is approximately 130lbs himself (pretty conservative probably, but gives nice round numbers to work with) so his car would be ~2600lbs without him.

mazur: 2600lbs / 280hp = 9.28lbs per 1hp

the m5 is ~4000lbs and has ~400hp so...

M5: 4000lbs / 400hp = 10lbs per 1hp

M Coupes are not that much faster than E46 M3s. They will trap a bit higher and run maybe .1-.2 sec faster in the 1/4. Typical 1/4 mile runs (by good drivers; there are plenty of M Coupe drivers running horrible times) seem to be 13.0 @ 109 or so, versus 13.2 @ 107 for the M3. And I know the M3 would get walked by the M5 at high speeds, so I have a hard time believing that the M5 would be almost even with the M Coupe. To be fair, though, he had 1 CL on the M Coupe. :stickoutt But I would have expected that the M5 would fare better.

some M5s have been known to trap 109mph stock :dunno

good kill mazur. this just reminds me that i need to drop some more weight from my car, or find a 340lbs e39 m5 driver ;)

Damn...nice kill. I always wonder with M5s though if they're running right or not :( From my experience racing my buddy's E36 S52 with M50 Manifold, Exhaust, Intake, etc I destroyed him from a 1st and 2nd gear roll. Weight in this race must have been your saving grace and the M5s downfall :( Oh and I can vouch for the longer gears in E30s.. I had a 2.93 in my turbo and I would ALWAYS pull on cars in the middle of 3rd and into 4th gear.. it seems to match up to the car well assuming you have any power at all :dunno

Once I get my Dinan E30 Turbo Rebuilt this spring I'll get some races against that in my M5 for comparision.

Wow thats impressive. Im confused, do you have a 3.73 diff or 2.93? If its a 3.73 it wouldnt surprise me.

+1 on many M5's not running at 100% b/c of dirty MAF's, O2, etc etc.

Wow thats impressive. Im confused, do you have a 3.73 diff or 2.93? If its a 3.73 it wouldnt surprise me.

Got rid of the 3.73, so now have 2.93.

I think it would have been about even if I had the 3.73...all that shifting really does slow you down.

how did you figure the power/weight ratio?

my calculations get the e30 in the lead but double check me on it:

let's assume 15% drivetrain loss for the mazur so we get ~280hp at the engine based on his conservative dyno reading (243rwhp).

let's assume mazur is approximately 130lbs himself (pretty conservative probably, but gives nice round numbers to work with) so his car would be ~2600lbs without him.

mazur: 2600lbs / 280hp = 9.28lbs per 1hp

the m5 is ~4000lbs and has ~400hp so...

M5: 4000lbs / 400hp = 10lbs per 1hp

I doubt his E30 is 2,600 lbs. E30 325iS's are about 2,750 with the M20, and unless he's done weight reduction, it should be around the same with the S50. I used 2,700 for my calculation. I used 260 bhp because I don't trust Mustang dynos, and his mods in an E36 M3 would likely net around 225 rwhp, not 243 rwhp. :confused I am willing to bet on a Dynojet his reading would be considerably lower. However, I believe I used an incorrect weight for the M5, 3800 lbs. That's about what the 540i/6 weighs (depending on year), but the M5 is a tad heavier. Using new figures, I get 10 lb. per hp for the M5 and 10.38 lb./hp for the E30. So, it's close, and if he truly is making 243 rwhp on a more established dyno like the Dynojet (which I highly doubt), he will have a better ratio. The power-to-weight ratio isn't the only measure of a car's capability, either, but it's definitely close.

Got rid of the 3.73, so now have 2.93.

I think it would have been about even if I had the 3.73...all that shifting really does slow you down.

totally depends on what speed you go up to...or start from. in a 1/4 mile race you want to be ending the run at redline. different gearing has advantages at different speeds. then again, shifting really fast is also a good skill to have.

Was the M5 on it?

I doubt his E30 is 2,600 lbs. E30 325iS's are about 2,750 with the M20, and unless he's done weight reduction, it should be around the same with the S50. I used 2,700 for my calculation. I used 260 bhp because I don't trust Mustang dynos, and his mods in an E36 M3 would likely net around 225 rwhp, not 243 rwhp. :confused I am willing to bet on a Dynojet his reading would be considerably lower. However, I believe I used an incorrect weight for the M5, 3800 lbs. That's about what the 540i/6 weighs (depending on year), but the M5 is a tad heavier. Using new figures, I get 10 lb. per hp for the M5 and 10.38 lb./hp for the E30. So, it's close, and if he truly is making 243 rwhp on a more established dyno like the Dynojet (which I highly doubt), he will have a better ratio. The power-to-weight ratio isn't the only measure of a car's capability, either, but it's definitely close.

i believe he does have a bit of weight reduction done, but i'm sure he'll chime in with that info. he has similar mods as i do and i pulled 242rwhp on a dynojet :dunno he just has an s50 motor and headers unlike me. even with 230rwhp on a dynojet mazur would still have a better lb/hp ratio than the m5. but yes, like you said, that ratio doesn't tell the whole story.

double post, meh.

I doubt his E30 is 2,600 lbs. E30 325iS's are about 2,750 with the M20, and unless he's done weight reduction, it should be around the same with the S50. I used 2,700 for my calculation. I used 260 bhp because I don't trust Mustang dynos, and his mods in an E36 M3 would likely net around 225 rwhp, not 243 rwhp. :confused I am willing to bet on a Dynojet his reading would be considerably lower. However, I believe I used an incorrect weight for the M5, 3800 lbs. That's about what the 540i/6 weighs (depending on year), but the M5 is a tad heavier. Using new figures, I get 10 lb. per hp for the M5 and 10.38 lb./hp for the E30. So, it's close, and if he truly is making 243 rwhp on a more established dyno like the Dynojet (which I highly doubt), he will have a better ratio. The power-to-weight ratio isn't the only measure of a car's capability, either, but it's definitely close.

