Go Back   Sports Car Forum - MotorWorld.net > Television and Movies > Top Gear Discussion > The Cool Wall

The Cool Wall Our version of the cool wall.. you decide what's cool and what's not - view the results HERE



View Poll Results: BMW E36 M3
subzero 16 17.39%
cool 47 51.09%
uncool 20 21.74%
seriously uncool 9 9.78%
Voters: 92. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-17-2006, 01:33 PM   #31
ZfrkS62
Regular User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Just south of Confused
Posts: 7,647
Default

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.
What do expect from him? Go look through the political forum. all his arguments are like that.
__________________

my carbon footprint is bigger than yours
ZfrkS62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 01:37 PM   #32
Global Warming
Regular User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boston/Kansas City
Posts: 546
Default

Originally Posted by ZfrkS62
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.
What do expect from him? Go look through the political forum. all his arguments are like that.
Uhhh he wasn’t talking about me dude. He was talking about the guy that’s talking about how it drives. The cool wall is not about facts or technical aspects. Clarkson has said that over and over. It’s about a car being cool or not. And the M3 is uncool because of its fan boy base. It's my opinion that the M3 is uncool, and it is a fact that the car has one of the largest fan boy bases of any car.

Not much you can argue with there. If your opinion is that it’s a cool car that’s your right, we all have our own personal cool walls.
__________________
That's what she said
Global Warming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 01:42 PM   #33
LotusGT1
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,565
Default

You're right this time. Although I think basing your opinion on a fan base is a bit fishy, you can successfully argue it can define the "coolness" of a car.

I was talking about morons like nthfinity, which make it a sport to argue about a car based on mis-information and general bullshit.
__________________
LotusGT1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 02:12 PM   #34
ZfrkS62
Regular User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Just south of Confused
Posts: 7,647
Default

Global, i apologize if i came off a bit harsh. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that you would hate a car because of it's unfortunate attactiveness to a small percentage of retards over its entire target audience.
__________________

my carbon footprint is bigger than yours
ZfrkS62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 03:05 PM   #35
Global Warming
Regular User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boston/Kansas City
Posts: 546
Default

Originally Posted by ZfrkS62
Global, i apologize if i came off a bit harsh. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that you would hate a car because of it's unfortunate attactiveness to a small percentage of retards over its entire target audience.
Well look at the real Top Gear "Cool Wall" They have a lot of cars in the uncool section for much less significant reasons. Infact they also have the M3 as uncool! lol

I just think all M3s are uncool because of the teenage fan base. Its an incredible machine, looks good, but is uncool. I think all BMWs are uncool actually. I would never buy one.

Anyway, like i said, we all have our own personal cool walls
__________________
That's what she said
Global Warming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 03:20 PM   #36
r2r
Regular User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Detroit
Posts: 1,562
Default

Originally Posted by Global Hemisphere

I just think all M3s are uncool because of the teenage fan base. Its an incredible machine, looks good, but is uncool.
Saying all M3 and BMW's are uncool just because of the fan base (a fan base that you don't even have to visit) is just wrong and stupid, and the worst way to judge a car for the cool wall.

The cool wall is a list where you give your opinion of a car not considering all the politics or other peoples reactions towards that car, regardless if it has collected a fan base or not. Why should you change your opinion of a car just because someone likes it allot or hates it?
r2r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 03:48 PM   #37
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

Originally Posted by LotusGT1
The E36 M3 had 286 hp (eurospec) from the start and a whopping 321hp later. A mere 22hp less than the heavier E46.

LOL@the powerplant lacking. That's bullshit. Even the US-spec M3 had a 0-60 acceleration under 6 seconds. That was fucking serious performance. Faster than the RX-8 in your signature f.e.

It was BY FAR the best sports sedan/coupe to have in that class during the period it was produced. I even think the gap with competition was larger than with the E46. The M3 was judged The Best Handling Car in America by the editors of Car and Driver.
the car was brilliant, yes.

but US spec was quite different then the eurospec; which is what i am basing my argument on... something i didnt know was eurospec was up to 321 hp...
US spec never made it past 240hp (something you didn't know) in 2000, there was no M cars.

so, now that you see my argument is solid as a rock; i rest my case (when comparing only US spec cars)

yes, its more powerful, and i dont doubt faster, and a better handler then the RX8 in my sig...

guess what, i would rather have the E36 M3 then the RX8; as im sure it would offer more driving pleasure. the mazda in my sig is there because it is a recent sighting; and a good picture... nothing to do with liking it more or less then a BMW E36 M3. so your argument against mine is a loaded one; ultimately irrelevant.
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 03:57 PM   #38
ZfrkS62
Regular User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Just south of Confused
Posts: 7,647
Default

Originally Posted by nthfinity
Originally Posted by LotusGT1
The E36 M3 had 286 hp (eurospec) from the start and a whopping 321hp later. A mere 22hp less than the heavier E46.

