Oh, and by the way, the M3 isn't going to come wit (archive)

: Even if I had the bucks to afford an M5, I'd still be in the market for an E46 M3 (even if its 0-60 time ends up at "only" 5.4 seconds); I prefer a lighter, more nimble car. Similarly, I believe many/most of those who buy the M5 want true luxury along with their performance, and they'd choose the M5 even if the M3 were as fast.

: Consider: The E36 M3 and the E39 540i (manual) have similar 0-60 times, and the E39 lists for about 13K more than the M3 did. If 0-60 times were the dominant issue, BMW would have sold virtually no 1999 540i's. I realize this comparison is not exactly kosher, since the 540i isn't an M car, but the point is that most BMW purchasers (even M purchasers) care about more than just straight-line speed.

: : Motor Trend has the m5 at 4.7 for 0-60 and the car listed for $71,000.

: : .3seconds is considered (by Road and Track) as a signficant difference in 0-60 sprints.

: : Even if the new m3 was technically capable of going 5.0 or less, how could BMW possibly put it on the market tuned to go that fast given a 45-50K price tag?
: : Consumers would read the numbers as the m3 and m5 being statistically equal performers, at least as far as the 0-60 sprint.

: : My opinion, e46m3 will be tuned to go at least .3 to .4 slower than the m5. So I will be very happy with a 5.0 or 5.1 reading.

: : If anyone sees the marketing issue differently, please advise.

: : rca 328i automatic (7.2 sec)
: : steel blue

Follow Ups:

Re: & now the e36 vs.e46 m3 0-60 market issue (m) rca 08:30 12/31/1999 (0)

[ Follow Ups ] [ E46 M3 Message Board ] [ Msg. Board FAQ ]

Questions, comments, or problems, please visit the Roadfly help desk.