My car's ACTUAL weight is 2550# with half tank.


During our dyno day on the Dynamics Dyno I made the 243rwhp, my friend's 95 M3 made 205rwhp with chip, and E46 M3 made 268rwhp stock, and my friends 98 M3 made 215rwhp with intake and a friend's 97 M3 with cams made about 250rwhp . I don't know about you, but none of those numbers seem high to me...sept for mine :)

As you can see not everyones engine is up to par with others. I am the original owner of the engine and have broken it in properly and always taken care of it. It doesn't even burn any oil...6k miles after changing oil and the level on the dipstick is the same.

Was the M5 on it?

uh...yah:shifty:rolleyes





It's funny...almost every kill story I have ever posted I have always gotten the "BS FLAG". What do you guys want? A video of the race plus an interview with the opponent to make sure he was on it and is experienced enough to know to shift when the red needle hits redline? I was able to do that the second week after learning stick:rolleyes



Just take the kill story for what it's worth, a story. After doing about three runs total with the guy it was clear I had the quicker vehicle, FIN.

My car's ACTUAL weight is 2550# with half tank.


During our dyno day on the Dynamics Dyno I made the 243rwhp, my friend's 95 M3 made 205rwhp with chip, and E46 M3 made 268rwhp stock, and my friends 98 M3 made 215rwhp with intake. I don't know about you, but none of those numbers seem high to me...sept for mine :)



uh...yah:shifty:rolleyes

don't mind ohnoes, he talks a lot. :shifty

you know what u talkin about.... obviously , cuz ..... u know ... you were there. :weedsmili

good win...i dont doubt it for a second. one thing to remember guys is that the op did mention a little jump 1/4 car of momentum is very hard to make up on cars that are close. i think the outcome would have been different if the pulls were done from 80-90 to like 130. even if a car that is like .5" slower than me gets a jump it will probably take me all of 2 gears to over come. i will not continue the race if a jump is had by either myself or the other party for this reason. most of these races we are comparing cars anyway not drivers.

It's funny...almost every kill story I have ever posted I have always gotten the "BS FLAG". What do you guys want? A video of the race plus an interview with the opponent to make sure he was on it and is experienced enough to know to shift when the red needle hits redline? I was able to do that the second week after learning stick:rolleyes
i wouldn't mind seeing video footage from these races. it's one way to shut the nay-sayers up so they have to think of other angles to use. it's the very reason i don't post anything in this section without the race being organized and video taped.

Mazur is this the engine out of the e36 you used to have? I remember that engine making a good amount of power. Nice kill.

Mazur is this the engine out of the e36 you used to have? I remember that engine making a good amount of power. Nice kill.

Yes it is, and yes it does. Thanks!


:cool

M Coupes are not that much faster than E46 M3s. They will trap a bit higher and run maybe .1-.2 sec faster in the 1/4. Typical 1/4 mile runs (by good drivers; there are plenty of M Coupe drivers running horrible times) seem to be 13.0 @ 109 or so, versus 13.2 @ 107 for the M3. And I know the M3 would get walked by the M5 at high speeds, so I have a hard time believing that the M5 would be almost even with the M Coupe. To be fair, though, he had 1 CL on the M Coupe. :stickoutt But I would have expected that the M5 would fare better.

The Z4M also had a passenger.

From my experience, Z4M's are 2-3 mph faster than E36 M3's in the traps consistantly - that's a little better than "not much faster".

2-3 mph traps are huge
you stupid fucks dont understand how hard it is to make up ground on a car that jumps....i will not waste my time arguing....keep being impressed with how fast you think your car is. than take it to the track and be disappointed.

The Z4M also had a passenger.

From my experience, Z4M's are 2-3 mph faster than E36 M3's in the traps consistantly - that's a little better than "not much faster".

Yep, the highest trap for a stock E46 M3 seems to be about 107 MPH, versus 109 MPH for the Z4M... has anyone run higher?

Ugh, I meant E46 M3's... not E36 M3's.

:embarrasm

There was a guy on this forum who hit 113mph with pulleys and 100lbs of weight reduction. But, that's not stock, I suppose. I just see 109+mph for Z4M's more consistantly than 107mph for E46 M3's, given the lower population.

Ugh, I meant E46 M3's... not E36 M3's.

:embarrasm

There was a guy on this forum who hit 113mph with pulleys and 100lbs of weight reduction. But, that's not stock, I suppose. I just see 109+mph for Z4M's more consistantly than 107mph for E46 M3's, given the lower population.

You say 109+ mph, but "+" opens the door to a lot of questions and possibilities. What, exactly, is a documented trap for Z4Ms that is higher than 109?

What, exactly, is a documented trap for Z4Ms that is higher than 109?

Careful now, this sounds oddly familiar.
:nono

.
.
.

:stickoutt

You say 109+ mph, but "+" opens the door to a lot of questions and possibilities. What, exactly, is a documented trap for Z4Ms that is higher than 109?

Run a search! :stickoutt

Run a search! :stickoutt

I've already searched on Google. The onus is on you if you want to prove this (if you don't care, that's fine), because frankly, I don't think stock Z4Ms have trapped higher than 109. But please prove me wrong...

Mazur, good kill man and nice car u have.I have yet to see it @ PIR or on the road,I'll make sure not to mess with u though!

Mazur, good kill man and nice car u have.I have yet to see it @ PIR or on the road,I'll make sure not to mess with u though!

I was just there during the Thanksgiving event.

