Re: E46 M3 V.S. NSX~???

Discussion in '2001 BMW M3' started by izemyunche, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. People this is stupid! First of all I hate how R&T did a test on three different classes of cars. These cars had nothing to do with each other. As far as comparing apples to oranges, R&T was comparing an apple, an orange and a freaking piece of celery. The Corvette is an outstanding supercar for under 70,000 dollars. The M3 is a superb sports sedan, and the Boxster is a small sports coupe all with totally different characteristics and engines. Now the M3 is definitely a bad-ass car but comparing this car with a Firehawk saying it's faster on the quarter mile and race track simply becuase of weight distribution is ignorant. This car weighs 3400lbs, that's not much less then a firehawk in fact I'm not sure if it is less, I'll have to go back and find out. Now arent these cars both rear wheel drive? Both have high horsepower at the wheels but the firehawk has more torque. To be honest euro boys you don't do your research very well, f-bodies are excellent on the track. The only way we'll be able to determine what is faster in all categories is to actually race both cars. Both are phenominal I'm not going to rag on the Bimmer, but I'm a huge Trans-Am fan, just look at my motto below...so please be careful what you say, everyone here makes valid arguments but if you insult us as Patriotic morons one more time, I'm gonna get very angry, and go all out on your asses! I don't want to but it has nothing to do with just American pride in cars, it's about bullshit insults of us as a group of people in the U.S. and this type of insulting is not needed especially at a time like this in the world. So please no more insults on each other as countries. Long live the Muscle car, and yes I'm gonna say this M3 is pretty damn close to a muscle car even though it's not American, it's still pretty damn bad-ass. Sorry this comment is really long.<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. if i want to spend that much money on an M3 i could modify a trans-am and leave an M3 in the dust
     
  3. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from FirebirdTransAm4Life</i>
    <b>if i want to spend that much money on an M3 i could modify a trans-am and leave an M3 in the dust</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->This is very true<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from BMW M</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from hsckris</i>
    <b>Fellas, I'm not in the screaming chicken faction (though i'd like to be considered for membership <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">) and I like the M3, but I'm sorry to tell you guys that the firehawk will beat it and does in basically every respect (including styling, my opinion). The BMW may have a better interior, but you don't really buy an M or a Firehawk for the interior (again, opinion). The M3 may outhandle the Firehawk, but consider the size/weight difference, if the M was the same size, I think we both know who would win. IN addition, it doesn't matter if the M will outhandle it, because the Firehawk has a greater ability to accelerate out of turns, thus balancing the cars better. As far as the street is concerned, you only need to win light to light, and undoubtedly the Firehawk will do it. Hell, a driver can make a tremendous difference, I beat an slightly older M series in a Nissan Maxima. AND, in response to the reliability issue, I hope you BMW guys are kidding. GM cars last for decades upon decades, I never have even heard of a beamer over 15 years old running fine. Time and again I hear of chevys from the 50's and 60's, after sitting for decades, start right up and are able to drive. Not to mention my own story of a 71 chevelle, sat for about 5 years, started up and still runs like a top. BMW's simply don't do that. I don't understand why people think GM's are unreliable. If they are so unreliable, why are so many cops and cab drivers choosing to keep their 200,000 mile or more caprices instead of taking brand new fords? If they are so unreliable, why does every pontiac owner I know abuse the dogsh*t out of their car, and never have ANY problems? Honestly fellas, GM has one of the best reliability track records, sure, you may have to replace the water pump at 80,000 miles, but most everything works 99% of the time. No one has tried to insult the BMW's reliability or merit, they are just using opinions and track/street times... get with it BMW guys. OH, and don't forget the HUGE price difference. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You apparently don't know ANYTHING about this M3 or cars in general as you have not done your research. You claim that the Firehawk beats the M3 in every aspect including the straight line??? You need a wake up call: The M3 does 0-60 in 4.6 seconds (motor trend) and the Firehawk comes nowhere near that time. And your "opinion" on how the Firehawk looks, well I can say that the M3 looks aggressive, stylish, and classy whereas the Firebird is just a common pigeon. And the E36 M3 was rated the "best handling car in North America" by one of the big 3 american magazines a couple years back and I can assure you that the E46 M3 outhandles the E36 M3. The M3 has luxury, a better safety rating, quality parts, a smoother ride, better breaking (60-0 in just 112 ft.- R & T), and LONGIVITY. And yes, F-Bodies are suspect for their quality, longivity, and reliability. In the annual Automotive Consumer Reports magazine, the Corvette (GM's flagship) was rated as "very poor" in terms of reliability while the M3 got the green light of a good rating for reliability. So the M3 beats the Firehawk in every aspect (including realibility, longivity, and build quality). So shut your damn mouth! And the price reflected is due to all the superb inclusions I mentioned to you before. The M3 is the complete package with the combination of a luxury car and a performance supercar. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    excuse me, but i do know something about cars, and I clearly stated that the M3 will outhandle the firehawk, what i said was, what about if we make them the same size? sure, its hypothetical, but it was just a question. Your basis for "longivity" as you have misspelled it, is from magazines, not from experience, GM has built the longest lasting cars on the road for over half a century. How often do you see a BMW older than 1990? Occasionally at best, thats b/c they lack "longivity." I'll give it to you, BMW engineeers some good cars, especially the M3. But the Firehawk has so much more appeal than the M3. BMW's problem is that they are boring. Perhaps you need a wake up call, or just literacy. Almost your entire arguement deals with handling, about which I clearly stated BMW had the Firehawk beat. Another good portion of your arguement is circumstantially based on styling, a matter of opinion. If you think the Firehawk (not bird, as you refered to it, designating a base model v6 car)is like any other pigeon, you must believe that BMW is innovatively styled by looking exactly the same as the competition. Ever looked at a BMW and a Mercedes side by side? Take the badging off, and its hard to tell which car is which. The Firehawk's look is decidely distinct. By the way, according to BMW the M3 does zero to sixty in 4.8, according to car and driver the Firehawk (of 2000, not even 2001 or 2002) does zero to sixty in 4.6 seconds. So who needs to do their research and who needs to shut their mouth? I contend none of us need to, this forum isn't meant for little whiny b$tches like you to get mad b/c we insulted your overpriced german car, its to debate, and thats what i'm doing. I only claimed that the firehawk would beat it light to light, and out of turns (which it will by my research), which is where it counts in my book, b/c thats where races on the street are won, and for less money one can buy a Firehawk, and do just that.
     
