In Reply to: Re: Which year best for M3? posted by Pras on February 10, 2000 at 13:56:30:
Thanks for your input.
One question I've always had is when it first came out, the car mags recorded 0-60 times around 6 sec. The last tests (on 99 cars) show times around 5.5 sec. Is there usually a big variance between cars, or the new models are faster? Or are the car mag testers just idiots?
Not necessarily interested in drag racing, but it's good to know.
: Hey, welcome...
: The 95 engine was a little smaller, but seems to have about the same performance as the 96+. The one benefit there is that you can add a turbo pretty easily and the other mods are a less expensive.
: There is a sport and a luxury package that you have to choose between on the 96-97 (years might be wrong) - it's essentially trim and the cars perform the same. 98s and 99s came in one version only.
: I've got a 99 and love it. Had some little problems here and there (still have a few). Good luck!!
: : Hello,
: : This is my first time posting on this board, so please bear with me shoud I make gross mistakes, offend anyone or post a question that was debated many times before.
: : I am seriously thinking about getting a second car and was wondering what year is best for a used, low mileage M3 (2 door).
: : I know the 95 has a smaller, higher-revving (?) engine and that the 96+ cars are OBDII compliant (not necessarily better) and have a slightly torquier engine. What I would like to know is how they differ in driving, options, other mechanical differences. Was the suspension or brakes changed in these years?
: : I was also considering an E30, but it's hard to find perfect low mileage unmodified cars.
: : Thanks to all who will take time to respond,
: : Andrei D