Jump to content
WI BIMMERS - Wisconsin's BMW Community

Which M3 is Best M3?


B C

Which M3 is Best M3?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Which M3 is Best M3?

  2. 2. Most Hated M3



Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, straight6pwr said:

those are opinions, not facts.

whats more of an engineering achievement - a single man using a shovel, wood and ropes to tip a 20 ton rocks on its end, or modern crane that lifts it into place? ya, the crane is faster at completing the task, but it took millions of dollars in equipment and tools, thousands of pounds of materials, and hundreds of hours to build it first. the man just ate some tacos,  sawed some trees, and dug a hole.

in my opinion a car/motor that is simpler is more of an engineering achievement.

This is a terrible analogy.  #1. That single mans results are not repeatable nearly as easily as the crane.  #2. By this logic the man who digs his own hole and shits in it has achieved a far greater engineering achievement than the guy who invents the toilet and associated plumbing to shit in because the hole in the ground is simpler.  In your example I can move for more rocks at a faster rate than the single man doing it manually.  I can also operate that piece of equipment for a longer period of time without rest where as the human design has inherent flaws built in such as the need for food, water and sleep.  The piece of equipment also won't age the same way as the human.  In 10 years that man may be dead at which point I need another taco eating, tree cutting, hole digging man to replace him.  Also that man being a man it can be assumed that eventually he'll want to find an easier way to perform this task... which is when he finds the crane and realizes that it's far superior to him doing it on his own. 

I'm not for over complicating things but simpler doesn't always mean better.  No intelligent person is out there lauding the superiority of the carburetor and drum brakes because they're far simpler than that blasted electronic fuel injection and disc brake set up.  I can fully understand and appreciate "simplify and add lightness" but it's not an end all be all for engineering achievement.  Relating this back to the topic, the S65 creates more power than the S54 while getting similar fuel mileage.  The S65 creates more energy using almost the same amount of fuel.  That alone is an engineering win for the S65 over the S54 by adding some technowizardry that we never see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it all boils down to the fact that 'best' is completely relative. A us-spec e36 m3 (in good shape, up to date on maintenance, etc) is simple, reliable, and cheaper to maintain than any other m3 of the same condition. This makes it the best for what I want in a fun daily driver, but it doesn't make it better to someone looking for the best in overall performance or build quality. In my opinion: the e30 M3 looks better than all the other m3's, the e9x m3 definitely sounds better than all the other m3's, want something for the track: e46, investment/classic sports car: e30, comfortable daily driver that also rips: e9x, live for the sound of a shaken up tin can full of bees: f80.... but a lot of people may disagree with these. It just depends where your priorities are, your tastes, and what you plan to do with it.

As far as one generation being better than others from an engineering standpoint, it makes sense that each generation is 'better' than the previous. No car is going to be technologically worse than its predecessor, bmw's ///marketing department would never let that happen. Generally, 0-60, track times, power, fuel economy, emissions, etc. will all be the same as before or lower, with the sum of everything being an improvement on paper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, patsbimmer1 said:

This is a terrible analogy.  #1. That single mans results are not repeatable nearly as easily as the crane.  #2. By this logic the man who digs his own hole and shits in it has achieved a far greater engineering achievement than the guy who invents the toilet and associated plumbing to shit in because the hole in the ground is simpler.  In your example I can move for more rocks at a faster rate than the single man doing it manually.  I can also operate that piece of equipment for a longer period of time without rest where as the human design has inherent flaws built in such as the need for food, water and sleep.  The piece of equipment also won't age the same way as the human.  In 10 years that man may be dead at which point I need another taco eating, tree cutting, hole digging man to replace him.  Also that man being a man it can be assumed that eventually he'll want to find an easier way to perform this task... which is when he finds the crane and realizes that it's far superior to him doing it on his own. 