  5. oh, and I just noticed, sc.net lists the zero to sixty time for this 2001 at 5.1, something the firehawk would definitely destroy.
     
  6. Quote from hsckris


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote from BMW M


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote from hsckris
    Fellas, I'm not in the screaming chicken faction (though i'd like to be considered for membership ) and I like the M3, but I'm sorry to tell you guys that the firehawk will beat it and does in basically every respect (including styling, my opinion). The BMW may have a better interior, but you don't really buy an M or a Firehawk for the interior (again, opinion). The M3 may outhandle the Firehawk, but consider the size/weight difference, if the M was the same size, I think we both know who would win. IN addition, it doesn't matter if the M will outhandle it, because the Firehawk has a greater ability to accelerate out of turns, thus balancing the cars better. As far as the street is concerned, you only need to win light to light, and undoubtedly the Firehawk will do it. Hell, a driver can make a tremendous difference, I beat an slightly older M series in a Nissan Maxima. AND, in response to the reliability issue, I hope you BMW guys are kidding. GM cars last for decades upon decades, I never have even heard of a beamer over 15 years old running fine. Time and again I hear of chevys from the 50's and 60's, after sitting for decades, start right up and are able to drive. Not to mention my own story of a 71 chevelle, sat for about 5 years, started up and still runs like a top. BMW's simply don't do that. I don't understand why people think GM's are unreliable. If they are so unreliable, why are so many cops and cab drivers choosing to keep their 200,000 mile or more caprices instead of taking brand new fords? If they are so unreliable, why does every pontiac owner I know abuse the dogsh*t out of their car, and never have ANY problems? Honestly fellas, GM has one of the best reliability track records, sure, you may have to replace the water pump at 80,000 miles, but most everything works 99% of the time. No one has tried to insult the BMW's reliability or merit, they are just using opinions and track/street times... get with it BMW guys. OH, and don't forget the HUGE price difference.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    You apparently don't know ANYTHING about this M3 or cars in general as you have not done your research. You claim that the Firehawk beats the M3 in every aspect including the straight line??? You need a wake up call: The M3 does 0-60 in 4.6 seconds (motor trend) and the Firehawk comes nowhere near that time. And your "opinion" on how the Firehawk looks, well I can say that the M3 looks aggressive, stylish, and classy whereas the Firebird is just a common pigeon. And the E36 M3 was rated the "best handling car in North America" by one of the big 3 american magazines a couple years back and I can assure you that the E46 M3 outhandles the E36 M3. The M3 has luxury, a better safety rating, quality parts, a smoother ride, better breaking (60-0 in just 112 ft.- R & T), and LONGIVITY. And yes, F-Bodies are suspect for their quality, longivity, and reliability. In the annual Automotive Consumer Reports magazine, the Corvette (GM's flagship) was rated as "very poor" in terms of reliability while the M3 got the green light of a good rating for reliability. So the M3 beats the Firehawk in every aspect (including realibility, longivity, and build quality). So shut your damn mouth! And the price reflected is due to all the superb inclusions I mentioned to you before. The M3 is the complete package with the combination of a luxury car and a performance supercar.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    excuse me, but i do know something about cars, and I clearly stated that the M3 will outhandle the firehawk, what i said was, what about if we make them the same size? sure, its hypothetical, but it was just a question. Your basis for "longivity" as you have misspelled it, is from magazines, not from experience, GM has built the longest lasting cars on the road for over half a century. How often do you see a BMW older than 1990? Occasionally at best, thats b/c they lack "longivity." I'll give it to you, BMW engineeers some good cars, especially the M3. But the Firehawk has so much more appeal than the M3. BMW's problem is that they are boring. Perhaps you need a wake up call, or just literacy. Almost your entire arguement deals with handling, about which I clearly stated BMW had the Firehawk beat. Another good portion of your arguement is circumstantially based on styling, a matter of opinion. If you think the Firehawk (not bird, as you refered to it, designating a base model v6 car)is like any other pigeon, you must believe that BMW is innovatively styled by looking exactly the same as the competition. Ever looked at a BMW and a Mercedes side by side? Take the badging off, and its hard to tell which car is which. The Firehawk's look is decidely distinct. By the way, according to BMW the M3 does zero to sixty in 4.8, according to car and driver the Firehawk (of 2000, not even 2001 or 2002) does zero to sixty in 4.6 seconds. So who needs to do their research and who needs to shut their mouth? I contend none of us need to, this forum isn't meant for little whiny b$tches like you to get mad b/c we insulted your overpriced german car, its to debate, and thats what i'm doing. I only claimed that the firehawk would beat it light to light, and out of turns (which it will by my research), which is where it counts in my book, b/c thats where races on the street are won, and for less money one can buy a Firehawk, and do just that.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    I think you need to get an eye exam because I did not spell "longivity" wrong. If your referring to my capitalizing the letters (for emphasis purposes) of longivity being considered misspelling a word, then you need to look back on the definition on what misspelling really means. You don't consider Consumer's Auto Report Magazine as a reliable source? I'm sorry but not only does this magazine use "professionals" to assess the quality and the reliability of the cars, but it also considers empirical experiences from multiple vehicle owners, so I do trust the reliability ratings. And going back to your vague argument of "GM" cars lasting so long is due to the fact that people baby their cars and RESTORE them since they are rare performance cars. You don't see any of the regular econo Chevys from the 60's and 70's now do you? The Chevelle is still around because people constantly maintained it as it was a rare performance car. And the BMW's that were scrapped, were the everday use 3 series models that weren't babied and restored like the Chevelle's and the Classic Corvettes were. However, there are still many everday Bimmers on the road from the 70's and 80's (ie 2002, 6-series, 7 series). How many common everyday use Chevys still exist from the 70's and 80's even though millions more were produced compared to the minimal production BMW??? And just like classic Corvettes and Chevelles, past performance Bimmers like the M1, M6, 507, and Z1 models are still working in perfect condition. And again you bring personal opinion when you say that the Firehawk has "more appeal" than the M3 (which I highly doubt). And as for your 0-60 time, the M3 has done 0-60 in 4.6 seconds (Motor Trend) so thus, the Firehawk will not beat the M3 in a straight line, and especially not the M3 with the SMG paddle shifter which will result in consistentcy of top acceleration. And you claim that the M3 is overpriced??? Don't make me laugh. Does GM offer a car that's as luxurious as a Cadillac and as fast a Corvette for $50,000???

    I rest my case


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proud member of SC.net Bimmer Club

    BMW M Series:
    M5-Fastest Saloon Car in World
    M3-Best Car in it's price range (my favourite Bimmer)
    M Roadster-Powerful Convertible
    M Coupe- Classic Sports Car Values