LOL@the powerplant lacking. That's bullshit. Even the US-spec M3 had a 0-60 acceleration under 6 seconds. That was fucking serious performance. Faster than the RX-8 in your signature f.e.

It was BY FAR the best sports sedan/coupe to have in that class during the period it was produced. I even think the gap with competition was larger than with the E46. The M3 was judged The Best Handling Car in America by the editors of Car and Driver.
the car was brilliant, yes.

but US spec was quite different then the eurospec; which is what i am basing my argument on... something i didnt know was eurospec was up to 321 hp...
US spec never made it past 240hp (something you didn't know) in 2000, there was no M cars.

so, now that you see my argument is solid as a rock; i rest my case (when comparing only US spec cars)
But again, you are comparing the E36 to it's little brother which i don't understand. Engine technology alone is a deciding factor in the E46 since the S54 uses the AluSil alloy that was introduced in the S62 of the M5, where as the S52 of the E36 was an aluminum block.

How can you fault the E36 for that?

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.
__________________

my carbon footprint is bigger than yours
ZfrkS62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 04:03 PM   #39
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

^^^^^^
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)
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 04:28 PM   #40
ZfrkS62
Regular User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Just south of Confused
Posts: 7,647
Default

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)
I probably should have worded it as: comparing the E36 to it's YOUNGER brother, since the E46 is decidedly the younger version.
__________________

my carbon footprint is bigger than yours
ZfrkS62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 04:41 PM   #41
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

Originally Posted by ZfrkS62

I probably should have worded it as: comparing the E36 to it's YOUNGER brother, since the E46 is decidedly the younger version.
quite right ops:
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 05:25 PM   #42
Global Warming
Regular User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boston/Kansas City
Posts: 546
Default

Originally Posted by r2r
Originally Posted by Global Hemisphere

I just think all M3s are uncool because of the teenage fan base. Its an incredible machine, looks good, but is uncool.
Saying all M3 and BMW's are uncool just because of the fan base (a fan base that you don't even have to visit) is just wrong and stupid, and the worst way to judge a car for the cool wall.

The cool wall is a list where you give your opinion of a car not considering all the politics or other peoples reactions towards that car, regardless if it has collected a fan base or not. Why should you change your opinion of a car just because someone likes it allot or hates it?

Well you guys are just going to have to accept that there are a lot of people in the world that do not like BMW's. I agree that it can piss you off. Kind of like how so many people hat all "American" cars just because they are American. That is totally unfair. And saying I think all BMW's are uncool may be unfair, but none the less, that’s what I think!

Anyway I'm drunk, just got back from one bar and heading out the door for another!!

HAPPY MOTHER FUCKING ST PATRICKS DAY!!! LOL
__________________
That's what she said
Global Warming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 01:26 AM   #43
ae86_16v
Regular User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 3,446
Default

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.
ae86_16v is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 01:39 AM   #44
ZfrkS62
Regular User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Just south of Confused
Posts: 7,647
Default

Our cars had the S50 and the S52 both rated at 240hp
sorry, i knew what you meant some others may not.

Remember BMWNA didn't even want to bring the E36 M3 over ecause they were afraid it would not sell
I hadn't heard that before. I thought the delay was because of the emissions re-development.
__________________

my carbon footprint is bigger than yours
ZfrkS62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 02:46 AM   #45
ae86_16v
Regular User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 3,446
Default

Originally Posted by ZfrkS62
Our cars had the S50 and the S52 both rated at 240hp
sorry, i knew what you meant some others may not.

Remember BMWNA didn't even want to bring the E36 M3 over ecause they were afraid it would not sell
I hadn't heard that before. I thought the delay was because of the emissions re-development.
Fixed (maybe it is just that I want a S54 really really bad ).

Well, it was two folds, one was definitely because of the emissions and two was because of cost and marketing.
ae86_16v is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump