|
Originally Posted by ZfrkS62
The US spec came from havng to meet our emissions requirements, which is also why we don't have the CSL. Once they figured out how to get around that (cold start emissions were the main problem) it was fine.
|
Emissions and keeping cost down below $40k (USD) was one of the main objective in the E36 M3. Remember BMWNA didn't even want to bring the E36 M3 over ecause they were afraid it would not sell. And we didn't get it until 1995.
|
Originally Posted by nthfinity
^^^^^^
i said it felt slow; he said it had as much as 321 hp at the end; and our version clearly doesnt (for the aformentioned reasons)
that, and a used C5 vette with 350 hp will do 5 seconds to 60, and carry on upwards of 160 stock... for cheaper...
(i take it you mean comparing the E46 vs its little brother)
|
Our cars had the S50 and the S52 both rated at 240hp, backed more importantly with equal amount of torque in the S54 version. More than adequate in my opinion.
Let's put it this way, my friend just bought a new Honda Accord and that has 245hp, is it faster than my car?
|
Originally Posted by LotusGT1
I hate it when people make their judgement on bullshit arguments. If you don't like it, fine, but quit coming up with wrong "facts".
From an objective point of view the E36 M3 was impressive, VERY impressive.
|
I am still waiting for iraghava to show me some reviews that said the E36 doesn't drive good, M3 or not.