posted 12-28-2001 09:17 PM            

Scott

posted 12-30-2001 12:58 PM            

Congratulations for your two beautiful cars. That IS300 looks awesome for sure. Nice mods.
Now to the point. You should choose which car you want based on what YOU like. No matter what people say, this is a BMW site, therefore the Board Members are highly biased towards BMW (rightfully or not, but that's not the point).
If your priority is performance, no matter what board you go to (BMW or Lexus), the right answer is only one, the M3. But I doubt you fall into this category since you have an IS300, which most likely is an Automatic (something a purist would NEVER, EVER buy), am I right? (of course I could be very wrong)
If looks is your number one preference on the list (plus extra equipment), then only YOU have the answer. Many people would argue with me on this but there is nothing written about looks. If EVERYBODY shared the same opinion these board members have (regarding looks), then BMW would sell even more cars and Lexus would be broken by now.
Maybe you want to post the same question in an IS300 board to see what kind of answers you got.
To tell you the truth, when I read the Headline of your post, I thought "that's a no-brainer answer...The M3". But reading further and checking your website, I understand now where you come from. If you have the money to keep both, that's what I would do. But if you have to choose...you have to choose. Don't ask somebody with completely different taste do it for you. You may regret it in the long run.
Happy motoring and enjoy your rides while you have them.

posted 12-30-2001 01:47 PM            

In general throwing in a lot of money into a lesser car does not pay unless frequent rebuilding & hot rodding is your cup of tea.

Only Corvette, NSX, M3, Maserati, Ferraris & Porsches (Nissan Skyline GTR? any others if I missed any) are acclaimed supercars fit for daily driving. Others moded monsters are not driver friendly (money not well spent).

posted 01-02-2002 01:51 PM            

But I still find the original post/question very peculiar: Keep a $30k, automatic, mediocre performing, everyone has one, riceboy looking Lexus IS300, or sell it and buy a $50k rare legend, with performance among the top 10 or 20 in the world for any price? If money is not an issue, I fail to see why you would want to keep the IS300. If reliability is that much of an issue for you, the M3 is not the right car for you. Not because the M3 is unreliable (which it isn't), but because that shows your priorites in a car are not peformance first. The M3 places performance and function first. Luxury and style come next. Reliability is probably third. If you analyze the IS300, I think you'll find a different priority list.

Something to consider: while the M3 is an excellent machine, it is not the right car for everyone. Some people just like to get from Point A to Point B reliably with minimal fuel consumption. To them, driving is a chore. For them, the M3 is a total waste of money. There are many people who are in the middle between the "hate to drive types" and the true auto enthusiasts. For these people the M3 is probably more car than they need or would use.

You have to lay out your priorities - write them down if it helps. Then see how each car you are considering matches your priorities.

------------------
On order: '02 BMW M3 Coupe, Topaz Blue/Grey, manual. Expected delivery: Spring '02 (quoting my dealer here). Deposit placed: 8/01

1970 Corvette Coupe (T-top), Cortez Silver/Black, highly modified 454 CID (7.4L), Muncie M21 4-speed manual, Baldwin Motion Performance hood.

posted 01-03-2002 02:37 AM            

Does anyone know the original prices for the Supra brand new and the M3 new in 1997? I looked up the resale value on 1997's with 60k miles(12k a year)and they were almost identical, with the M3 being about $225 more. Even knowing the lemony tendencies of the M3, it holds resale value. If you go back further in time, the M3 distances itself further from the Supra. Hmm. And the NSX. Well, that car starts off costing about 30k more than the M3, so, you might just be paying for a little extra reliability. Even knowing the NSX doesn't even compete with the M3 stock in performance. Now, without further ado:

By Sam Moses

The quintessential high-performance sports sedan.
Base Price (MSRP) $46,545
As Tested (MSRP) $49,290

It's finally here: an M3 as good as the Europeans get. After years of longing (and pleading, and whining) by North Americans, and after taking model year 2000 off, BMW is now exporting an M3 with a new 3.2-liter engine, bumping the horsepower up from 240 to 333. The icing on this cake was the price, reflecting an increase whose value was greater than its numbers. Introduced late as a 2001 model, the 2002 is essentially identical.