    BMW M: "Pure performance, pure class
    The passion of high performance
    and the thrill of driving something
    special."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    bmw dude,you need a clue man,first off,you said the m3 has agressive styling? its a $&($^ing box on wheels,theres no style to it,if you call a box agressive i geuss there is,but at least the firehawk is not a cookie cutter bmw that looks like a damn soapderby box as does every bmw cept the SUV and the lil z3,therefore also you need to look up the times and facts,because the firehawk is faster then this bmw,and if your the one that needs glasses,hsckris said that the bmw outhandles the firehawk already,and then your gonna say as a point in a dissagremence when he has already stated it?-->dumbass-->look at the firehawk,now look at this bmw,note how the bmw is a box that looks like er're other car on the road? note how the firehawk stands out with nicely styled funtional hood scoop and etc ? then you apprently need YOUR eyes checked,as you once said to somebody esle,oh yeah and yes you did spell "longivity" wrong also,so dont lie,oh too late,you already have,saying that "And your "opinion" on how the Firehawk looks, well I can say that the M3 looks aggressive, stylish, and classy whereas the Firebird is just a common pigeon." common pigeon eh? what the mother#$%# you high on? honestly i want to know,caus that way i dont take it and look as stupid as you,your just jealous of the fast that after you wasted all your mommas money on a m3 the firehawk is better and cheaper,so like i said,you want to see a "common pigeon" then look at the box on wheels called a Bmw(big MEchanical waste) you want a true performance car that stands out with unique and agressive styling,go look at a firehawk dumbshit,how can you say thats a "common pigeon" compared to your box?
     
  7. I agree, most BMW's look like boxes. The Firehawk is, in my opinion, the best styled car of 2002. If you BMW guys want to keep bitching about the M3 being faster, thats great, I'll laugh when I blow your doors off in my chevelle on the street. (Oh yeah, and its mostly original GM technology from 1971).
     
  8. OH, and you did spell 'longivity' wrong, use a dictionary next time before you talk shit. According to Webster, the word meaning 'long life, great duration of life" is spelled "longevity." I thought only smart people made enough money to buy BMW's.
     
  9. Fellas, I'm not in the screaming chicken faction (though i'd like to be considered for membership <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">) and I like the M3, but I'm sorry to tell you guys that the firehawk will beat it and does in basically every respect (including styling, my opinion). The BMW may have a better interior, but you don't really buy an M or a Firehawk for the interior (again, opinion). The M3 may outhandle the Firehawk, but consider the size/weight difference, if the M was the same size, I think we both know who would win. IN addition, it doesn't matter if the M will outhandle it, because the Firehawk has a greater ability to accelerate out of turns, thus balancing the cars better. As far as the street is concerned, you only need to win light to light, and undoubtedly the Firehawk will do it. Hell, a driver can make a tremendous difference, I beat an slightly older M series in a Nissan Maxima. AND, in response to the reliability issue, I hope you BMW guys are kidding. GM cars last for decades upon decades, I never have even heard of a beamer over 15 years old running fine. Time and again I hear of chevys from the 50's and 60's, after sitting for decades, start right up and are able to drive. Not to mention my own story of a 71 chevelle, sat for about 5 years, started up and still runs like a top. BMW's simply don't do that. I don't understand why people think GM's are unreliable. If they are so unreliable, why are so many cops and cab drivers choosing to keep their 200,000 mile or more caprices instead of taking brand new fords? If they are so unreliable, why does every pontiac owner I know abuse the dogsh*t out of their car, and never have ANY problems? Honestly fellas, GM has one of the best reliability track records, sure, you may have to replace the water pump at 80,000 miles, but most everything works 99% of the time. No one has tried to insult the BMW's reliability or merit, they are just using opinions and track/street times... get with it BMW guys. OH, and don't forget the HUGE price difference.
     
  10. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from hsckris</i>
    <b>Fellas, I'm not in the screaming chicken faction (though i'd like to be considered for membership <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">) and I like the M3, but I'm sorry to tell you guys that the firehawk will beat it and does in basically every respect (including styling, my opinion). The BMW may have a better interior, but you don't really buy an M or a Firehawk for the interior (again, opinion). The M3 may outhandle the Firehawk, but consider the size/weight difference, if the M was the same size, I think we both know who would win. IN addition, it doesn't matter if the M will outhandle it, because the Firehawk has a greater ability to accelerate out of turns, thus balancing the cars better. As far as the street is concerned, you only need to win light to light, and undoubtedly the Firehawk will do it. Hell, a driver can make a tremendous difference, I beat an slightly older M series in a Nissan Maxima. AND, in response to the reliability issue, I hope you BMW guys are kidding. GM cars last for decades upon decades, I never have even heard of a beamer over 15 years old running fine. Time and again I hear of chevys from the 50's and 60's, after sitting for decades, start right up and are able to drive. Not to mention my own story of a 71 chevelle, sat for about 5 years, started up and still runs like a top. BMW's simply don't do that. I don't understand why people think GM's are unreliable. If they are so unreliable, why are so many cops and cab drivers choosing to keep their 200,000 mile or more caprices instead of taking brand new fords? If they are so unreliable, why does every pontiac owner I know abuse the dogsh*t out of their car, and never have ANY problems? Honestly fellas, GM has one of the best reliability track records, sure, you may have to replace the water pump at 80,000 miles, but most everything works 99% of the time. No one has tried to insult the BMW's reliability or merit, they are just using opinions and track/street times... get with it BMW guys. OH, and don't forget the HUGE price difference. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You apparently don't know ANYTHING about this M3 or cars in general as you have not done your research. You claim that the Firehawk beats the M3 in every aspect including the straight line??? You need a wake up call: The M3 does 0-60 in 4.6 seconds (motor trend) and the Firehawk comes nowhere near that time. And your "opinion" on how the Firehawk looks, well I can say that the M3 looks aggressive, stylish, and classy whereas the Firebird is just a common pigeon. And the E36 M3 was rated the "best handling car in North America" by one of the big 3 american magazines a couple years back and I can assure you that the E46 M3 outhandles the E36 M3. The M3 has luxury, a better safety rating, quality parts, a smoother ride, better breaking (60-0 in just 112 ft.- R & T), and LONGIVITY. And yes, F-Bodies are suspect for their quality, longivity, and reliability. In the annual Automotive Consumer Reports magazine, the Corvette (GM's flagship) was rated as "very poor" in terms of reliability while the M3 got the green light of a good rating for reliability. So the M3 beats the Firehawk in every aspect (including realibility, longivity, and build quality). So shut your damn mouth! And the price reflected is due to all the superb inclusions I mentioned to you before. The M3 is the complete package with the combination of a luxury car and a performance supercar. <!-- Signature -->
     