I'll be at PIR on the 5th and 6th running DE3 and maybe DE4 on Sunday. Maybe I'll see you out there.

2-3 mph traps are huge
you stupid fucks dont understand how hard it is to make up ground on a car that jumps....i will not waste my time arguing....keep being impressed with how fast you think your car is. than take it to the track and be disappointed.

+1 :rofl

Either the M5 didnt know how to drive...or he needed new O2 sensors and a new MAF.

/Thread

M Coupes are not that much faster than E46 M3s. They will trap a bit higher and run maybe .1-.2 sec faster in the 1/4. Typical 1/4 mile runs (by good drivers; there are plenty of M Coupe drivers running horrible times) seem to be 13.0 @ 109 or so, versus 13.2 @ 107 for the M3. And I know the M3 would get walked by the M5 at high speeds, so I have a hard time believing that the M5 would be almost even with the M Coupe. To be fair, though, he had 1 CL on the M Coupe. :stickoutt But I would have expected that the M5 would fare better.


13.2@107mph is not average 1/4 mile time for stock E46 M3, it is more like 13.5@105mph! Just couse some magazines got it down to low 13s stock does not mean every day guy will, now Z4m coupe will be douing low 13s all day long.

13.2@107mph is not average 1/4 mile time for stock E46 M3, it is more like 13.5@105mph! Just couse some magazines got it down to low 13s stock does not mean every day guy will, now Z4m coupe will be douing low 13s all day long.

thats what i was thinking too. stock e39 m5's are rated 13.2 @ ~110 (ive seen 113 mph before)

here is my m5 when it was near stock vs my friends bolt on e46 m3.

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=629404&highlight=e39+m5+e46+m3+video

since then i have swapped my maf's and o2's

Not saying you didn't beat this guy, but I do think something was wrong with his car. My Nissan puts about that much gap on E39 M5s(maybe a little more), and it makes 300rwhp and weighs ~2500 lbs without me in it.

Down low my Nissan is much faster if it can hook up, but beyond about 100 mph the greater power of the M5 means it has more to throw away to aerodynamic drag than a lower powered car.

you know what i think im going to do to articulate for the nubz out there how hard it is to make up ground any car that gets a jump. im gonna jump my friends camaro he went 11.9x at the track. we'll start in 2 gear and he'll let me get the jump 1/2 car tops. i bet you he will not over take me to till like 110ish. the op said he had a little jump

13.2@107mph is not average 1/4 mile time for stock E46 M3, it is more like 13.5@105mph! Just couse some magazines got it down to low 13s stock does not mean every day guy will, now Z4m coupe will be douing low 13s all day long.

Stop trying to make yourself feel better because you bought a crappy-handling C32. You know you regret not getting the M3. :stickoutt 13.5 @ 105 is not the average magazines have gotten, but whatever you want to think to sleep better at night. 13.5 is what Edmunds got... in ONE review. 13.1-13.3 is what most mags got. Thanks for playing, come again.

Stop trying to make yourself feel better because you bought a crappy-handling C32. You know you regret not getting the M3. :stickoutt 13.5 @ 105 is not the average magazines have gotten, but whatever you want to think to sleep better at night. 13.5 is what Edmunds got... in ONE review. 13.1-13.3 is what most mags got. Thanks for playing, come again.

ohnoes should have bought an m5... :rolleyes

ohnoes should have bought an m5... :rolleyes

Lol, why do you say that? I was trying to decide M3 vs. M5. Yeah, sure, the M5 is faster on the highway, but they're about even before 80-100 and the M3 is more fun to drive. :) I'm not really ready for an M5. It's an older person's car or a great DD. And I couldn't afford both (ideally I'd have the M3 for weekends and M5 for DDing), so I "settled" on the M3. :)

I've never seen a stock E46 M3 in person run anything lower then 13.6 at the track but that's just me :dunno

I've never seen a stock E46 M3 in person run anything lower then 13.6 at the track but that's just me :dunno

Good for you. :thumbup:

Stop trying to make yourself feel better because you bought a crappy-handling C32. You know you regret not getting the M3. :stickoutt 13.5 @ 105 is not the average magazines have gotten, but whatever you want to think to sleep better at night. 13.5 is what Edmunds got... in ONE review. 13.1-13.3 is what most mags got. Thanks for playing, come again.

I'm confused are we talking about what most m3 owners get? or what most magazines using professional drivers get? 13.1 to 13.3 may be the average for magazines using professional drivers. but lets face it most m3 owners no not even m3 owners most car owners in general don't spend alot of time at the track

I'm confused are we talking about what most m3 owners get? or what most magazines using professional drivers get? 13.1 to 13.3 may be the average for magazines using professional drivers. but lets face it most m3 owners no not even m3 owners most car owners in general don't spend alot of time at the track

Okay, then we should automatically reduce ALL cars' real-world times by .4-.6 seconds. :rolleyes People, magazine racing provides a STANDARD for comparison. I don't see how that is so hard to understand. It's simple logic... which appears to be too hard to understand for some.