Model Lineup
Would you like that with or without a hard top? Your choices are an M3 Coupe ($46,545) or an M3 Convertible ($54,565). The new M3 Coupe was first available as a 2001 model in the spring of 2001; the convertible followed in the fall of 2001, also as a 2001 model. For 2002, the most significant change is that the waiting list is shorter.

You'll pay extra for the pleasure of feeling the sun and wind on your face, but you'll also get Nappa leather cradling your body in the form of seats that are standard on the Convertible (and an $1100 option on the Coupe).

Both coupe and convertible come with a six-speed manual transmission (automatics are not available), huge ventilated disc brakes with ABS, and sophisticated electronic control of traction and stability. For safety, there are two-stage front airbags, side airbags in the doors, an inflating tubular head protection system, and a tire-pressure monitoring system. For your listening enjoyment, an in-dash CD player is standard in 2002.

The options list includes side-impact airbags for the rear seats ($385), Xenon high-intensity discharge headlights ($700), and a navigation system ($1800). Additional options for the coupe include Nappa leather, power moonroof, and power front seats. A cold weather package includes heated front seats, headlight washers and a ski bag.

The most spectacular option is the new Sequential M gearbox. It's similar in operation to the one used in the Williams-BMW Formula One cars that Juan Montoya and Ralf Schumacher drive. The sequential gearbox is operated either by the shift lever or with butterfly paddles on the steering wheel (one to upshift, one to downshift); it can be set to shift automatically or manually. The six-speed gearbox is technically the same as that used on manually shifted models, but there is no clutch pedal (nor is there a torque converter). Advanced engine electronics interrupt the engine's power for just milliseconds, the control unit opens and closes the clutch, and changes gears electro-hydraulically. When downshifting, the system automatically double-clutches. Computer logic allows the driver to individually match the system's shift characteristic to his preferred driving habits in eleven driving programs. LED lights aid shifting performance. We have not yet sampled this gearbox, but it is designed to produce "a realistic Formula One experience," while reducing shift times (to 80 milliseconds) and the chance of a missed shift.

Walkaround
Car gazers who know a little bit about BMWs will recognize what this is: M3 means Magic. Even bystanders who don't know the difference between an M3 and a garden variety 3 Series Coupe might recognize that this car is hot. What gives it away: the deep front airdam with its vast opening, aggressive fender flares, the hunkered stance, massive low-profile Michelin Pilot Sport tires, the bulging hood (necessary to accommodate the engine), dual twin exhaust tips, even the horizontal air gills just below the windshield pillar. Still, these things actually look subtler than they sound on paper. But your speed as you blast by these bystanders and the sound of the engine might also be tip-offs. Maybe more like a telegraph.

One thing that came on early M3s is missing: a rear wing. There's just a teensy little spoiler on the rear deck. That tells us something, either about the aerodynamics of the M3 or the necessity of rear wings on road cars altogether. Because M3s are regularly driven at speeds well over 100 mph on the Autobahn, where they are perfectly stable, it can be safely assumed that with wings, teensy (okay, let's say subtle) is perfectly effective. For sure, the M3's understated rear spoiler sure looks better than some silly showy thing.

As for the Convertible, you lose the rear center seat to provide room for the top when it's dropped, but it's not much of a loss because that center seat is of little use anyhow. If you're willing to pay eight grand for sun in your face and wind in your hair ($6900 if you don't count the leather that comes with it), you'll be very happy with the top. It goes up and down with one button, no latches. It's concealed under a hard boot that looks like a soft tonneau cover. It has a thick lining for winter comfort. The glass rear window contains a defroster. Rollover protection bars behind the rear seats are automatically deployed if the car starts to tip. Can't ask for more than all that.

The wheels are distinctive, although this particular style-call it ten-spoke, call it twin-spoke, call it twenty-spoke-sure looks dark in satin chrome, as well as busy.

