|
In Reply to: Re: Rolling the dice on the 3.25L M3 posted by KJK on January 31, 2000 at 16:45:02:
: Not such a gamble if well under $50k and the next generation 3.4l is over $50k. Also, I would add that we are focusing entirely too much on power. If the chassis has significant improvements in handling--say well in excess of .9 g's lateral accleration, any car will be hard pressed to stay with you on a roadcourse. That's what M3's are built for. There is SO much focus on 0-60 and the 1/4 mile that the real reason we all drive BMW's gets lost--it is a superb driver's car. Vettes, Z28's etc. have always been faster but can't equal the balance and driveability of a BMW. If they have a car in the 4.8-5.0 second range and sub-14 1/4 mile and an improved chassis that is one hell of a car for a sedan. If it isn't enough power for you, by an old Supra TT or something.
: KJK 91 M5
Right up front...The IF ..."well under 50K vs over 50K". I find it extremely hard to believe that the price difference would be that much IF a 3.4 is eventually released. The point I was making was about value. 10HP and .15 displacement doesn't make a damn bit of difference. If the 3.25 sticks for a while and aftermarket tuners allow us to have even more fun with it..then that would be fine with me. But if there is a 3.4, a totally new and different engine, in 2002 with a slight price increase...that's the point.
As far as 0-60 in 4.8 to 5.0...I may be mistaken but I don't believe the Euro with it's 321HP turned those kind of numbers. Sure, gearing can change that....but that really doesn't matter.
As far as more power is concerned....been there, done that, faster than a SupraTT but we both know that's not what it's all about. The reasons you cited are exactly why I drive a 99M3.
© 1997 -
2009
Jump Internet Inc. All rights reserved.
