E9x M3 vs. E46 M3 Driving Experience (2021 Edition)

I think they just appeal to different mind sets. The e46 the most hardcore feeling NA M3, and the e9X is the softest.
-Stock, the e46 is the harshest riding M3, whereas the e9X is the softest (or maybe e30...).
-The e46 drivetrain clunks, while the e9Xs doesn't.
-The s54 is unable to maintain a steady idle, s65 can.
The S54 sounds like it wants to explode at 8000rpm, whereas the S65 feels unstressed at 8400rpm.
The S54 has the highest specific output and highest piston speed of any NA BMW engine.
The e46 is smaller, and it feels way smaller from behind the wheel.
The e46 is 200-400 lbs lighter, depending on how the cars are optioned

None of those are bad for the e9X (other than weight), but they are different-- so I wouldn't expect people that like the e9X's experience to be enamored with the e46 experience. But, if you like the e46 experience, the e9X isn't a better version of it-- so that's why you get people preferring the e46 to the e9X.

Since people keep saying they're the same weight, and I weight all interesting cars that come to my house (and some that aren't)...



Note: All weights are adjusted to the car having the equivalent of a half tank of gas.

But, looking at that we have to very comparable cars-- a slick top, no idrive, 6mt, 18" wheel e90 M3 (3638 lbs) and slitktop, no nav, 6mt, 18" wheel e46 (3335 lbs)-- so 305 lbs different, similarly (lightly) optioned.

Oh, and a final throught reading through the thread-- a faster steering rack isn't "better"-- it's a different compromise. If you prefer a faster rack, it's better for your taste, but there isn't an objective better here. If there was, why not have it go lock to lock in, say, a 1/4 turn of the wheel? :P

I find the e90 M3 to be more of a successor to the e39 M5 than the e46 m3. They are more similar in size, more similar in weight, they have more similar suspension geometry that people like to claim is an upgrade to the e46 (different geometry's a suited to different size/weight cars-- BMW actually wrote a technical document about this), similar ride quality, similar sound deadening, and similar V8 sounds (albeit the S62 is torquey and the S65 is revvy). Similar chassis stiffness, too! When I think about replacing my e39 M5 with an e90 M3, I can get enthused! It's a more hard core, lighter, sportier, revvier version of a similar concept. I have zero desire to replace my e46 with an e9X M.

... sadly that's a non starter, as my wife loves the M5 too much.

As these cars get older, the ability to be DDed matters less, absolute speed matters less (because they're both slow as shit compared to modern cars), and looks and driving experience matters more... and those last two are where the e46 excels. That, IMO, is why we're seeing the things happening with e46 values that we are.

Obioban wrote

Watched that today, Matt's car is gorgeous

Obioban wrote

I find the e90 M3 to be more of a successor to the e39 M5 than the e46 m3.

Agreed

I'll corner weigh my E92 6MT ('07 with lightweight OEM flywheels) with stock 19" Fuchs wheels when I have time. I believe official data suggests 3527.40 lbs, mine should be a tad lighter as I have a bucket seat on the LHS.

kyrix1st wrote

I'll corner weigh my E92 6MT ('07 with lightweight OEM flywheels) with stock 19" Fuchs wheels when I have time. I believe official data suggests 3527.40 lbs, mine should be a tad lighter as I have a bucket seat on the LHS.

Idk what your setup is, but a bucket seat is one of the most significant weight reductions you can make. That was a huge portion of getting my e46 coupe under 3100 lbs.

Having owned my E39 M5 for 15 years along with many years together with the E90 M3, the two car are substantially different...enough so that I wouldn't put them in the same category really. Even with all the mods I had done to the M5 (Dinan springs, Konis, monoballs, Dinan rear swaybar, Ground Control camber plates, 9.5/275s up front), it was still a pig and much more suited to highway travel versus even when the M3 was totally stock.

I've written extensive comparisons, detailed, after autocross and track sessions, before, so no need to rehash all that.

The M5 is much quieter, much softer riding (even with all the mods it was still like a living room sofa compared to the stock E90 M3) and a *lot* heavier (i.e. E90 6MT slicktop versus my M5 = well over 300lbs difference).

In any event, many have found they do not view the E90 M3 as a replacement for the use they employed the E39 M5 for at all and were disappointed with the M3. I would *much* rather take a cross-country trip in the M5 than my M3 for example, much. However, by a factor of a hundred, I'd much rather drive the M3 spirited, on track, on course than the M5 any day.