I'm not for over complicating things but simpler doesn't always mean better.  No intelligent person is out there lauding the superiority of the carburetor and drum brakes because they're far simpler than that blasted electronic fuel injection and disc brake set up.  I can fully understand and appreciate "simplify and add lightness" but it's not an end all be all for engineering achievement.  Relating this back to the topic, the S65 creates more power than the S54 while getting similar fuel mileage.  The S65 creates more energy using almost the same amount of fuel.  That alone is an engineering win for the S65 over the S54 by adding some technowizardry that we never see.

I think you illustrated his point perfectly. All of your arguments are based on an economic view of "efficiency". When human beings are concerned aesthetics take precedence over economics. Humans are ashamed of their waste and excess, so the simpler, more minimal solutions are considered more elegent and desirable.

No car enthusiast makes purchasing decision based on economic efficiency, otherwise we'd all be riding bicycles, scooters or kei cars to work... 

If you want to get really philosophical, the economic arguments about what engineering solution is better reach a dead end when you try to figure out what the end goal is. To determine which solution gets you closer to the goal, you have to know what the goal is. From an economic point of view human life has no value whatsoever, other than to create more capital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... killed the thread with that one. *high fives*

For the record, it wasn't my intention for that to come off as a big negative downerfest. My history has a deep strain of nihilism built in to it that most people aren't accustomed to. Once you get used to it, it doesn't really have a positive or negative connotation to it, it's just something that is.

I don't view car culture as a waste, or something frivolous; actually quite the opposite. The choices that people make as far what as what chassis to start with, or what modifications to make to it are (should) be based on their own personal ideals and goals. The amount of time, consideration, and resources which people are willing to invest into their builds can speak louder about who they are and what their values are than a handful of words ever could.

So, to get back on topic, it's obvious that El Snappo's priorities in life have shifted from cars to family. As a perpetual bachelor, I can't say that I understand it, but I'm certainly willing to respect it. Again, maybe I'm a little too ignorant, but in my mind, that rules out the e46 M3. It seem like the real debate here should be e9x 335 with bolt-ons vs e9x m3...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HipMF said:

Hmm... killed the thread with that one. *high fives*

For the record, it wasn't my intention for that to come off as a big negative downerfest. My history has a deep strain of nihilism built in to it that most people aren't accustomed to. Once you get used to it, it doesn't really have a positive or negative connotation to it, it's just something that is.

I don't view car culture as a waste, or something frivolous; actually quite the opposite. The choices that people make as far what as what chassis to start with, or what modifications to make to it are (should) be based on their own personal ideals and goals. The amount of time, consideration, and resources which people are willing to invest into their builds can speak louder about who they are and what their values are than a handful of words ever could.

So, to get back on topic, it's obvious that El Snappo's priorities in life have shifted from cars to family. As a perpetual bachelor, I can't say that I understand it, but I'm certainly willing to respect it. Again, maybe I'm a little too ignorant, but in my mind, that rules out the e46 M3. It seem like the real debate here should be e9x 335 with bolt-ons vs e9x m3...

It wasn't nihilism.  You gave value to life by saying it only exhisted to create capital.  What you're saying is more of a marxist thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2018 at 4:54 PM, straight6pwr said:

those are opinions, not facts.

whats more of an engineering achievement - a single man using a shovel, wood and ropes to tip a 20 ton rocks on its end, or modern crane that lifts it into place? ya, the crane is faster at completing the task, but it took millions of dollars in equipment and tools, thousands of pounds of materials, and hundreds of hours to build it first. the man just ate some tacos,  sawed some trees, and dug a hole.

in my opinion a car/motor that is simpler is more of an engineering achievement.

They are facts - we're talking about the difference between 2 particular motors and my premise is evolution of engineering. 

