E46 Fanatics Forum banner
1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
TiAg 330i
Joined
·
543 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Luxury aside, the stock Evo is a good match for a M3.

- [email protected] and [email protected]
- 0-60 in 5.0 or less
- Weighs 3263 lbs
- Mileage 18/26
- Full-Time All-Wheel Drive with 50/50 Viscous Coupled, Center Differential, Front Open-Type Differential and a Rear Mechanical Limited-Slip Differential
- 4-Wheel Ventilated BREMBO™ Disc Brakes with Aluminium Caliper Housings
- Top speed 156 mph


Plus, there is still tons of room for engine mods
- A single chip can boost Evo to 350HP+
- With some tuning, it can reach 400-500 HP, like Supra
- 9000 RPM Tachometer is an indicator
- 170 mph speedometer

Better yet, a fully loaded Evo runs only $32k. That's $20k less than a M3. Put $10k in mod, it will smoke even a M5. ;)
 

·
TheOnlyConstantIsChange
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Yes stock it is a good match becuase it is far easier to launch then an M3 will be, if modded vs modded it will win for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
I love the evo but which would I rather be in when going to take out one of my clients? M3 is just the epitomy of balance. It's not the best of anything but it's top 10 in every category that's for sure. It's all about balance with BMW :). Luxury, sport, classiness, safety. YOU NAME IT!! :)
 

·
TiAg 330i
Joined
·
543 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
biggiestuff said:
I love the evo but which would I rather be in when going to take out one of my clients? M3 is just the epitomy of balance. It's not the best of anything but it's top 10 in every category that's for sure. It's all about balance with BMW :). Luxury, sport, classiness, safety. YOU NAME IT!! :)
yes, of course M3 win hands down when talking about class, but i meant "luxury aside".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
ak330i said:


yes, of course M3 win hands down when talking about class, but i meant "luxury aside".
then EVO wins. Well I'm not sure about the EVO 8 but R&T rated the evo VII above the m3 around the track. It's hard for the m3 driver to win when he's too busy looking good hehehe j/k
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
marv said:
yeah, but its still a mitsubishi......... Lancer.. uggh
stfu u idiot. why do we always get fuken fa99ots that always make stupid comments like "its not a bmw" "its a mitsubishi" etc

the original poster said "luxury aside", no need for dum shiet ignorant comments like "its still a mitsubishi"
 

·
Law Enforcer
…’22 Chalk Gray 992 Carrera C2S
Joined
·
2,599 Posts
tribal azn said:


stfu u idiot. why do we always get fuken fa99ots that always make stupid comments like "its not a bmw" "its a mitsubishi" etc

the original poster said "luxury aside", no need for dum shiet ignorant comments like "its still a mitsubishi"
Tribal Azn bro, I'm convinced that you need anger management classes. :D But for the record, I raced an EVO8 about a week 1/2 ago. He launched on me, and got about a car or so. At the top of 3rd gear, I was about 1/2 a car ahead or so. It's a damn quick car, so I give it props. The M3 will pull on the top end, and from a rolling start, the M3 should do well.
 

·
TheOnlyConstantIsChange
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
digitalgm said:
Evo
0-60 = 4.9
1320 = 13.5
Lat G = .98

M3
0-60 - 4.8
1320 = 13.3
Lat G = .96

Def a good matchup but Ill still take the M3. Hell, I did! :D

AdamR

Where did you get the Lat G number for the M, I have last months issue of Road and Track right in frnot of me and it shows .89 for the M. :dunno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,685 Posts
1. 1/4 mile is a better indicator of a car's acceleration. Road & Track recorded 13.8 s, compared to the manual M3's avg of 13.3 s, & 13.18 s by MotorTrend.

2. Even though turbo's respond well to chips, chip claims are often exaggerated & unaccompanied by any real dyno.

3. Both base & fully loaded prices are not necessarily a fair comparison. It does not account for the typical markup of $5 - $10 K on the Evo (AutoWeek), & the M3 has much more total equipment/features in base & fully-loaded form.

4. Skidpad numbers are a better reflection of grip (better tires + awd). Slalom numbers are more significant, in which case the M3 has been rated as high as 70 mph (MotorTrend).