We're not sure if the wheels look confused or just strong, but we are sure the engine looks like it means business. Under the lightweight aluminum hood, the new S54 3.2-liter, double-overhead cam, inline-6 M powerplant is canted a few degrees toward the passenger side in order to fit under the hood. There's a big intake plenum, riding over six aluminum fuel injector butterfly bodies that look like sidedraft carburetors on an old racing engine. The big matt black valve cover bears its M Power badge on top, and the muscular radiator fan squeezed behind the twin-kidney grille adds to the look of racecar plumbing.

After we were done admiring the engine, we were very impressed (though not really surprised) by the feel of the fingertip slamming of the aluminum hood. How can something that light make such a solid sound when it thunks down? How? BMW quality fit.

Interior Features
The M3 Coupe is considered a five-seater, but don't count on it. There's a reasonable amount of room in the rear, but the middle guy needs to be a midget to have any chance at comfort, as the transmission tunnel rises nearly to the height of the seat. The rear windows in the Coupe, our test car, are power operated, but it's almost an affectation, because they only open by flaring out a few inches at the back, as if to let stale air out, not fresh air in. Practically speaking, passenger-wise, the M3 Coupe fits between a two-plus-two sports car and a sports sedan. Of course, because it performs like a Porsche or Corvette, its seating might fairly be compared to either, in which case it offers much more. (Pressing a switch in the Convertible lowers or raises all four windows at the same time, handy on hot days or when raising or lowering the top.)

The coupe also offers a nice trunk, which is pre-wired for a garage door opener, CD player, security system and cell phone, all of which are BMW features installed by your dealer. What's more, one-third of the rear seat folds forward to gain trunk access, enabling the carrying of long things such as skis or, in our case, a two-piece windsurfing mast. (The convertible offers little in the way of trunk space.)

Rearward visibility is not very good, thanks to the sloping roofline (which may be worth it because the aerodynamics are so good), and the small, oval-shaped, rearview mirror that appears to be taken from a '40 Ford. Given the fact that M3 drivers will be checking their mirrors a lot, this is a curious place to add a touch of retro style, if that's the intent.

There's a terrific dead pedal, which will be used a whole lot because of the car's cornering capability. And the lateral support in the seats is ample, although our torso still shifted during hard cornering because the back of the seat was so wide-odd, since we found the BMW Z3's seats too narrow at the back. Makes us wonder if seat width is a direct function of car width; or maybe BMW has information indicating that M3 buyers are fatter than Z3 buyers.

Speaking of fat, the three-spoke steering wheel contains buttons for cruise control, the audio system and factory-installed phone, which makes it bulkier and less racy than the Audi TT steering wheel, for sure. The instrument panel is clean, with the interior trim in 2002 being changed for the better from Black High Gloss to Titanium Shadow. Also in 2002, there are new headrests to improve safety, and a new automatic climate control system.

The gauges are simple white-on-black; there's a 180-mph speedometer and 9000-rpm tachometer with a glowing red zone that lowers when the engine is cold. There are water temperature and fuel gauges, of course, but surprisingly no oil pressure gauge. The flat switchgear buttons are nice, including for the radio, which is nonetheless complicated enough to require its own manual (taking up much of the small glovebox).

The slim console doesn't hold much, but there are pockets in the doors, and two cupholders between the front seats, although the console compartment has to be raised to use the rear cupholder. We might comment more on such things, which might be considered shortcomings in a five-seat passenger car; except we'll assume that with M3 buyers, console space is not a priority. What matters is performance.

But before we get to driving impressions, we have two observations in that area where ergonomics meet performance. The gas pedal is so close to the gearbox tunnel that our right ankle rubbed on the tunnel when we blipped the throttle during downshifts. And the gearshift knob had an impractical shape, sort of like the head of a golfer's wood, which precluded a good solid grip. These two things flawed the ergonomics of downshifting.

Driving Impressions
The soundbite: It doesn't get any better than this. The catch: But you gotta be going 90 miles an hour. The post script: In a curve.

But before you get there, you'll go from zero to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds, and after you get around that curve, if there's a real long straightaway, you might reach 155 mph. You and the engine might want to do more, but the engine management software won't let you go beyond that.