  11. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from hsckris</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from BMW M</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from hsckris</i>
    <b>Fellas, I'm not in the screaming chicken faction (though i'd like to be considered for membership <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">) and I like the M3, but I'm sorry to tell you guys that the firehawk will beat it and does in basically every respect (including styling, my opinion). The BMW may have a better interior, but you don't really buy an M or a Firehawk for the interior (again, opinion). The M3 may outhandle the Firehawk, but consider the size/weight difference, if the M was the same size, I think we both know who would win. IN addition, it doesn't matter if the M will outhandle it, because the Firehawk has a greater ability to accelerate out of turns, thus balancing the cars better. As far as the street is concerned, you only need to win light to light, and undoubtedly the Firehawk will do it. Hell, a driver can make a tremendous difference, I beat an slightly older M series in a Nissan Maxima. AND, in response to the reliability issue, I hope you BMW guys are kidding. GM cars last for decades upon decades, I never have even heard of a beamer over 15 years old running fine. Time and again I hear of chevys from the 50's and 60's, after sitting for decades, start right up and are able to drive. Not to mention my own story of a 71 chevelle, sat for about 5 years, started up and still runs like a top. BMW's simply don't do that. I don't understand why people think GM's are unreliable. If they are so unreliable, why are so many cops and cab drivers choosing to keep their 200,000 mile or more caprices instead of taking brand new fords? If they are so unreliable, why does every pontiac owner I know abuse the dogsh*t out of their car, and never have ANY problems? Honestly fellas, GM has one of the best reliability track records, sure, you may have to replace the water pump at 80,000 miles, but most everything works 99% of the time. No one has tried to insult the BMW's reliability or merit, they are just using opinions and track/street times... get with it BMW guys. OH, and don't forget the HUGE price difference. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You apparently don't know ANYTHING about this M3 or cars in general as you have not done your research. You claim that the Firehawk beats the M3 in every aspect including the straight line??? You need a wake up call: The M3 does 0-60 in 4.6 seconds (motor trend) and the Firehawk comes nowhere near that time. And your "opinion" on how the Firehawk looks, well I can say that the M3 looks aggressive, stylish, and classy whereas the Firebird is just a common pigeon. And the E36 M3 was rated the "best handling car in North America" by one of the big 3 american magazines a couple years back and I can assure you that the E46 M3 outhandles the E36 M3. The M3 has luxury, a better safety rating, quality parts, a smoother ride, better breaking (60-0 in just 112 ft.- R & T), and LONGIVITY. And yes, F-Bodies are suspect for their quality, longivity, and reliability. In the annual Automotive Consumer Reports magazine, the Corvette (GM's flagship) was rated as "very poor" in terms of reliability while the M3 got the green light of a good rating for reliability. So the M3 beats the Firehawk in every aspect (including realibility, longivity, and build quality). So shut your damn mouth! And the price reflected is due to all the superb inclusions I mentioned to you before. The M3 is the complete package with the combination of a luxury car and a performance supercar. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    excuse me, but i do know something about cars, and I clearly stated that the M3 will outhandle the firehawk, what i said was, what about if we make them the same size? sure, its hypothetical, but it was just a question. Your basis for "longivity" as you have misspelled it, is from magazines, not from experience, GM has built the longest lasting cars on the road for over half a century. How often do you see a BMW older than 1990? Occasionally at best, thats b/c they lack "longivity." I'll give it to you, BMW engineeers some good cars, especially the M3. But the Firehawk has so much more appeal than the M3. BMW's problem is that they are boring. Perhaps you need a wake up call, or just literacy. Almost your entire arguement deals with handling, about which I clearly stated BMW had the Firehawk beat. Another good portion of your arguement is circumstantially based on styling, a matter of opinion. If you think the Firehawk (not bird, as you refered to it, designating a base model v6 car)is like any other pigeon, you must believe that BMW is innovatively styled by looking exactly the same as the competition. Ever looked at a BMW and a Mercedes side by side? Take the badging off, and its hard to tell which car is which. The Firehawk's look is decidely distinct. By the way, according to BMW the M3 does zero to sixty in 4.8, according to car and driver the Firehawk (of 2000, not even 2001 or 2002) does zero to sixty in 4.6 seconds. So who needs to do their research and who needs to shut their mouth? I contend none of us need to, this forum isn't meant for little whiny b$tches like you to get mad b/c we insulted your overpriced german car, its to debate, and thats what i'm doing. I only claimed that the firehawk would beat it light to light, and out of turns (which it will by my research), which is where it counts in my book, b/c thats where races on the street are won, and for less money one can buy a Firehawk, and do just that. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I think you need to get an eye exam because I did not spell "longivity" wrong. If your referring to my capitalizing the letters (for emphasis purposes) of longivity being considered misspelling a word, then you need to look back on the definition on what misspelling really means. You don't consider Consumer's Auto Report Magazine as a reliable source? I'm sorry but not only does this magazine use "professionals" to assess the quality and the reliability of the cars, but it also considers empirical experiences from multiple vehicle owners, so I do trust the reliability ratings. And going back to your vague argument of "GM" cars lasting so long is due to the fact that people baby their cars and RESTORE them since they are rare performance cars. You don't see any of the regular econo Chevys from the 60's and 70's now do you? The Chevelle is still around because people constantly maintained it as it was a rare performance car. And the BMW's that were scrapped, were the everday use 3 series models that weren't babied and restored like the Chevelle's and the Classic Corvettes were. However, there are still many everday Bimmers on the road from the 70's and 80's (ie 2002, 6-series, 7 series). How many common everyday use Chevys still exist from the 70's and 80's even though millions more were produced compared to the minimal production BMW??? And just like classic Corvettes and Chevelles, past performance Bimmers like the M1, M6, 507, and Z1 models are still working in perfect condition. And again you bring personal opinion when you say that the Firehawk has "more appeal" than the M3 (which I highly doubt). And as for your 0-60 time, the M3 has done 0-60 in 4.6 seconds (Motor Trend) so thus, the Firehawk will not beat the M3 in a straight line, and especially not the M3 with the SMG paddle shifter which will result in consistentcy of top acceleration. And you claim that the M3 is overpriced??? Don't make me laugh. Does GM offer a car that's as luxurious as a Cadillac and as fast a Corvette for $50,000???