As an aside, the front suspension on the E90 M3 vs the E39 M5 is hugely different, from the design of the overall arrangement (i.e. tension arm arrangement on the E90 versus the compression arm on the M5) to the rack and pinon in the M3 versus the push from behind the wheel centerline recirculating ball setup in the M5. The E39 V8 steering design is truly a carryover type arrangement dating all the way back to my first BMW, the E3. The camber profile under compression is much more favorable in the E90 versus the E39 also. Are they both strut suspensions, yes like almost every car these days, but that's where the similarity ends really. In fact that rear pointing compression arm bushing in the M5 is a source of problems as it's fluid filled and fails rather quickly -- replacing that with the monoball really helps although that does increase NVH, especially with the GC camber plates not insulating NVH as well. Many use an inverted placed X5 bushing there.

To be clear, my point was that the e90 M3 driving experience is more similar to the e39 M5 than the e46 M3 driving experience– not that it’s the same.

Both the E9X and E46 feel soft as hell on track in near stock config. I can't imagine the E39 M5 feeling close to the E9X, but if that's your experience I won't argue.

Bartledoo wrote

Both the E9X and E46 feel soft as hell on track in near stock config. I can't imagine the E39 M5 feeling close to the E9X, but if that's your experience I won't argue.

It doesn't...the M5 is much softer than the E90 M3, sloppy, has a lot of push on turn in, feels lethargic and very heavy compared to the M3. Seriously, back to back drive them on track as they are really much further apart in just about every aspect. Brakes? The M5 is way undersized in brake department and the E39 is known for very squishy brakes with poor feedback and too much travel. I replaced my stock ones with Stoptech BBK, and that helped a lot, especially at VIR where the Stoptech BBK with PFC01 pads was incredible. Prior to that I had melted a brake piston seal using the stock M5 brakes with HT10 race pads at VIR (two long very high speed straights on full course there). By comparison the stock M3 brakes are much better with a firm, solid pedal with excellent feedback. The driving experience of the S62 versus the S65 is very different also...they're both V8s (5L and 4L), but vastly different powerbands.

The M5 is certainly another step towards the luxury side.

But, at the end of the day, stock the e9x M3 is the heaviest generation of M3, the most sound deadened generation of M3, and the softest riding generation of M3. The e46, stock, is the harshest riding generation of M3, had the smallest weight gain over the previous gen (pre turbo, but those aren’t real M3s), and conveys the most mechanical noises into the cabin. This is why I think they’re suited to different priority sets.

Obioban wrote

The M5 is certainly another step towards the luxury side.

But, at the end of the day, stock the e9x M3 is the heaviest generation of M3, the most sound deadened generation of M3, and the softest riding generation of M3. The e46, stock, is the harshest riding generation of M3, had the smallest weight gain over the previous gen (pre turbo, but those aren’t real M3s), and conveys the most mechanical noises into the cabin. This is why I think they’re suited to different priority sets.

No. The g80 is the heaviest version of the m3.

leftfootbr8king wrote

No. The g80 is the heaviest version of the m3.

Without a doubt and a monster increase over the F80...almost E39 M5 heavy.

As an aside, the single biggest weight decrease item between the E90 and F80, btw, was the Li battery which saved 31lbs over the E90 normal battery which it well should given its MSRP is $1900. If you substitute an Li battery into the E90 using something like the Antigravity design, that saves even more at 40lbs lighter...just a PSA on weight of F80 vs E90.

Obioban wrote

The M5 is certainly another step towards the luxury side.

But, at the end of the day, stock the e9x M3 is the heaviest generation of M3, the most sound deadened generation of M3, and the softest riding generation of M3. The e46, stock, is the harshest riding generation of M3, had the smallest weight gain over the previous gen (pre turbo, but those aren’t real M3s), and conveys the most mechanical noises into the cabin. This is why I think they’re suited to different priority sets.

The mix of characteristics you’re quoting are odd. I also don’t understand your basis for excluding the f80 as “not a real m”. The e92 is twice as stiff as a e36 or e30, and at least as stiff as a e46 when in its sport setting. E92 as softest? Maybe when in “soft” setting

I really don’t buy the different in “rawness” you’re painting between the e46 and e9x - I’ve driven so many e46, many e9x and a spectrum of e36 versions, and the arguments you are making are more applicable to an e36 than e46 when it comes to rawness.

The “rawness” stuff that always comes up with the e46 is merely a reflection of the eras they were built. An e46 doesn’t feel that much lighter then an e9x in practise, but has away less chassis rigidity and creature comforts. A great car? No question. But it’s not a miata or a race car - it’s still a daily driveable sedan/coupe.

leftfootbr8king wrote

No. The g80 is the heaviest version of the m3.

I care so little about the turbo M3s that I actually had no idea that was the case

You can tell how stiff the e46 is by looking at all the welding that needs to be done on the subframe to keep it from ripping out of the car.

leftfootbr8king wrote

You can tell how stiff the e46 is by looking at all the welding that needs to be done on the subframe to keep it from ripping out of the car.