5. Despite Brembos, M3 has better braking distances (111 - 113 ft for the M3, 117 ft for the Evo).

M3 manual (MT Jan-02)
1/4 Mile, 13.18 s
Slalom, 70 mph
60 - 0 Braking, 111 ft

Evo (R & T Mar-03)
1/4 mile, 13.8 s
Slalom, 68.7 s
60 - 0 Braking, 117 ft

I don't know where the 13.5 s, & 114 ft figures for the Evo come from, the only full test I know of was done by R & T, unless they're for the Japanese Evo.

Stock, the M3 outperforms the Evo in acceleration, braking, & arguably handling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,917 Posts
Excellent car for the price but still they are completely different beasts. But as you said luxury aside that is amazing performance for just over 30,000 :thumbup:
 

·
Law Enforcer
…’22 Chalk Gray 992 Carrera C2S
Joined
·
2,599 Posts
I respect Motor Trend over R&T!! In either case, my car was faster than the EVO, though he got a pretty sick jump on me because of AWD, but I quickly closed the gap. If I had to choose, I think I'd take the EVO over a Z though. Though I do find the Z nice looking, the EVO has amazing potential and is still faster than the Z in stock form. The looks are controversial, but I like the front end of the EVO as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
jp323i said:
1. 1/4 mile is a better indicator of a car's acceleration. Road & Track recorded 13.8 s, compared to the manual M3's avg of 13.3 s, & 13.18 s by MotorTrend.

13.5

jp323i said:


2. Even though turbo's respond well to chips, chip claims are often exaggerated & unaccompanied by any real dyno.

no, http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17497


jp323i said:


3. Both base & fully loaded prices are not necessarily a fair comparison. It does not account for the typical markup of $5 - $10 K on the Evo (AutoWeek), & the M3 has much more total equipment/features in base & fully-loaded form.

m3 had crazy markups when it first came out also. its unfair to compare markups. regardless u can go here and find dealers that are dealing at msrp http://forums.evolutionm.net/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=75

jp323i said:


4. Skidpad numbers are a better reflection of grip (better tires + awd). Slalom numbers are more significant, in which case the M3 has been rated as high as 70 mph (MotorTrend).

well then i guess the evo has it beat with a slalom of 73.1mph

jp323i said:


5. Despite Brembos, M3 has better braking distances (111 - 113 ft for the M3, 117 ft for the Evo).

wrong again, i mistyped earlier, evo has 60-0 of 110ft

jp323i said:


I don't know where the 13.5 s, & 114 ft figures for the Evo come from, the only full test I know of was done by R & T
go pickup the latest issue of sport compact car

jp323i said:



Stock, the M3 outperforms the Evo in acceleration, braking, & arguably handling.
maybe, no, and no

anything else?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,685 Posts
tribal azn said:


13.5



no, http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17497




m3 had crazy markups when it first came out also. its unfair to compare markups. regardless u can go here and find dealers that are dealing at msrp http://forums.evolutionm.net/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=75



well then i guess the evo has it beat with a slalom of 73.1mph



wrong again, i mistyped earlier, evo has 60-0 of 110ft



go pickup the latest issue of sport compact car



maybe, no, and no

anything else?
I did not mislead, I said "Road & Track recorded ...". I even asked where the 13.5 s was coming from, I didn't say it was BS.

Your link does nothing to disprove me. I'm saying turbo cars DO get excellent chip gains, but that the claimed chip hp is often exaggerated (ie claim 350 hp, actually 330 hp, etc).

I know the M3 had markups but I'm saying that you can't make a price diff based on msrp because currently the avg Evo sold has a big markup. Keyword being AVG, as some may be getting msrp but the avg buyer isn't.

I'd rather trust mags like Car & Driver, MotorTrend, Road & Track, etc than Sport Compact Car. All their Evo numbers seem inflated

The US Evo doesn't have Mitsubishi's ACD, but instead has a viscous coupling unit, which doesn't have the same sharp handling. There is no way the US Evo slalom's at 73.1 mph, that's 4.4 mph more than R & T!
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top