    I rest my case<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. God damn, i'm tired reading all this shit, #$%#ing Trans-Am pull up agaist a M3 basically every day in America, and all the times i have seen them in action, i have only seen one result, BMW M3 winning, and i don't know which idiot put the stats for this car on this page, But the M3 is not 5.1 seconds 0 - 60, thas the time for a convertable.
    The m3 0 - 60 lies in the 4.8 and 4.7 Mark. Not some bullshit like 5.1, i read the results on the Trans - Am, it's a nice car guys, and it pulls hella nice, i like it a lot, and it doesn't look bad, looks similar to the rx7 in some ways, but it won't beat the m3, i'm sorry, no wonder ppl that own E46 BMW M3'S, haven't opened there mouth on this forum....knowing this is one of those stupid ass forums....where ppl have no clue what they are talking abt, and don't go asking me to provide status on this shit, because like ppl have said already in this forum...half the stats are not even true, there hella #$%#ed up.
    Last of all....Trans-Am's price compared to BMW....well....what does Trans-Am offer compared to a bmw?
    UMMMMMMMMMMMMMM i need some help there.....on the outside the trans-am is nice and has hella power and American Cars have hella torque, but inside it only has the basic things, thas the reason for the price difference, becasue on the inside of a bmw ur in heaven and not in hell..sorry Trans-am fans i'll take that last part back, as i have respect for a Trans-am aswell.
    the only better cars i have driven than the m3 is M5 and 911 turbo.
    And as for the NSX, umm i have no clue abt it, i saw it waste an old model M3, but i don't believe it can touch the new one, as the old model bmw gave it a good race, body to body, and i know the new m3 is hella different from the old one, so i guess there is not much to say there.
    And ppl that go round dissing the American Bad ass Corvette, review what u say, Corvette is a mother #$%#er killing mean machine, #$%#, u don't go out there and spend 50,000 for no handling, #$%#, it does have handling, but not to the extent of this bimmer, the ZO6 compares to this one when it comes to handling and prob or maybe does better.....i'm not sure there....but standard Vette are awesome dragsters....they give my standard RX7 hella competition.....i know when i get my rx7 done up then i'll be guaranteed of beating a Vette by far, but until that happens the Vette will always be in my Rear.