But it’s “raw” and “light”

leftfootbr8king wrote

You can tell how stiff the e46 is by looking at all the welding that needs to be done on the subframe to keep it from ripping out of the car.

That’s not actually related...?

Just throw in 95A trans mounts and boom raw AF.

leftfootbr8king wrote

You can tell how stiff the e46 is by looking at all the welding that needs to be done on the subframe to keep it from ripping out of the car.

No question the E46 is from the old era before body-in-white torsional and bending rigidity took their big leap forward which occurred with the E9x generation (took place with the E39 generation in the 5 series). You can immediately feel the structure higher natural frequency when you back to back and E90 with an E46 or earlier. BMW published a nice paper for the E90 years ago showing how those improvements were made, how they employed very high and ultra high strength steel at various places particularly at the highest stress locations in the body, etc.

As to the rear subframe mounting points ripping out on an E46, one would assume the designers clearly underestimated the factor of safety needed for that area of the structure (since they obviously underestimated the amplitude of the cyclic stresses experienced). It's clearly not the best design by a wide margin, but it does come from earlier days still in CAD/FEM (i.e. early 1990s design work). I'm sure if they could do it over again, they'd easily fix that area plus the front strut top mounting area along with many other improvements. How cool would that be if BMW did a run of E46 body-in-white shells with greater than 100% improvements in torsional and bending rigidity along with fixing all the poor design locations plus using modern E9x era and forward ulta-high strength steels?

CSBM5 wrote

No question the E46 is from the old era before body-in-white torsional and bending rigidity took their big leap forward which occurred with the E9x generation (took place with the E39 generation in the 5 series). You can immediately feel the structure higher natural frequency when you back to back and E90 with an E46 or earlier. BMW published a nice paper for the E90 years ago showing how those improvements were made, how they employed very high and ultra high strength steel at various places particularly at the highest stress locations in the body, etc.

As to the rear subframe mounting points ripping out on an E46, one would assume the designers clearly underestimated the factor of safety needed for that area of the structure (since they obviously underestimated the amplitude of the cyclic stresses experienced). It's clearly not the best design by a wide margin, but it does come from earlier days still in CAD/FEM (i.e. early 1990s design work). I'm sure if they could do it over again, they'd easily fix that area plus the front strut top mounting area along with many other improvements. How cool would that be if BMW did a run of E46 body-in-white shells with greater than 100% improvements in torsional and bending rigidity along with fixing all the poor design locations plus using modern E9x era and forward ulta-high strength steels?

If you’re going to pick jump points on M3s, I’d say they’re e46 and f80. E46 M3 has a bunch of stiffening over the non M:
E36 m3: 10,500 nm/deg
E46 m3: 18,500 nm/deg
E90: 22,500 nm/deg
F80: 40,000 nm/deg

E39 was ahead of its time.
E39: 24,000 nm/deg

Obioban wrote

If you’re going to pick jump points on M3s, I’d say they’re e46 and f80. E46 M3 has a bunch of stiffening over the non M:
E36 m3: 10,500 nm/deg
E46 m3: 18,500 nm/deg
E90: 22,500 nm/deg
F80: 40,000 nm/deg

E39 was ahead of its time.
E39: 24,000 nm/deg

I don't have the E90 M3 specific data, but it also has additional stiffening compared to the base E90 number quoted. In any event, BMW themselves outlined in their white paper the substantial improvements made in the body structure of the E90 not only in terms of torsional (which is what you've quoted) and also bending rigidity, but significantly in crash safety and occupant protection/reduction in g-loads/etc. That continued progress simply marched onward. I have the actual paper PDF file on my server, so I can hunt for it as it directly compares the E90 to the E46 in heads up manner.

CSBM5 wrote

I don't have the E90 M3 specific data, but it also has additional stiffening compared to the base E90 number quoted. In any event, BMW themselves outlined in their white paper the substantial improvements made in the body structure of the E90 not only in terms of torsional (which is what you've quoted) and also bending rigidity, but significantly in crash safety and occupant protection/reduction in g-loads/etc. That continued progress simply marched onward. I have the actual paper PDF file on my server, so I can hunt for it as it directly compares the E90 to the E46 in heads up manner.

Would be interesting.

That said, it's not really relevant to what people get something different from the e46 to the e90. It's probably similar to why you have an M2-- it drives smaller, which just makes it a more fun, more involving experience.

Obioban wrote

If you’re going to pick jump points on M3s, I’d say they’re e46 and f80. E46 M3 has a bunch of stiffening over the non M:
E36 m3: 10,500 nm/deg
E46 m3: 18,500 nm/deg
E90: 22,500 nm/deg
F80: 40,000 nm/deg

E39 was ahead of its time.
E39: 24,000 nm/deg

AFAIK E92 M3 has 33,000Nm/deg of torsional rigidity.