I was trying to decide M3 vs. M5. Yeah, sure, the M5 is faster on the highway, but they're about even before 80-100 and the M3 is more fun to drive. :) I'm not really ready for an M5. It's an older person's car or a great DD. And I couldn't afford both (ideally I'd have the M3 for weekends and M5 for DDing), so I "settled" on the M3. :)

i agree, i would like to have both cars (i love the m3 smg). BUT an M3 is not even with an M5 before 80-100. look at the video i just posted, that was from a ~5 mph roll and didnt last up to triple digits

i have to agree with Jhraile. i've spent ALOT of time at the 1/4 mile track, seen my close friends and complete strangers run e46 m3's with bolt ons (smg and stick), never seen one get below 13.6. im sure that time has been beat, but thats my personal experience

EDIT: who the hell cares? (nobody is going to win the arguement). this thread was originally about an s50 e30 vs e39 m5, NOT e46 m3 vs e39 m5

i agree, i would like to have both cars (i love the m3 smg). BUT an M3 is not even with an M5 before 80-100. look at the video i just posted, that was from a ~5 mph roll and didnt last up to triple digits

i have to agree with Jhraile. i've spent ALOT of time at the 1/4 mile track, seen my close friends and complete strangers run e46 m3's with bolt ons (smg and stick), never seen one get below 13.6. im sure that time has been beat, but thats my personal experience

EDIT: who the hell cares? (nobody is going to win the arguement). this thread was originally about an s50 e30 vs e39 m5, NOT e46 m3 vs e39 m5

The E46 M3 is hard to drive, which would explain why most amateur drivers don't see very good times. It is truly a handful to drive.

But, do your own research. A stock M3 has gone 12.7 with street tires. Rare, mind you, but 12.9 is not unheard of and 13.1-13.2 is about the norm for good drivers. Sorry if you don't want to believe this. And an M3 with "bolt-ons" (that is a whole new Pandora's box) should run high-12s.

And yes, the E46 M3 is even 0-80 or so.

The E46 M3 is hard to drive, which would explain why most amateur drivers don't see very good times. It is truly a handful to drive.

But, do your own research. A stock M3 has gone 12.7 with street tires. Rare, mind you, but 12.9 is not unheard of and 13.1-13.2 is about the norm for good drivers. Sorry if you don't want to believe this. And an M3 with "bolt-ons" (that is a whole new Pandora's box) should run high-12s.

And yes, the E46 M3 is even 0-80 or so.



you read more than you drive.

/ thread.

you read more than you drive.

/ thread.

Quote of the Year for the Kills Section

Other then my buddy Rob's E46 HPF Turbo M3 running 11.4 I've seen E46 M3s run as slow as 14.4 (SMG version) and a fast as 13.6.

And saying E46 M3s are hard to drive is a joke. Try launching an E39 M5. that's a freaking joke :rolleyes

Quote of the Year for the Kills Section

Other then my buddy Rob's E46 HPF Turbo M3 running 11.4 I've seen E46 M3s run as slow as 14.4 (SMG version) and a fast as 13.6.

And saying E46 M3s are hard to drive is a joke. Try launching an E39 M5. that's a freaking joke :rolleyes

i agree 100%

:D

I've never seen a stock E46 M3 in person run anything lower then 13.6 at the track but that's just me :dunno

Bokix on here ran 13.0@106 at Commerce!!!!! Its 1300ft and notorious for being horrible and I can promise you he's good but no pro. I personally believe the factory 19" wheels have to do alot with what its E.T will be. I've had alot of experience running cars on 25 and 30 series tires and there's no locking up what-so-ever and i've never seen better than 13.3@106 with them at a good track. Bokix was on 18's.
Quote of the Year for the Kills Section

Other then my buddy Rob's E46 HPF Turbo M3 running 11.4 I've seen E46 M3s run as slow as 14.4 (SMG version) and a fast as 13.6.

And saying E46 M3s are hard to drive is a joke. Try launching an E39 M5. that's a freaking joke :rolleyes

This is pretty true, but any stiff BMW like car is going to be tricky and any car with a 30 series tires is going to be even more of a joke. My buddy Chris couldnt do better than 13.3 in his E39 M5 and he's a track junky. They are really hard to get off the line

you read more than you drive.

/ thread.

That may be true, but knowledge is power. And who made you the /threading authority, Leo? Do your own research, draw your own conclusions. Just because the fastest stock M5 is slower than the fastest stock M3 doesn't mean you should be all butthurt. :nono :stickoutt

Some M3 times, including fastest known bone stock M3: http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=67620

Fastest bone stock M5 I've heard of is 12.8. LMK if you find better.

Of course, note the trap speeds... the M5 would destroy the M3 after the 1/4 mile. :rofl

Bokix on here ran 13.0@106 at Commerce!!!!! Its 1300ft and notorious for being horrible and I can promise you he's good but no pro. I personally believe the factory 19" wheels have to do alot with what its E.T will be. I've had alot of experience running cars on 25 and 30 series tires and there's no locking up what-so-ever and i've never seen better than 13.3@106 with them at a good track. Bokix was on 18's.

just realize we are pointing out what WE have seen. obviously somebody somewhere on this planet has managed to beat a 13.6, but we haven't had the opportunity to see it happen.

people on the m5board run 12.8 @113 stock with stock tires and it blows everybody away on the forum. but its not very often that somebody will manage to pull a time like that on a stock m5 (thats why i never claim i have a 12 second car, even with all my mods)

And saying E46 M3s are hard to drive is a joke. Try launching an E39 M5. that's a freaking joke :rolleyes

You are a freaking joke, man. You are obviously ignorant about the E46 M3. The M3's clutch is stiff and its engine is VERY rev-happy. Unlike your V8 M5, we have almost no torque down low. I liken our engines to a Honda engine, and many fellow E46 M3 owners would agree.

But, that's fine. Continue thinking E46 M3s are 13.6 second cars. Just don't be surprised when you see a slightly modded one hanging with your slightly modded M5 better than you previously thought. :thumbup: Until ~ 120 or so... lol.

That may be true, but knowledge is power. And who made you the /threading authority, Leo? Do your own research, draw your own conclusions. Just because the fastest stock M5 is slower than the fastest stock M3 doesn't mean you should be all butthurt. :nono :stickoutt

Some M3 times, including fastest known bone stock M3: http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=67620

Fastest bone stock M5 I've heard of is 12.8. LMK if you find better.