The most legal fun might be in accelerating to 70 mph on freeway onramps. The M3 loves to go through the gears, and you can actually hit redline at 8000 rpm in second gear before you have to back off to stay within the law. Second gear. So maybe you can't actually "go through" the gears. You can always short shift, of course. But jeez it's hard, when the car is accelerating so sweetly, and it sounds so wonderful, and it really really really wants you to stretch its legs all the way up to eight grand. It shouts, sings to you, "Please! Use me! That's what I'm here for! Don't let me down!" You're gonna deny it?

The exhaust note is what you might expect from a 3.2-liter, 333-hp inline-6. Inline-6s are known for their sweet sound. On a racing car, sometimes the sound can be spine-tingling (Jaguar), and sometimes it can be ear-blasting (Chevy TrailBlazer Baja truck). Inline-6s are not throaty nor beefy like a V8 (BMW M5). The M3 has a muted exhaust note, almost raspy. Like the rest of the car, it doesn't attract attention (not even your own) unless you're accelerating to 8000 rpm.

Seventy miles per hour in sixth gear is a mere 2650 rpm, but there's enough torque that if you floor it without downshifting (not that you would, this is just a test), you'll take off. If you're on a two-lane in a series of third-gear turns, with no gear changing, the engine responds like the world's most exotic and satisfying rheostat.

And then there's the Sport mode. Not to be confused with a transmission sport mode, it's described as Engine Dynamics Control by the manual, which adds that Sport mode will cause the engine to "respond more spontaneously to the motion of accelerator pedal." Oh really? We think maybe "spontaneous" is not the word BMW was searching for, here.

Sport mode does indeed gas the car on its own, however. Not a lot, but if you're driving along at a steady speed and click the button on the instrument panel, the car will shoot ahead a bit as if a tiny afterburner had been lit. After that, the throttle response will be more aggressive. We like it. It's very practical, very functional. Simply, there are times when you don't want aggressive throttle response, times when you do.

The shifting linkage doesn't offer as short a throw as it might, but shifting is quite positive; the clutch action is especially and admirably smooth. It's easy to accidentally slip the gearbox into reverse if you're going from third gear to first, like when you come up to a red light that changes to green just after you stop.

If you want racier shifting, go for the optional sequential manual gearbox. It's the future.

Like the M5, the ride is amazing. No other carmaker that we can think of can design suspensions that corner like a racecar yet ride so comfortably, and the M sport suspension is specific to the M3. Definitely, it's firm; but we suspect it's a lot firmer than your butt thinks it is. If you know why you bought an M3, that firmness will be well worth the price of an occasional jab to the butt. Considering the handling you get for it, it's a steal.

At higher speeds you can feel the jabs, but not much, and they never move the car off its track. The M3 erases the bigger bumps at higher speeds better than it does the sharp ones at low speeds, however. There's one particular manhole cover near our house that we learned to brace ourselves for, when that left front wheel hit it at 25 mph. If ride quality is important to you, then you may find plenty of performance from the BMW 330i models (see separate NewCarTestDrive.com review of the BMW 3 Series).

The huge ventilated disc brakes are killer, no surprise there. As we recall, only the M5 has brakes like this. On wet surfaces, the ABS is fantastic. Braking ability is generally measured from 70 mph to stop, but with a car like this, a more significant measure might be 100 mph to 30, an area where the M3 inspires total confidence.

Notice: "The laws of physics can not be repealed even with DSC. We therefore urge you to avoid using the additional safety margin of the system as an excuse for taking risks." So says the M3 manual.

DSC stands for Dynamic Stability Control. Such systems, which control the car by varying the throttle, spark or brakes, or all three, when wheel slip occurs, are common on sophisticated cars now. But they're all different. Like ABS, some systems work better than others. And the M3's is specific to the car. A system's invisibility, whether it intrudes on the driving experience in undesirable ways, is one measure for determining what's better.

The unfortunate, if understandable, thing is that they're so complicated that even the manufacturers' public relations people don't know the details of how they work, and even the engineers (who didn't design the system) are sometimes stumped.

Wheel speed, steering angle, lateral acceleration, brake pressure and vehicle movement around the car's vertical axis are evaluated by the sensors, and intervention comes in milliseconds. What type of intervention, when, and why is the complicated part. Automotive journalists are left with explaining how the car feels, not what it's doing, let alone why. Which is probably enough.