    Open for friendly conversations and not open to stupid comments made on the forum above....and this is not a box....ne one who calls this babay a box needs more than an optician, and i dunno what comes after an optician.

    Peace all.
     
  13. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Excoriar</i>
    <b>It never ceases to amaze me what people argue about. I mean.. would you seriously put cones on the road to test your car's skidpad abilities on a daily basis?? Quarter mile is a maybe if you're an avid racer at night in a desolate area being video taped by cops on the standby for illegal street racing. Top speed? Get out... How many people cruise at 155mph in a car on a daily basis in the States? Most people who drive on the streets will never achieve 0.91G. Besides, do you know if you've REALLY, I mean REALLY achieved 0.91G? Or was your driving skill so shoddy that you've only hit like 0.5G before your car spun out and crashed because you got on the gas too early? Big displacement = Big Torque, but have you thought of gas guzzler tax? In the States where gas is cheap, this is not so much of a problem. But in other countries, anything with over a 3.5L engine gets taxed 2 times, and the price of gas will make you think twice about driving a car with such a big displacement.

    For me, I'll pick the M3. It's fuel efficient, has a trunk, is presentable when I go to meet clients or go to important functions, and has a nice balance for daily driving and some spirited driving. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->the vette gets better gas mileage then the m3,and about the trunk the vette does not have a very big storage area:( but irrelevant your caus for faul efficientcy is N/A<IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">
     
  14. this german mess couldn't handle my maro!!!! haha, stupid M3 lovers talkin crap alot. <!-- Signature -->
     