You have a preference for simplicity, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm talking purely about technical advancements over time. Also, your argument disregards the concept of scale and puts no value on it - the crane can do things at scale such that it is exponentially superior to the man with the shovel, wood and ropes. Part of the achievement is how much you can do in so little amount of time with the crane, and I would argue that the R&D and cost of time/materials and hundreds of hours to build it isn't really an argument against it given the absolute ROI you get on the backend for making the design an model a physical reality. You are arguing a poor man's ingenuity over results, based on one scenario's lack of advanced tooling ability. Engineering "achievement" the way we understand it in the world is based on what it can produce when it's done. What is the value-add, so to speak. That's why there's a hell of a lot more money to be made in STEM fields than retail stores selling ropes, shovels, and wood. 

I know we're talking about cars but since you went outside the scope of that and used an example of a man with a shovel and rope vs. a crane - space shuttles are insanely complicated and require absurd amounts of time to program and test and verify. They fly in outer fucking space in a controlled way. Highly complicated. Nothing simple about it. Are we to believe that it isn't a fact that the engineering required to make that a reality in a controlled manner isn't a high level of achievement, just because some crazy Russian could in simple terms build a home-grown rocket and shoot it willy nilly up into the sky so we call it the same thing? Because that's basically your argument. In the end, the man with a shovel and rope and wood can't even come close to building the final product that a crane can, no matter how ingenious that man is. He can accomplish some semblance of the same thing at much smaller scale, but in real terms, it won't even be close to comparable. If you were able to produce an example of an apples to apples result, then I 100% would agree that simplicity and elegance is more of an achievement in this arena. I've been in the software world for 15 years - if someone can produce the exact same results with more elegant and simple code, I will 100% back that every time as the more impressive feat. I just think the way you are arguing this is flawed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, patsbimmer1 said:

It wasn't nihilism.  You gave value to life by saying it only exhisted to create capital.  What you're saying is more of a marxist thought.

I wasn't really saying that was my point of view, I don't think that life has any objective value or meaning. The argument that was being made was that one engine was superior to another because it made more power and consumed less fuel, or that a crane was better for tipping rocks than a taco-eating human because it's technically superior solution. I believe that those are facts (provided there are enough rocks that need tipping that the crane eventually pays for it's self).

The bigger question is what is the point of an engine or tipping a 20-ton rock on it's end? If you goal is to create some economic value, then one solution can definitely be proven superior to another. However, we're not purchasing engines or tipping rocks with the intention of making a profit. Quite the opposite, it's a luxury expenditure that we pursue stricktly for it's aesthetic value, which is completely subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2018 at 11:28 AM, i_love_cars said:

They are facts - we're talking about the difference between 2 particular motors and my premise is evolution of engineering. 

You have a preference for simplicity, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm talking purely about technical advancements over time. Also, your argument disregards the concept of scale and puts no value on it - the crane can do things at scale such that it is exponentially superior to the man with the shovel, wood and ropes. Part of the achievement is how much you can do in so little amount of time with the crane, and I would argue that the R&D and cost of time/materials and hundreds of hours to build it isn't really an argument against it given the absolute ROI you get on the backend for making the design an model a physical reality. You are arguing a poor man's ingenuity over results, based on one scenario's lack of advanced tooling ability. Engineering "achievement" the way we understand it in the world is based on what it can produce when it's done. What is the value-add, so to speak. That's why there's a hell of a lot more money to be made in STEM fields than retail stores selling ropes, shovels, and wood. 

I know we're talking about cars but since you went outside the scope of that and used an example of a man with a shovel and rope vs. a crane - space shuttles are insanely complicated and require absurd amounts of time to program and test and verify. They fly in outer fucking space in a controlled way. Highly complicated. Nothing simple about it. Are we to believe that it isn't a fact that the engineering required to make that a reality in a controlled manner isn't a high level of achievement, just because some crazy Russian could in simple terms build a home-grown rocket and shoot it willy nilly up into the sky so we call it the same thing? Because that's basically your argument. In the end, the man with a shovel and rope and wood can't even come close to building the final product that a crane can, no matter how ingenious that man is. He can accomplish some semblance of the same thing at much smaller scale, but in real terms, it won't even be close to comparable. If you were able to produce an example of an apples to apples result, then I 100% would agree that simplicity and elegance is more of an achievement in this arena. I've been in the software world for 15 years - if someone can produce the exact same results with more elegant and simple code, I will 100% back that every time as the more impressive feat. I just think the way you are arguing this is flawed. 