So we can tell you this: On our favorite secret backwoods road, where we defied the manual by attempting to defy the laws of physics, the DSC put us in our place every time, and with relatively little intrusion. Those last three words are the key. Meaning, not merely that we were unable to spin the car out at the rear end or slide it off the road at the front end, but that when we abused the throttle, even on a wet surface, we got traction without the throttle being totally shut down on us. It's one of the most advanced electronic stability programs out there, if not the most advanced system.

For example, we think the brakes were applied to gain traction, without the throttle being cut. Racing drivers do this all the time, dab the brakes with the left foot while the throttle is floored with the right. On our wet backwoods road, we saw the DSC light flash on the dash a lot, without the throttle or spark being cut, at least not that we could feel. The DSC works with the M Variable Differential Lock traction control, and the answer to this invisibility lies in the teamwork.

By the way, you can turn the DSC off. We did that too, though only for one drag-race launch on dry pavement. The M3 will burn rubber just like the old days, spinning the tires all the way up to redline in first gear. Cool. A German magazine turned the DSC off too, for skidpad testing, and the M3 achieved a higher level of grip than the Porsche 911.

In summary, it's hard not to be smooth with the M3, given its high-speed stability, its throttle response, its clutch and shifting action, its brakes, and its precise but not too quick turn-in. The problem may be that it's too good. You have to drive it very fast to fully appreciate it, and that mostly leaves a large longing in your heart, a longing for a closed-off road or a racetrack.

Final Word
Own an M3, and you can claim to own the best high-performance car on the market that isn't a total exotic. It's faster and grippier than a Porsche 911. But the best part may be that you won't have to make any significant compromises in civility.

posted 01-03-2002 02:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by angele:
High performance and reliability ain't mutually exclusive! Ever heard of Acura NSX?

---

Well for damn near $90k and mediocre performance for a high priced sports car, it damn well better offer reliability, as it doesn't bring much else to the table. I mean come on, the car only has 290hp. The car looks nice, but not $90k nice.

quote:

---

Even the last Supra Turbo which can leave all the M cars to date in the dust also has better reliability.

---

I know plenty about the MKIV Supra Turbo. In stock form it will not dust either the E46 M3 or the M5. In fact, they're pretty damn close, with both the M3 and M5 cranking out significantly more HP than the Supra Turbo, but saddled with more weight than the Supra. I am well aware that Supra Turbos can be modified easily and can be brought up to 400-500hp with inexpensive mods - after that it gets expensive. I'm talking stock versus stock.

The Supra Turbo has better reliability? Sorry, but the B.S. meter is pegged on that one. Show me some real statistics about that, then I'll believe it. The fact is, there isn't any. I think you pulled that out of the sky since the Supra has a Toyota name on it, which made your biased brain think automatically that it must be more reliable then. I think you've been watching too many Toyota commercials. The advertisers just love you. Besides, why are we even talking about a car that isn't even sold in the U.S. anymore and hasn't been in the past 4 years? Where's that new Supra Turbo that can be purchased with a factory warranty for 4 years? Doesn't exist. Used cars are just that: used, and sometimes abused.

quote:

---

I may have bought a BMW but I didn't donate my brain to the Salvation Army like some of you did. A $40+K car should have at least the reliability of a $12K Corolla.

---

It appears you donated your brain to Toyota. It would have been nicer if you donated it to the Salvation Army. Then again, perhaps that wouldn't be much of a donation to begin with.

------------------
On order: '02 BMW M3 Coupe, Topaz Blue/Grey, manual. Expected delivery: Spring '02 (quoting my dealer here). Deposit placed: 8/01

1970 Corvette Coupe (T-top), Cortez Silver/Black, highly modified 454 CID (7.4L), Muncie M21 4-speed manual, Baldwin Motion Performance hood.

posted 01-05-2002 10:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by angele:
LOL..you guys are so funny.

