BMW E36 M3

[viceroy]

Pulled up behind one of these tonight and thought that it might be nice to see how well I could keep up with him since I know I have zero chance of doing anything that could embaress him.

So lights turn green and I stick to his bumper, after about 3 or 4 seconds I think hes not gonna go for it, so I change up to second, and drop slightly back, at which point he starts accelerating away hard, so I put pedal to the metal to try keep up but having just changed up Im at a real disadvantage.

After what I reckon was about 600m, we catch up to traffic and Im about 5 car lengths behind him.

Was he trying, or was he not even bothering about me? Because i sure as anything was giving it all.

 

[The Stig...]

They certainly are quick motors, perhaps it could have been a lesser model kitted up?

I would have beat you!

The Stig...

 

[Ben j]

he wasnt trying me thinks...

 

[viceroy]

Thanks Ben j...I was kinda thinking the same.

Still trying to guage the 172s performance against other cars but nobody game.

 

[Ben j]

well think. 300+ bhp vs 172bhp (cant remember what theyve got) hed go with ease if he wanted.



yea races tend to die down this time of year. just wait for all that summer street racing ahead!!!

 

[Jellyhead]

Ive had an E36 M3 evo and if he was going for it youd know about it. Theyll do 70 in 2nd, 112 in 3rd, 146 in 4th, lets not go there..... ;-)

The only surefire way of telling an M3 is to look at the exhaust. If it was an M3, looking from above (down at the exhaust) the left hand of the two pipes is about 8mm shorter and the butterfly valve on the right pipe is not visible......

They also have a very distinctive sound, not easily described but different to all other BMWs.

Hope that helps

 

[TB1]

Work this one out....

271bhp, 1500 kg, 170lbs of torque =?

Even my poorly scoob (at the time with 224bhp) outpaced one of the standard E36 M3s, they aint that quick



Tony

 

[Jeff XSi]

286 bhp and 235 lb/ft torque matey in an e36 m3 and the evo was 321 bhp and 258lb/ft.



hmm...172 isnt close. The M3 is a supercar its in 911 territory

 

[Will16V]

E36 M3 are too fast, tried in my 16V, few weeks ago, so much power - didnt stand a chance....

 

[viceroy]

Hmmm.

does anyone know a formula so I could work out how far a car has travelled if I know the terminal speed, the distance, the time and the initial speed.

Ive forgotten all my old high school science.

I know strictly speaking no car would have an exactly linear acceleration but it would be interesting to know.

 

[Jeff XSi]

well if you know the distance already why would you want to work out how far the car has travelled?

 

[Ian P]

I had a go at a brand new M3 coming off a roundabout on to a motorway slip road a few months ago, in the dry, and he completely embaressed me.

 

[RobFenn]

My dad has one with the 19inch alloys. He kicks my arse but you have to rev the f**k out of them cos theres not much torque. I almost lost my backend chasing him lol. Front end grip in them is phenomenal, considering front suspension isnt that advanced. Brakes are very good and the SMG gearbox makes you feel like a kangaroo lol! Sound great at 8000 revs!!

 

[RobFenn]

oh and that formula is

D
------
S x T

so for distance its speed times time, in seconds. For example youd be doing 30km/h x 100 seconds so thats 30000metres..i think lol

duno how to work metres to miles and mph etc tho

 

[RobFenn]

sorry my dads an E46 so whatever i said doesnt matter lol

 

[KDF]

nevermind someone else posed the formula

 

[TimO172]

I had a run in on the M62 yesterday between what seemed to be an E36 M3 with all correct bits, and I could stick on his bumper between 60 and approx 110, then began to creep away

 

[Craggy]

tim, might have a vid of me and you racing soon, 2 live got it but its on tape not computer, dont know how to convert it tho!

 

[Craggy]

cant say im surprised you stuck with that either, your cars got a right top end on it!

 

[viceroy]

I dont want to work out har far one travels at a constant speed

I want to work out distance covered in the time it takes to accelerate from 0-100kph

 

[technicalman]

Rob, you do need to rev it, but it goes all the way in any gear and will leave you searching for a cog thanks to the abundance of torque.

Its the worlds only 100% car IMO, and it sounds like you havent mastered the art of SMG yet, you dont just get in and drive like an F1 maestro. Its taken me 6 months to master it, but what a joy it is too behold when you leave some cocky little f*** getting tail happy trying to catch you.

And launch control set offs.....I will get you a spoon so you can eat my ass.

 

[technicalman]

Dont take that too seriously, I just love a good motor, and the valver in my household is becoming a 172 in Jan simply cos that motor is the best £11K any person could spend on a car. No arguments, I look at my beemer and the 172 in the same light, souped up shopping carts that belong on the track!

 

[SteveJJH]

Assuming linear accelleration (which is nothing like a car accellerating), you just get you initial speed and subtract it from your final speed, half the number and add it to your initial speed.

so 0 to 100 would be 100 minus 0 divided by 2 plus 0, which is 50.

You then assume the car travelled at 50 the whole time to get the distance.