Of course, note the trap speeds... the M5 would destroy the M3 after the 1/4 mile. :rofl

im not butthurt about anything, i just think your annoying :rofl
true, knowledge is power. but when it comes to realistic things like this, experience will pull a faster quarter mile time.

keep posting ohnoes, your almost at 10,000! sweet dude!... :confused

im out for the night (i have ladies to poke with and places to be).

/thread. :stickoutt

im not butthurt about anything, i just think your annoying :rofl

Aww... :(

true, knowledge is power. but when it comes to realistic things like this, experience will pull a faster quarter mile time.

We weren't competing with who pulled the faster 1/4 mile time, you and jrhaile merely made the observations that you haven't seen faster than 13.6 (interesting that both of you have seen the same exact time), which means either y'all go to some really high-up strips, it was hot as hell out, or your friends/people you saw couldn't drive worth a hoot. Want me to point out E39 M5s that have run 14s in the 1/4 @ 98 MPH cause of a shitty driver? :rofl

keep posting ohnoes, your almost at 10,000! sweet dude!... :confused

Thanks... will do. Till I figure out something else to do. :)

im out for the night (i have ladies to poke with and places to be).

/thread. :stickoutt

Later... no hard feelings. Although this is srs bsns. :shifty

im not butthurt about anything, i just think your annoying :rofl
true, knowledge is power. but when it comes to realistic things like this, experience will pull a faster quarter mile time.



/thread. :stickoutt


+1. Experience is everything. I started driving/racing far before I started posting. I'd suggest everyone does a little bit more before they starting making their claims like so many do.

You are a freaking joke, man. You are obviously ignorant about the E46 M3. The M3's clutch is stiff and its engine is VERY rev-happy. Unlike your V8 M5, we have almost no torque down low. I liken our engines to a Honda engine, and many fellow E46 M3 owners would agree.

But, that's fine. Continue thinking E46 M3s are 13.6 second cars. Just don't be surprised when you see a slightly modded one hanging with your slightly modded M5 better than you previously thought. :thumbup: Until ~ 120 or so... lol.


Easy there Tiger... I wasn't personally attacking you.

I have TONS of experience in E46 M3s from stock to AA Stage II SCed to HPF Turbos. I'm not a paper racer, I actually hit the track 10-15 times a year and launching an E46 M3 is about 5x easier then launching a M5 from MY experience.

I'm not disputing the fact that others have ran faster then 13.6 all I'm saying is I have NEVER seen one in person do it or video for that fact - while there is TONS of proof with timeslips on m5board.com of people running as low as 12.7 stock with M5s.

And why the hostility? I love E46 M3s.. in fact I'm contemplating selling my M5 and getting one and putting on the HPF Turbo kit.

jrhaile, I have no doubts of your abilities but how can you possible go to the track 10-15 times a year and not seen an E46 M3 break 13.6. Thats almost ludacris. Were they all on 30 series with 45psi in the rear? My 20 year old friend ran her stock SMG on 19's with no experience and she still mustered a 13.5 at crappy Commerce after some practice.

No clue man but that's what I've seen :dunno Granted, there were only 7 difference one out there this year but I dunno.. maybe it was the track. Hell, my best is only 13.1 :(

Hell, my best is only 13.1 :(

When did you hit 13.1? Thought 13.2 was your best?



95LTW, there are not a ton of E46 M3's in Eastern Washington that hit the track

Easy there Tiger... I wasn't personally attacking you.

I have TONS of experience in E46 M3s from stock to AA Stage II SCed to HPF Turbos. I'm not a paper racer, I actually hit the track 10-15 times a year and launching an E46 M3 is about 5x easier then launching a M5 from MY experience.

I'm not disputing the fact that others have ran faster then 13.6 all I'm saying is I have NEVER seen one in person do it or video for that fact - while there is TONS of proof with timeslips on m5board.com of people running as low as 12.7 stock with M5s.

And why the hostility? I love E46 M3s.. in fact I'm contemplating selling my M5 and getting one and putting on the HPF Turbo kit.

Okay, so a timeslip won't suffice for the M3 but it will for the M5? There are timeslips of stock M3s running 12.7, 12.9, 13.0, etc. in that thread I just linked to above.

Also, where are these timeslips (plural) of E39 M5s running 12.7 stock? I have yet to see one, let alone multiple. But I am interested in seeing them...

BTW, I doubt the M5 is that much harder to launch than the M3. If you look at the timeslips for the M3, it's all about the 60'; few can achieve much under 2. It's just a hard car to launch.

you read more than you drive.

/ thread.

+11tybillion. :werd:

Someone needs to get over his car (not saying who, but you who I am talking about).

[Think of Russell Peters]

Some M3 times, including fastest known bone stock M3: http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=67620


"8 12.727 @ 107.42 MPH Lee (Mathews) E46 M3 60': 1.796 Comment: Bone stock"

That 60 ft is with stock tires?

Someone needs to get over his car (not saying who, but you who I am talking about).

[Think of Russell Peters]

You're funny. It's almost like you're trying to out do the E46 M3! Oh, wait, you are! You're so much blisteringly faster than our crappy, slow M3s! I bow down to thee, same-engine-tad-lighter M Coupe deity!

"8 12.727 @ 107.42 MPH Lee (Mathews) E46 M3 60': 1.796 Comment: Bone stock"

That 60 ft is with stock tires?

You can read just as well as I can't, 70s guy. :stickoutt

Or can you? :help

When did you hit 13.1? Thought 13.2 was your best?



95LTW, there are not a ton of E46 M3's in Eastern Washington that hit the track

I was looking at my time slips and it was actually 13.19.. I thought it was 13.2 too :rofl I must have rounded up...