---

posted 01-06-2002 08:13 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by angele:
Probably handles and performs equal to M3 in day to day driving. Since it is less likely to break, you will tend to drive it more agressively than M3.
Good luck![/B]

---

LOL!!! Did ANYONE ELSE catch this moronic reply? LOL! What type of logic is this? LOL Wow someone from the Lexus forums came over here and took a dump on the M3 forum. An IS300 PERFORMING AND HANDLING equal to M3? So misguided...lol How about driving one THEN coming and talking here. Probably some moron who doesn't know how to drive manual though... I'm just going to discount anymore posts by that lunatic.

posted 01-10-2002 12:34 AM              

Toyota Supra Turbo, 0-60 in 4.6 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.1@109 mph (Car & Driver, 3/93)

Man, that's faster than M3 and M5!!!!

The latest J.D.Power 2001 Vehicle Dependability Index for five-year-old cars(problems per 100 cars) rankings:
No.1 is Lexus (173 problems/100 cars)
No.13 is BMW (320 problems/100 cars)
Not counting the japanese cars, No. 4 is Lincoln; No. 8 is Cadillac; No. 11 is Buick; No. 12 is Mercury.
Dang,Dang,Dang, even Buick and Mercury have less problems than $$$BMW? What happened to "German engineering"? Losing out to Buick, Mercury, Cadillac, and Lincoln.
LOL,LOL,LOL!!!!!!!!

posted 01-10-2002 10:01 PM            

Are you a complete jackass? How can you compare the NSX to the M3? First off, the NSX-T Alex Zanardi edition could only make the sprint to sixty in 4.8 second, which if I am not mistakened is the same as the M3. http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Car anddriver/roadtests/1999/July/199907_roadtest_acura_nsxalexzanardiedition.xml?&keywords=Acura%20NSX&page=2
The fact that the stock price of an NSX is more than $40k more than the m3 makes this comparison stupid, but when paying $84k for a supposed exotic, you would expect it outperform a $45k sport coupe. Also, the Toyota Supra is better comparison, but they are almost the same in price and performance, however the M3 can comfortably seat for, last time I checked, a five year old couldnt fit in the back of the Supra. Dont talk about facts until you get the right ones. By the way, you spend a lot of time on an m3 enthusiast website for not liking the car.

posted 01-10-2002 10:19 PM            

Scott

posted 01-15-2002 05:45 PM              

and the white Lexus looks dreadful its totally overstyled to much plastic. in germany only teenager styling their VW Golf's and Opels that way. an M3 is more a understatement car for more mature persons and it drives in a totally other league.

i dont know the things in america but here asian cars are cheap and have full equipment but no image at all and ppl buy it only to "drive". but when you like to have a very solid, modern, save and full of the modernsest technic BMW can offer and you like to talk big and brag than the BMW M3 is the right choice for you.

posted 01-16-2002 01:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by angele:
Let's see:
Acura NSX, 0-60 mph in 4.5 sec, 1/4 mile in 12.9@110mph (Car & Driver, 8/98)

---

Lets see: It's a 2 seater and costs $80,000. The M3 costs about $48k, does 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.4@106MPH, and has a BACK SEAT and a real TRUNK. Tell me what Honda can do that. The fact that a car that costs over $30,000 less than the NSX and isn't a 2 seat sports car can come within 0.2 seconds 0-60 and within 4MPH in trap speed in the 1/4 is a real slap in the face for the NSX. Then there's the M5: 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.2@107.4MPH. It's closer in price, but still costs $10,000 less than the NSX, is even closer in speed (effectively the same - all comes down to driver skill), and not only has a back seat, but has 4 DOORS!!! Talk about a disgrace to the NSX.

quote:

---

Toyota Supra Turbo, 0-60 in 4.6 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.1@109 mph (Car & Driver, 3/93)

---

You're talking about a car that is 9 years old and hasn't been sold in the U.S. in the past 6 years. There is no comparison to be made. The car is dead - get over it.

quote:

---

Man, that's faster than M3 and M5!!!!