  15. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from BMW M</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from hsckris</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from BMW M</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from hsckris</i>
    <b>Fellas, I'm not in the screaming chicken faction (though i'd like to be considered for membership <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">) and I like the M3, but I'm sorry to tell you guys that the firehawk will beat it and does in basically every respect (including styling, my opinion). The BMW may have a better interior, but you don't really buy an M or a Firehawk for the interior (again, opinion). The M3 may outhandle the Firehawk, but consider the size/weight difference, if the M was the same size, I think we both know who would win. IN addition, it doesn't matter if the M will outhandle it, because the Firehawk has a greater ability to accelerate out of turns, thus balancing the cars better. As far as the street is concerned, you only need to win light to light, and undoubtedly the Firehawk will do it. Hell, a driver can make a tremendous difference, I beat an slightly older M series in a Nissan Maxima. AND, in response to the reliability issue, I hope you BMW guys are kidding. GM cars last for decades upon decades, I never have even heard of a beamer over 15 years old running fine. Time and again I hear of chevys from the 50's and 60's, after sitting for decades, start right up and are able to drive. Not to mention my own story of a 71 chevelle, sat for about 5 years, started up and still runs like a top. BMW's simply don't do that. I don't understand why people think GM's are unreliable. If they are so unreliable, why are so many cops and cab drivers choosing to keep their 200,000 mile or more caprices instead of taking brand new fords? If they are so unreliable, why does every pontiac owner I know abuse the dogsh*t out of their car, and never have ANY problems? Honestly fellas, GM has one of the best reliability track records, sure, you may have to replace the water pump at 80,000 miles, but most everything works 99% of the time. No one has tried to insult the BMW's reliability or merit, they are just using opinions and track/street times... get with it BMW guys. OH, and don't forget the HUGE price difference. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You apparently don't know ANYTHING about this M3 or cars in general as you have not done your research. You claim that the Firehawk beats the M3 in every aspect including the straight line??? You need a wake up call: The M3 does 0-60 in 4.6 seconds (motor trend) and the Firehawk comes nowhere near that time. And your "opinion" on how the Firehawk looks, well I can say that the M3 looks aggressive, stylish, and classy whereas the Firebird is just a common pigeon. And the E36 M3 was rated the "best handling car in North America" by one of the big 3 american magazines a couple years back and I can assure you that the E46 M3 outhandles the E36 M3. The M3 has luxury, a better safety rating, quality parts, a smoother ride, better breaking (60-0 in just 112 ft.- R & T), and LONGIVITY. And yes, F-Bodies are suspect for their quality, longivity, and reliability. In the annual Automotive Consumer Reports magazine, the Corvette (GM's flagship) was rated as "very poor" in terms of reliability while the M3 got the green light of a good rating for reliability. So the M3 beats the Firehawk in every aspect (including realibility, longivity, and build quality). So shut your damn mouth! And the price reflected is due to all the superb inclusions I mentioned to you before. The M3 is the complete package with the combination of a luxury car and a performance supercar. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    excuse me, but i do know something about cars, and I clearly stated that the M3 will outhandle the firehawk, what i said was, what about if we make them the same size? sure, its hypothetical, but it was just a question. Your basis for "longivity" as you have misspelled it, is from magazines, not from experience, GM has built the longest lasting cars on the road for over half a century. How often do you see a BMW older than 1990? Occasionally at best, thats b/c they lack "longivity." I'll give it to you, BMW engineeers some good cars, especially the M3. But the Firehawk has so much more appeal than the M3. BMW's problem is that they are boring. Perhaps you