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=308490&postcount=1 - 12.8 run bone stock

another 12.8 run

http://www.karlabs.com/WGR/beast/timeslip.jpg

Can't find the couple of 12.7 runs that guys posted by m5board but I didn't look for more then 2 minutes either...

Yup, I saw those 12.8's... couldn't find the 12.7's either. That trap speed isn't very high, either. Often there is an inverse relationship for the really extreme runs. But the E46 M3 run with the 12.749 (IIRC) was at 107.42 (IIRC), so not that far off from that M5's run. However, after ~ 110 (i.e. end of 1/4 mile), game over for M3.

I was looking at my time slips and it was actually 13.19.. I thought it was 13.2 too :rofl I must have rounded up...

:shifty

Spokane Raceway Park had better be open again this year.

You're funny. It's almost like you're trying to out do the E46 M3! Oh, wait, you are! You're so much blisteringly faster than our crappy, slow M3s! I bow down to thee, same-engine-tad-lighter M Coupe deity!

You can read just as well as I can't, 70s guy. :stickoutt

Or can you? :help

Lol - I expected a response such as this. I really don't care about your M3 insecurities. I am happy with my car and could easily have bought your car or the new M3 (or a Cayman S, which is what I originally wanted, or a 911S, etc). I only asked as the 60 foot was very good for stock tyres.

1/4 mile, traps, highway, blablabla... the ring times tell the story well enough; and in fact --judging by your frequent and rabid responses about how the E46 M3 pWnz all- it appears that you are really attempting to rationalise something (whatever it is) to yourself.

Have a nice thread, this is my final response. Oh, and I am not trying to make an enemy, you amuse me. Do carry on.

Stop trying to make yourself feel better because you bought a crappy-handling C32. You know you regret not getting the M3. :stickoutt 13.5 @ 105 is not the average magazines have gotten, but whatever you want to think to sleep better at night. 13.5 is what Edmunds got... in ONE review. 13.1-13.3 is what most mags got. Thanks for playing, come again.


First of all if you take time to read my threads you would see that I was a happy owner of 2002 M3 6pd for three years! Second of all if you take time to read my post you would see that I said that average owner won't get low 13s like some magazines do:withstupi

Wow, ohnoes feels the need to attack everyone that doesn't agree with his line of thinking.

It's not even that people aren't agreeing with him, people are just saying most owners don't get below 13.5 :dunno

Okay, then we should automatically reduce ALL cars' real-world times by .4-.6 seconds. :rolleyes People, magazine racing provides a STANDARD for comparison. I don't see how that is so hard to understand. It's simple logic... which appears to be too hard to understand for some.

Umm that is why I put MOST car owners not just M3 owners in my reply. If your talking about what an avg m3 owner m5 owner pontiac or chevrolet owner would get at the track it more than makes sense that it would be Simple Logic they wouldn't be as fast as the magazines. and since Many of the people that post on here are not Professionals it would be Simple Logic that times would be higher than the magazines. Or is that too hard to understand? I'm not arguing what Magazines get or the fact that some drivers get better than the magazine either. but I don't judge a car on what a professional driver can get it to to I judge it on what the driver who is driving it can get it to do only makes sense

It's not even that people aren't agreeing with him, people are just saying most owners don't get below 13.5 :dunno

Umm that is why I put MOST car owners not just M3 owners in my reply. If your talking about what an avg m3 owner m5 owner pontiac or chevrolet owner would get at the track it more than makes sense that it would be Simple Logic they wouldn't be as fast as the magazines. and since Many of the people that post on here are not Professionals it would be Simple Logic that times would be higher than the magazines. Or is that too hard to understand? I'm not arguing what Magazines get or the fact that some drivers get better than the magazine either. but I don't judge a car on what a professional driver can get it to to I judge it on what the driver who is driving it can get it to do only makes sense

No, see, what seems to hard to understand for you guys is that you are applying the standard unequally. That is, you are effectively making a double standard: M3 owners should be judged with higher criteria than other car owners. And because most people can't beat the magazine times, the M3 is therefore slower. Yet you are not acknowledging that most people with M5s, M6s, GTOs, even Honda Civics also fail to beat magazine times, and you are not asserting that those cars are therefore slower. I have news for you: they aren't slower than what the mags have tested them at, it's just that it's hard to achieve those times for the average driver.

If you're going to apply a standard, apply it equitably or not at all. Otherwise it's absolutely meaningless.

Therefore, the M3 is not a 13.6 second car, just as the M5 is not a 14.0 second car. They are both low 13-second cars. Just because you haven't seen Joe Schmoe achieve those times doesn't mean it isn't obtainable or even common.

But no one on here said the M5 is always a low 13 second car. You just implied that dude. All anyone really said (or that I read) was they haven't seen any M3 owners in person (or on video) run anything lower then 13.5. That's not to say it doesn't happen but that's just what people are seeing. Relax homie.. not that big of a deal. What is this thread about again? :confused

No, see, what seems to hard to understand for you guys is that you are applying the standard unequally. That is, you are effectively making a double standard: M3 owners should be judged with higher criteria than other car owners. And because most people can't beat the magazine times, the M3 is therefore slower. Yet you are not acknowledging that most people with M5s, M6s, GTOs, even Honda Civics also fail to beat magazine times, and you are not asserting that those cars are therefore slower. I have news for you: they aren't slower than what the mags have tested them at, it's just that it's hard to achieve those times for the average driver.

If you're going to apply a standard, apply it equitably or not at all. Otherwise it's absolutely meaningless.

Therefore, the M3 is not a 13.6 second car, just as the M5 is not a 14.0 second car. They are both low 13-second cars. Just because you haven't seen Joe Schmoe achieve those times doesn't mean it isn't obtainable or even common.


