[DakarE36]

The description says it all, if anyone has driven the current generation 328 and a e36 m3, tell me in your opinion what was the better handling car.

or if you havent driven one or either, post what you think would handle better to your best knowledge (if your the latter, please post why you think so.)

Thanks a bunch.

[Add1ct]

Road and Track tested the 95 M3's specs at 0-60 in 5.4 and 13.9/99.6 and .94 on the skidpad. taken from http://www.live4speed.net/cars/c/che...w-1995-m3.html

.94 for a car that was intro'd in fall 94/ winter 94-95 was probably near supercars of the time if not better, right?

[E82tt6]

You joking? The E36 M3 will handle rings around the E92 M3, forget about a plain ole 329i :-D

[TK-421]

I'm glad you put '95 for the M3. The 3.0L is sooo much better than the 3.2L

[ZJP]

This is a joke of a thread.

[spacedogg]

Anyone have stats on what the dry/wet weight of these two cars are like?

[Artmasterx]

The 328xi sedan is listed at 3582 lb curb weight (230 hp/200 torque). The 95 M3 is listed at 3175 lb (240 hp/225 torque). For reference, the 128i is listed at 3252 lb.

[FStop7]

Originally Posted by E82tt6

You joking? The E36 M3 will handle rings around the E92 M3, forget about a plain ole 329i :-D

wat

[spacedogg]

Originally Posted by Artmasterx

The 328xi sedan is listed at 3582 lb curb weight (230 hp/200 torque). The 95 M3 is listed at 3175 lb (240 hp/225 torque). For reference, the 128i is listed at 3252 lb.

So...if I have my calculation right:

Horsepower per Tonne:
2008 328xi - 141.56 hp/tonne
1995 M3 - 166.65 hp/tonne

And just for general reference (From Fastestlaps.com--which gives higher numbers for the E36 M3)
2008 335i E92 - 187.41 hp/tonne
1993 BMW M3 (E36) - 198.32 hp/tonne
2003 BMW M3 (E46) - 216.17 hp/tonne
2009 C63 AMG - 254.37 hp/tonne
2009 BMW M3 E92 - 255.95 hp/tonne
2003 BMW M3 CSL (E46) - 256.37 hp/tonne
2009 Nissan GTR - 271.29 hp/tonne
2009 Zonda F - 701 hp/tonne
2009 Ariel Atom 500 - 1,000 hp/tonne

But hp/tonne ratings are not everything. That 1995 M3 is super light in comparison to everything made now...that's going to have real positive effects for braking, ease in change of direction, corner entry and exit speeds. Technology for suspensions have come a long way...but not enough to re-write physics.

[E82tt6]

Originally Posted by FStop7

wat

The E36 M3 handles better than the E90 M3.

Those who have driven both will know what I mean ;-)

[FStop7]

Originally Posted by E82tt6

The E36 M3 handles better than the E90 M3.

Those who have driven both will know what I mean ;-)

I have driven both and you're wrong, but thanks.

[rcracer_tx]

Originally Posted by E82tt6

The E36 M3 handles better than the E90 M3.

Those who have driven both will know what I mean ;-)

I agree it has a better feel to it, but the e90 M3 feels like a boat of a car...

Specs say the e90 would be better though...

[Heinzftw]

E36 by far. Such a great car! I will own one within the next few years.

[MrHarris]

E90 M3 feels like a boat compared to the E36 M3, but stock for stock in reality the E90 M3 handles better.

[footie]

Originally Posted by spacedogg

But hp/tonne ratings are not everything. That 1995 M3 is super light in comparison to everything made now...that's going to have real positive effects for braking, ease in change of direction, corner entry and exit speeds. Technology for suspensions have come a long way...but not enough to re-write physics.

When you look and how much shorter the E92 can brake, it's higher lateral G, etc, then I am not sure that the comments of not being able to re-write physics is correct.

[FStop7]

Not to mention a much faster slalom speed, which is one of the better indicators of handling capability, short of full lap times.

[DakarE36]

just wanted to prove to my freind that he was wrong about his car handling better then mine, weve both driven eachother cars (my '95 m3, and his 08 328xi) and i just wanted a frame of reference from some people who know about cars.

[94JZA80]

Originally Posted by Add1ct

Road and Track tested the 95 M3's specs at 0-60 in 5.4 and 13.9/99.6 and .94 on the skidpad. taken from http://www.live4speed.net/cars/c/che...w-1995-m3.html

.94 for a car that was intro'd in fall 94/ winter 94-95 was probably near supercars of the time if not better, right?

lateral G's aren't everything - in fact, by that logic, the MKIV is a better handling car than the e36 M3 b/c it managed 0.98 G's on the Road & Track skid pad back in 1993...and take it from someone who owns one and has driven both - the MKIV Supra is not a better handling car than the e36 M3 STOCK FOR STOCK...so skid pad numbers can be misleading...

besides, its quite easy to get a car around a skid pad once you've adjusted to the car's natural tendencies (understeer/oversteer/road feel/etc.) b/c, in effect, you're just holding a constant turn radius and constant speed on a skid pad. people tend to give too much credit to the "lateral forces" a car can manage in a turn at speed, and not enough credit to a more important factor - the transitions between lateral AND longitudinal forces (i.e. transitioning from a left turn to a right turn, or vice versa, OR transitioning from full throttle to heavy braking, or perhaps some combination of the two).

so i can tell you that, while my Supra generally feels like it grips better (and slides less) in the corners than the few e36 M3's i've driven, it doesn't transition quite as stably/solidly from a left to right turn, or from heavy acceleration to heavy braking as well as the e36 M3. could i fix that? yes, but that would involve some weight reduction and weight re-distribution, and then its no longer an "apples Vs apples" comparison.



...as regards the original topic, e36 M3 > 328xi (regardless of chassis) in the handling department...stock for stock anyways.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by E82tt6

The E36 M3 handles better than the E90 M3.

Those who have driven both will know what I mean ;-)

The E36 is definitely more nimble, but I don't think it handles better