need a wake up call, or just literacy. Almost your entire arguement deals with handling, about which I clearly stated BMW had the Firehawk beat. Another good portion of your arguement is circumstantially based on styling, a matter of opinion. If you think the Firehawk (not bird, as you refered to it, designating a base model v6 car)is like any other pigeon, you must believe that BMW is innovatively styled by looking exactly the same as the competition. Ever looked at a BMW and a Mercedes side by side? Take the badging off, and its hard to tell which car is which. The Firehawk's look is decidely distinct. By the way, according to BMW the M3 does zero to sixty in 4.8, according to car and driver the Firehawk (of 2000, not even 2001 or 2002) does zero to sixty in 4.6 seconds. So who needs to do their research and who needs to shut their mouth? I contend none of us need to, this forum isn't meant for little whiny b$tches like you to get mad b/c we insulted your overpriced german car, its to debate, and thats what i'm doing. I only claimed that the firehawk would beat it light to light, and out of turns (which it will by my research), which is where it counts in my book, b/c thats where races on the street are won, and for less money one can buy a Firehawk, and do just that. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I think you need to get an eye exam because I did not spell "longivity" wrong. If your referring to my capitalizing the letters (for emphasis purposes) of longivity being considered misspelling a word, then you need to look back on the definition on what misspelling really means. You don't consider Consumer's Auto Report Magazine as a reliable source? I'm sorry but not only does this magazine use "professionals" to assess the quality and the reliability of the cars, but it also considers empirical experiences from multiple vehicle owners, so I do trust the reliability ratings. And going back to your vague argument of "GM" cars lasting so long is due to the fact that people baby their cars and RESTORE them since they are rare performance cars. You don't see any of the regular econo Chevys from the 60's and 70's now do you? The Chevelle is still around because people constantly maintained it as it was a rare performance car. And the BMW's that were scrapped, were the everday use 3 series models that weren't babied and restored like the Chevelle's and the Classic Corvettes were. However, there are still many everday Bimmers on the road from the 70's and 80's (ie 2002, 6-series, 7 series). How many common everyday use Chevys still exist from the 70's and 80's even though millions more were produced compared to the minimal production BMW??? And just like classic Corvettes and Chevelles, past performance Bimmers like the M1, M6, 507, and Z1 models are still working in perfect condition. And again you bring personal opinion when you say that the Firehawk has "more appeal" than the M3 (which I highly doubt). And as for your 0-60 time, the M3 has done 0-60 in 4.6 seconds (Motor Trend) so thus, the Firehawk will not beat the M3 in a straight line, and especially not the M3 with the SMG paddle shifter which will result in consistentcy of top acceleration. And you claim that the M3 is overpriced??? Don't make me laugh. Does GM offer a car that's as luxurious as a Cadillac and as fast a Corvette for $50,000???

    I rest my case</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE --> I hate to trounce another part of your arguement, but I regularly see 'everyday' older chevrolets equipped with 6 cylinders and non-performance oriented V8's. And if you think the 'rare performance cars' were 'babied,' you are grimly mistaken, most were abused day in and day out on the street and the strip because at the time cars of that type were continually coming out, they were not viewed as 'rare' performance oriented vehicles, atleast not until after the whole gas shortage scare. I only have seen or know of 2 BMW's older than 1980, thats right 2. One was a 2002 that a friend of mine spent hours on tryin to get it to run, finally gave up and bought a small newer truck. Granted, GM produced a ton more vehicles, but I don't think reliability is in question. And as far as the magazine's you quoted, they did not perform a long term test to ascertain the car's reliability, and in my opinion, the only way to determine longevity and reliability is through the long term. <!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page