Look bud, nobody is saying that M3 is not able to do low 13s, I did 13.4@105mph when I had mine (bone stock), but I raced M5s and couple of AMGs and I lost, especialy from rolling starts; M5 is simply faster, M3 is fast when you get of the line just right and it will get you into low 13s but thats the momentum from getting of the line fast, look at the trap speed bro, it is not close to M5s. M3 out of roll start is more like high 13s car, sorry but it is true, I raced my friends M3 numerous times in my C32 and out of the roll I toast him to 125mph, he is 2cl behind every time, but out of dig he takes me to 60mph. But on the paper C32 and M3 have very similar times with little bit higher trap speed in C32. Get it now? Go and watch this video and maybe you will understand a bit better, even though this car is very different then M3 but you willunderstand momentum of getting of the line, look a the difference! http://youtube.com/watch?v=dodSqJPKK8M watch till end!:lol

The m5 in that video is clearly faster by 2-3cls but the first race I just don't get it... it's like the Audi starts a CL behind to begin with :dunno

No, see, what seems to hard to understand for you guys is that you are applying the standard unequally. That is, you are effectively making a double standard: M3 owners should be judged with higher criteria than other car owners. And because most people can't beat the magazine times, the M3 is therefore slower. Yet you are not acknowledging that most people with M5s, M6s, GTOs, even Honda Civics also fail to beat magazine times, and you are not asserting that those cars are therefore slower. I have news for you: they aren't slower than what the mags have tested them at, it's just that it's hard to achieve those times for the average driver.

If you're going to apply a standard, apply it equitably or not at all. Otherwise it's absolutely meaningless.

Therefore, the M3 is not a 13.6 second car, just as the M5 is not a 14.0 second car. They are both low 13-second cars. Just because you haven't seen Joe Schmoe achieve those times doesn't mean it isn't obtainable or even common.


did you even read my post? I also included avg m5 chevrolet and pontiac owners as being slower than the magazines. Or did you just read the part about m3's and think I was attacking them with out reading the rest?

Point in that video is that Audi in the last video had so much momentum from the start that it even pulled in second and third gear, but you see out of the roll M5 starts pulling right away in 2nd gear, this is little bit less of the factor in M3s case beacause it is no 4wd, but it is lighter and will take of faster then M5 from the dig so that is why lots of M3 owners think they hang with m5 till certain mph when the truth is that they cannot hang with M5 at any mph! For eample Lotus Elise RWD does low 13s but has trap of only 101mph, out of the roll it is 14 flat car!

Look bud, nobody is saying that M3 is not able to do low 13s, I did 13.4@105mph when I had mine (bone stock), but I raced M5s and couple of AMGs and I lost, especialy from rolling starts; M5 is simply faster, M3 is fast when you get of the line just right and it will get you into low 13s but thats the momentum from getting of the line fast, look at the trap speed bro, it is not close to M5s. M3 out of roll start is more like high 13s car, sorry but it is true, I raced my friends M3 numerous times in my C32 and out of the roll I toast him to 125mph, he is 2cl behind every time, but out of dig he takes me to 60mph. But on the paper C32 and M3 have very similar times with little bit higher trap speed in C32. Get it now? Go and watch this video and maybe you will understand a bit better, even though this car is very different then M3 but you willunderstand momentum of getting of the line, look a the difference! http://youtube.com/watch?v=dodSqJPKK8M watch till end!:lol

I never said the M3 was even close to the M5 on the highway, but like you yourself stated, it is quite close to some arbitrary speed (80? 90?) from a dig.

did you even read my post? I also included avg m5 chevrolet and pontiac owners as being slower than the magazines. Or did you just read the part about m3's and think I was attacking them with out reading the rest?

Your post was irrelevant... what was the point? It's like saying that the War of 1812 was in 1812. Duh.

never argue with idiots. they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. :shifty

never argue with idiots. they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. :shifty

Did you make that one up all by yourself? I'll [rightfully] assume you're speaking about yourself, too. :)

From a dig, YES an E46 M3 is close to a M5 given the weight advantage is has over the M5... I think anyone here will agree with that.

Did you make that one up all by yourself? I'll [rightfully] assume you're speaking about yourself, too. :)

of course. if i was referring to you, you would've been quoted in my post. :weedsmili:shifty

From a dig, YES an E46 M3 is close to a M5 given the weight advantage is has over the M5... I think anyone here will agree with that.

The E46 M3 is not close, it's equal if not a tad quicker in the right hands. You really don't want to concede anything, do you? Poor sportsman. ;)

haha if there was something to concede I would :D

haha if there was something to concede I would :D

There's plenty. Should we go over it all again? :)

Yes, please start from the beginning...

Yes, please start from the beginning...

It's all subjective, mind you. I was comparing the M3 vs. the M5 when shopping, trying to decide what to get. Here's why I decided on the M3:

M3 is:

Smaller, more agile
Cheaper to maintain
Less reliability and maintenance issues
Just as fast from a dig to high double-digits MPH, I don't need to outrun LS2s to 150 MPH
Better on the track
More favorable (to me) and sportier driving position, ergonomics
More confident in the twisties (mainly due its weight, but also due to R&P)
More of a young person's car, overall
Better gas mileage for my daily-drivingIf I could afford both, I would get both in a heartbeat, as I've stated before. But for me, right now, in this stage of my life, I really prefer my M3.

:rofl dude I was kidding...

:rofl dude I was kidding...

I sort of figured you were, but I felt like listing them for a boost in confidence. You M5s are fast on the highway. :(

:D

One day you should stop reading magazines and forums and actually race an M5 from a 5mph roll. You'll get a quick lesson in torque.