you both are still arguing that what makes engineering 'better' is just efficiency. that's an opinion. yes, generally when something gets re-engineered the goal is to make it more efficient, but there are alot of types of efficiency, and engineering can be about aesthetics, like HipMF states, energy efficiency, cost reduction, shifts in methodology, etc etc.

my example of the man vs. crane is not a bad analogy. it suggesting that what makes engineering 'better' is a matter of perspective, scenario, goals, etc. The man lifting stones with simple tools is using less energy and materials at the expense of time. a crane does it in less time at the expense of energy and materials. in one scenario, where materials and energy is at a premium, the man is a 'better' engineering solution. in another scenario where there is plenty of materials and energy, the crane would be 'better'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
52 minutes ago, straight6pwr said:

easy: e34 m5 touring, because, well, its the only m5 touring.

Not so fast. They did make an e60 M5 touring, although we never got it here in the states and I’ve seen conflicting info on whether or not you could get them with a manual. I’d have a really tough time deciding between the e61 and e34, a v10/6spd wagon sounds pretty fun, but so does a s38. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, P_Roloff said:

Not so fast. They did make an e60 M5 touring, although we never got it here in the states and I’ve seen conflicting info on whether or not you could get them with a manual. I’d have a really tough time deciding between the e61 and e34, a v10/6spd wagon sounds pretty fun, but so does a s38. 

I always thought the US was the only place to get a manual trans in both the e60 and f10 M5's, but It's entirely possible I'm wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if a manual e61 m5 was never a thing (though it would certainly be glorious if someone built one!)

It's entirely possible @straight6pwr is choosing to ignore the existence of the e60 haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, m42b32 said:

I always thought the US was the only place to get a manual trans in both the e60 and f10 M5's, but It's entirely possible I'm wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if a manual e61 m5 was never a thing (though it would certainly be glorious if someone built one!)

It's entirely possible @straight6pwr is choosing to ignore the existence of the e60 haha

That may very well be that only the u.s. got the manual, I don’t honestly know much about the e6x cars other than the e61 m5 existed at all lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here lies your answer:

 

"What transmissions were offered on the E60 M5 sedan and E61 M5 Touring?


The majority of E60 M5 sedans and all E61 M5 Tourings were equipped with a third-generation Sequential M Gearbox (SMG III) with a single clutch, 11 DRIVELOGIC shift programs (5 in automatic mode, 6 in manual mode) and launch control. Unlike earlier SMG systems used in the E36 M3 (SMG I) and E46 M3 (SMG II), the 7-speed SMG III was developed from scratch to work in concert with the S85 motor and was not adapted from an existing manual gearbox. It is capable of shift times that are 20 percent faster than those of the earlier SMG II transmission. Gear ratios for the SMG III are as follows: 3.99 (1), 2.65 (2), 1.81 (3), 1.39 (4), 1.16 (5), 1.00 (6), 0.83 (7). The final drive ratio is 3.62:1.

Due to market pressure from North American customers, BMW introduced a manual transmission option for E60 M5 sedans sold in the United States and Canada beginning with September, 2006 production. The ZF Type G 6-speed manual gearbox was shared with the E60 550i and carried over to the E60 M5 with the same internal ratios: 4.05 (1), 2.40 (2), 1.58 (3), 1.19 (4), 1.00 (5), 0.87 (6). However, it retained the significantly shorter 3.62:1 final drive from the SMG-equipped M5."

 

-The Offical BMW Registry

http://www.bmwmregistry.com/model_faq.php?id=21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.