---

Yeah, by a freakin hair!!! In a race against either of those cars, it comes down to who the better driver is and not much else. And your alternatives involve either spending $30k more and giving up a back seat and real trunk, or driving an overpriced 9 year old Toyota. All to go 0.2 seconds faster 0-60 than an M3.

quote:

---

The latest J.D.Power 2001 Vehicle Dependability Index for five-year-old cars(problems per 100 cars) rankings:
No.1 is Lexus (173 problems/100 cars)
No.13 is BMW (320 problems/100 cars)
Not counting the japanese cars, No. 4 is Lincoln; No. 8 is Cadillac; No. 11 is Buick; No. 12 is Mercury.
Dang,Dang,Dang, even Buick and Mercury have less problems than $$$BMW? What happened to "German engineering"? Losing out to Buick, Mercury, Cadillac, and Lincoln.
LOL,LOL,LOL!!!!!!!!

---

So in 5 years, on average, a BMW will have 3.2 problems versus 1.7 problems for the Lexus. BIG DEAL!!!! WHO CARES??!? The extra 1.5 problems I can surely deal with in exchange for a much better driving experience and higher performance than I'll get out of ANY Lexus.

------------------
On order: '02 BMW M3 Coupe, Topaz Blue/Grey, manual. Expected delivery: Spring '02 (quoting my dealer here). Deposit placed: 8/01

1970 Corvette Coupe (T-top), Cortez Silver/Black, highly modified 454 CID (7.4L), Muncie M21 4-speed manual, Baldwin Motion Performance hood.

posted 01-16-2002 10:10 PM            

"Our Zanardi weighed 46 pounds less than our last fixed-roof NSX,the sprint to 60 mph took 4.8 seconds. The Zanardi's numbers were more in line with the last NSX-T we looked at." Car and Driver Magazine

"The M3 will hit 60 mph in just 4.8 seconds and will eat up a quarter-mile in 13.5 seconds -- on a par with the 911 Carrera and Corvette -- and we think those numbers are accurate." Car and Driver Magazine

And stay out of this forum. It's M3forum.com not NSXforum.com.

posted 01-22-2002 10:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by angele:
Let's dissect what you wrote about NSX: "Well for damn near $90k and mediocre performance for a high priced sports car...". If 0-60 in 4.5 is mediocre, that makes M3 and M5 performace lousy!

---

The M3 and M5 performance are incredible for the respective cars that they are and for their price. The NSX at $90k and 0-60 at 4.5 is mediocre. At $40k, its a great performer. For $90k, it had better do better than 4.5. THAT is what I'm saying. I wasn't going to go here, but you asked for it: Two examples: The Corvette Z06 and Viper GTS will both CRUSH an NSX in EVERY performance category (except for maybe braking on the GTS), and do it for far less money. Then there are cars more in the NSX's price class that will smoke it as well. Porsche 911 Turbo for example.

quote:

---

About Supra: "I know plenty about the MKIV Supra Turbo. In stock form it will not dust either the E46 M3 or the M5."

---

I stand behind exactly what I wrote. The Supra Turbo will NOT dust either the M3 or the M5. The BEST time you found on the Supra was 0-60 in 4.6 (which is a stretch BTW, most tests showed it around 4.8), versus 4.7 seconds for the M3 and M5. Have you ever witnessed a race where the elapsed time difference was a tenth of a second? You're talking about a doorlength difference. I don't call a doorlength "dusted". You have to at least be seeing tail lights to be considered dusted. And again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and giving you the fastest acceleration ever tested on a stock MKIV Supra Turbo. The cars are effectively the same in acceleration, driver skill usually accounts for more than 0.1 seconds. Neither car will "dust" the other no matter which wins.

quote:

---

Shows you didn't know jack and were making things up!! Why should anybody believe what you post???? Next time, if you don't have the facts, sit back, relax, and don't type anything.

---

All I have been writing is pure fact. What you have been writing is twisted, biased speculation.

You sound like you need an attitude adjustment. How about this: I'll even race my daily driver against your IS 300, 0-100. Are you in for that? Come on, it's only a lowly '96 Ford Contour with 106k on the clock. You should have no trouble with your mighty IS300. Hehehehehe

------------------
On order: '02 BMW M3 Coupe, Topaz Blue/Grey, manual. Expected delivery: Spring '02 (quoting my dealer here). Deposit placed: 8/01

1970 Corvette Coupe (T-top), Cortez Silver/Black, highly modified 454 CID (7.4L), Muncie M21 4-speed manual, Baldwin Motion Performance hood.