Without dumping your clutch at 6K rpms you're not going to be anywhere close to keeping up with an M5 off the line.

I don't give a crap who ran 4.8 seconds and 13.3 q/m. That is not a highly repeatable time unless you have an unlimited supply of clutches.

Your post was irrelevant... what was the point? It's like saying that the War of 1812 was in 1812. Duh.

If it was irrelevant why did you quote it and respond?

One day you should stop reading magazines and forums and actually race an M5 from a 5mph roll. You'll get a quick lesson in torque.

Without dumping your clutch at 6K rpms you're not going to be anywhere close to keeping up with an M5 off the line.

I don't give a crap who ran 4.8 seconds and 13.3 q/m. That is not a highly repeatable time unless you have an unlimited supply of clutches.

Whatever you say, man. Again with the nonequitable appraisal of a car's speed... do I have to repeat myself infinity times? It may not be a highly repeatable time (I beg to differ, though), but if it ain't for the M3, it ain't for the M5. :)

From a 5 MPH roll I think the cars will be close to high double digits. If you disagree, that's fine. When I run into one I will be sure to run it and post the results.

If it was irrelevant why did you quote it and respond?

Ugh, this post epitomizes the non-sequitur and just plain nonexistent logic. :help

99% of the posts in the Kill Stories forum, by definition, are irrelevant, by many standards. Yet why do some of the RETARDED 350z vs. M3 threads go on for so long? The answer to that question is about as clear as the one to yours.

From what I've seen here, said poster finally goes into debt to get e46 m3 and thinks its god like. Wanna lose to my pos e36?

From what I've seen here, said poster finally goes into debt to get e46 m3 and thinks its god like. Wanna lose to my pos e36?

Mike, I won't be losing to your E36 anytime soon unless you have F/I. Glad you're spending all your Army money on stupid shit, though.

Mike, I won't be losing to your E36 anytime soon unless you have F/I. Glad you're spending all your Army money on stupid shit, though.
;) Im glad I don't have a car payment or any debt.

;) Im glad I don't have a car payment or any debt.

You don't have to be in debt to have little or no savings. ;)

And conversely, you don't have to have little or no savings while in debt. ;)

You don't have to be in debt to have little or no savings. ;)

And conversely, you don't have to have little or no savings while in debt. ;)

Not sure what our financial states have to do with your delusional thoughts of an e46 m3.

Not sure what our financial states have to do with your delusional thoughts of an e46 m3.

Ask yourself that, since you made the original connection.

I don't know how my thoughts of the E46 M3 are delusional. I know what it is, and what it isn't. I know I will get walked by a lot of other cars, stock for stock. M5 is one of them, on the highway at higher speeds. It sounds like you're the only one with a problem here.

Ask yourself that, since you made the original connection.

I don't know how my thoughts of the E46 M3 are delusional. I know what it is, and what it isn't. I know I will get walked by a lot of other cars, stock for stock. M5 is one of them, on the highway at higher speeds. It sounds like you're the only one with a problem here.

You should bring your car out to the strip one weekend this spring:buttrock

:rofl this thread is just comical now...

:rofl this thread is just comical now...:evil2 I have two hours to kill before I leave.

You should bring your car out to the strip one weekend this spring:buttrock

I very well may do that. But it'll be my first time actually running, so no pointing and laughing if I get a 13.6. ;)

I very well may do that. But it'll be my first time actually running, so no pointing and laughing if I get a 13.6. ;)

13.6 would be good for your first time. I've seen plenty of e46 m3s run 14 and 15s.

All in good fun though

13.6 would be good for your first time. I've seen plenty of e46 m3s run 14 and 15s.

All in good fun though

Yeah, I'm just being cocky... I would be happy with a sub-14 at all for my first time out.

:evil2 I have two hours to kill before I leave.

I only have 20 minutes and then it's buttsex night with the wife :evil2

I very well may do that. But it'll be my first time actually running, so no pointing and laughing if I get a 13.6. ;)

:rofl I'd shit my pants if you ran like a 14.1 or something

SMG or 6SPD?

:rofl I'd shit my pants if you ran like a 14.1 or something

SMG or 6SPD?

6 spd. ftw.

I only have 20 minutes and then it's buttsex night with the wife :evil2



:rofl I'd shit my pants if you ran like a 14.1 or something

SMG or 6SPD?

Buttsex..not so much. But her tongue piercing is fully healed now.

:rofl Friday night's is Sodomy night... you think I'm joking but I'm not :shifty

Heard BS is overrated.

:rofl @ buttsechs discussion in the kill stories...

I want to see how you drive. Someone's got to get it on video. I'll be impressed with a low 14.

damn i cant believe ohnoes is STILL whining on this thread, did you atleast take a break to jerk it???

but on a serious note, you need to run a properly driven m5 (stock) from a dig, 5mph roll, 40 roll, what ever you want as long as you film it and post it. the video i posted of me instantly pulling on the modded m3 in my stock m5 was from a 5mph roll and the video cut short. you can see he instantly fell back, i can dig up more videos too if needed

ok but seriously this time. mazur (OP, if your even still looking at this thread), good kill you have a damn quick e30! next time i drive the m5 to az we should meet up for some fun runs and maybe even hit up the track :buttrock

I never said the M3 was even close to the M5 on the highway, but like you yourself stated, it is quite close to some arbitrary speed (80? 90?) from a dig.



Your post was irrelevant... what was the point? It's like saying that the War of 1812 was in 1812. Duh.


hahaha, now you are talking from the dig, the video M5 vs M3 was from the roll, and you were saying that M5 shouldn't be killing M3 like that that they are equal till 90mph, now you say that's the case form the dig only, hahaha:help