Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Let the trash talking begin; 3.0 vs 3.2

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    542
    My Cars
    1995 540i M-Sport

    Let the trash talking begin; 3.0 vs 3.2

    My stock 95 3.0///M has yet to meet a 3.2 that could run. I don't know if it is the driver or the car but I just wanted to start a fight. In other words, "am I lucky or am I not racing the right people?"

    All I know is I almost totaled my car two weeks ago and when I was looking for a replacement car (luckly my car is fixable) all eyes were on a 95. I like pep more than torque and 95's have a certain appeal b/c they are not as common. Maybe my oppinion is a bit one sided???

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    594
    My Cars
    1995 BMW M3
    Depends. Stock vs. Stock a 3.2 will beat a 3.0 becuase of torque, though the difference is pretty small so it comes down to driver skill. Its not THAT big of a difference.

    Later,
    Josh
    96 Lux M3 ~RIP~
    95 Lux M3- Purple people eater!!!!!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,881
    My Cars
    No Car

    ok

    The 95's can be faster than the 96+ you just have to be and good driver and hit the optimum shift points. All you'd need really is an intake and you could "hang" with any stock 96+ M3 most probably. Thats just what i think
    ________
    NEW JERSEY MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY
    Last edited by SupaBimma; 02-22-2011 at 09:28 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    210
    you guys are crazy, needing aftermarket parts to "hang" laff

    a 95 can "hang with a 96 + up stock, easily.

    i don't see too many dynoing 213 RWHP.. and i haven't seen more then 5lbs more tq then me either.. stock that is.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    tx
    Posts
    7,395
    My Cars
    1970 Cadillac DeVille
    Originally posted by rockstar
    you guys are crazy, needing aftermarket parts to "hang" laff

    a 95 can "hang with a 96 + up stock, easily.

    i don't see too many dynoing 213 RWHP.. and i haven't seen more then 5lbs more tq then me either.. stock that is.
    My bone stock 97 dyno'd at 215.5hp and 217.4 ft lbs.
    In the slow lane

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Louisville KY
    Posts
    350
    My stock 98 M3/4 dyno'd at 219HP and 225TQ. Looks like another underated motor from the guru's at the ///M division.
    Eric G.
    Louisville KY
    gschomi@aol.com
    98 BMW M3/4 cosmos
    01 Protege ES (auto X/commuter)
    84 xj Cherokee "the rock crawler." (4 sale)
    BMWCCA#188400

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,307
    My Cars
    None

    DANM YOU GUYS!!!



    I only got 208 rear wheel horepower (250bhp) stock on a dynojet dyno. Max I got was 219 with my cat back exhaust removed.
    This was like 2 years ago in a 90F dyno room. At least I still got a 14.161 on the 1/4 in stock form.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    594
    My Cars
    1995 BMW M3
    Jon, how hot was it when you got the 14.161 on a stock M? Thats absolutely amazing!!!!! You are one helluva driver. I've heard of modded Ms dipping into the 13s but that time is GREAT for stock. I'm impressed

    Later,
    Josh
    96 Lux M3 ~RIP~
    95 Lux M3- Purple people eater!!!!!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,307
    My Cars
    None
    Hey Josh!

    On that evening, I was with TampaTurboM3 and I may have been racing agnist him that night when I got that my fastest time. It was at DeSoto Dragway and somewhere around late Janurary of 2000 so it happened during a cold front being somewhere in the 50s.

    I just found my timeslips as well:
    Poor reaction time of .966
    60ft in 2.124
    1/4 in 14.161
    MPH in 97.69

    Fastest MPH that night was 98.06 with a 14.298.

    My M3 kinda suffered the consequences though after this event. I have a low whine on 1st gear when slowing down (syncro wear) and I broke off my differential bolts away from the subframe which cost me $250 to repair.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    594
    My Cars
    1995 BMW M3
    Ouch... i need to go to the track now... my car is getting its new clutch in as we speak. It is getting UUC TME and bushings too. I'm gonna take it to the track sometime soon to see what i can run. I'm in south florida too, and its like 80-90 now lol. No chance of getting more hp due to cooler/denser air charge. :p

    Later,
    Josh
    96 Lux M3 ~RIP~
    95 Lux M3- Purple people eater!!!!!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    tx
    Posts
    7,395
    My Cars
    1970 Cadillac DeVille

    Re: DANM YOU GUYS!!!

    Originally posted by Jon Caldito


    I only got 208 rear wheel horepower (250bhp) stock on a dynojet dyno. Max I got was 219 with my cat back exhaust removed.
    This was like 2 years ago in a 90F dyno room. At least I still got a 14.161 on the 1/4 in stock form.
    Jon, what the hell are you complaining about?! In due time you'll have 400 horses and be terrorizing P-cars and Z06 vettes. . . hehehe
    In the slow lane

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    210
    jon, don't feel bad,. Different dynos on diff days yield diff results. Also, if the dyno does the autoadjust for altitude and what now, that has a tendency to return some pretty unrealistic numbers.

    Anyway, point is, 3.0 /3.2 are by far close enough it would totally depend on the driver.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    tx
    Posts
    7,395
    My Cars
    1970 Cadillac DeVille
    Originally posted by rockstar
    Anyway, point is, 3.0 /3.2 are by far close enough it would totally depend on the driver.
    Agreed.
    In the slow lane

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Riverside, Southern California
    Posts
    193
    My Cars
    M3
    my 95 3.0 is faster than my 3.2 was ever going to be. Bone stock I hit 99.5mph with a slipping clutch! And yes this is with radar gun taking average of mph in last 60ft for 1/4 runs. Time was 14.09s. I am sure I could have got 14.0 w/ 100mph trap speed had it been my first run of the night (clutch would have been sound....was doing back to back runs though). CYA>PM3
    pm332@hotmail.com

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Rotten Apple
    Posts
    215

    Angry

    When I had the 3.0 I ran into a couple of problems ...

    the oil sprocket came off during hard turning and have been known to do this as there where not torqued right .. The plastic water pump ... When I did the switch to 3.2 the car felt a lot stronger and the 3.2 was made better as all the problems with the 3.0 were addressed ... I was in pika's 95 M3 with chip, injectors, cai , ACS exhaust, and 540 hfm and went side by side with Josh's 97M3 shrick intake , throttle body , Dinan stage 5 chip , exhaust, cai , and Under drive pulley and at around 100 mph he started to pull hard away from me


    My view out of the Delano Hotel in Miami

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •