3.0si to M

[R60BBA]

Fully agreed.

One of the main reasons of me moving (bar the badge) was that the M should (in theory at least) hold its value better.

I toyed with the idea of getting Birds to stick a Quaife in my Z4C however I would lose all of this money on re-sale.

Also whilst I was on the Nurburgring I could only stay with the E46 M3s for a few corners before they started to pull away.

As I’m planning to do more track driving I thought I might aswell get a faster car

 

[abar121]

Having tried both N52 and S54 variants, there is a massive difference. The Z4M is a lot lighter than an E46 M3 too and easily pulls away from one on track. Not exactly without faults and I do love the N52 , but every drive is an event in the M.

From an earlier comparison:

To give you some idea of the engine difference.

On the same dyno from the US Rototest site. The US Z4M also has a more restrictive exhaust header.



Z4 3.0 M54, Z4 3.0si N52, ,Z4M S54

What it doesn't tell you is the awesome sound those six throttle bodies make with the roof down! :wub:

 

[Smartbear]

Having tried both N52 and S54 variants, there is a massive difference. The Z4M is a lot lighter than an E46 M3 too and easily pulls away from one on track. Not exactly without faults and I do love the N52 , but every drive is an event in the M.

From an earlier comparison:

To give you some idea of the engine difference.

On the same dyno from the US Rototest site. The US Z4M also has a more restrictive exhaust header.

Untitled (1).jpg

Z4 3.0 M54, Z4 3.0si N52, ,Z4M S54

What it doesn't tell you is the awesome sound those six throttle bodies make with the roof down! :wub:

Veering off post for a moment, this confirms my thoughts that the 2.0 n20 z4 (mapped) fits into the narrow gap between the n52 & s54 engined cars.
You can see the effect forced induction has on the torque output!

Rob

 

[R60BBA]

The E46 M3 is 80kg heavier (that’s practically the average weight of having a passenger in a Z4M Coupe).

If you remove the roof and install a CSL roof you lose 100kg which would make the M3 lighter than the Z4M Coupe. You can also delete the rear seats, swap out of the heavy fronts for Recaro Pole Positions and replace the backbox with a lighter system...

The Z4 probably feels faster because you sit in a lower position and are closer to the rear wheels. Yet both have more or less the same 0 - 60 times and the same times on track.

The reason why I feel that the S54 doesn’t ‘feel as fast in the low end’ as my Coupe is because peak torque kicks in at 4,900rpm where as peak torque comes in at 2,800rpm in the N52.

The difference is not night and day in normal driving.

However as previously noted - is on track.

 

[abar121]

The physics don't lie, unlike many of the figures on fastest laps. Did you know that MX5s have long been five second cars to sixty. I'll take two please.

Anyway, take your pick and enjoy! Goodbye.

 

[R60BBA]

https://youtu.be/3gzv7kL2Vi4

Watch from 2:04

Don’t get me wrong I would prefer a Z4M Coupe over an E46 M3 but unfortunately the insurance costs 3x more so I have to wait.

 

[TomK]

If you remove the roof and install a CSL roof you lose 100kg

er, not even close. IF you have a sunroof car you'll lose around 25kg, if not around 5kg. I have the exact amounts when I did the conversion to my CS somewhere.

My M3CS (which had the sunroof option like most) weighed over 100kg more than my Mcoupe stock, which for sure I felt, and the performance between the two was noticeable.
For me the Z is a far more enjoyable car to drive fast than the m3, though for sure the M3 trumps it in normal driving duties.
It's also nice to know that you don't have to worry about the shocking RACP design of the e46 platform, no wonder pretty much any M3 you see going on track these days is caged and tied into that area, woeful engineering by bmw.

I haven't driven a 3.0si so I'll stop waffling now

 

[Simon 3.2M]

Ultimately the fact is that after a period of time any car won't feel as fast as it did when you first drove it and this thread is about the Z4M and the 3.0si in comparison to one another. Both have merits and both have drawbacks, the si is an everyday, every man's driveable car that is comfortable, predictable and fun to drive in a myriad of different settings, the M is probably less so. Some say the S54 is fragile and must have the valves and bearing shells done and is one drive aware from blowing up. Some indy's say they've never had to adjust the valves some say they have, some say the shells have worn on low mileage cars, some say engines with 150k+ that have been thrashed on the track have been fine. Most do say that as long as the correct grade / quality oil is used and they are allowed to warm up they are generally bullet proof. When it comes to the si people bemoan the imminently failing water pumps, the failing solenoids or the blocked internal CCV. If I get an M I intend to keep it stock and appreciate the car for what it is - I won't be bombing around on public roads at killer speeds, I wont be exploiting its full potential on the track either. What I will be doing is enjoying driving a car that is something a little out of the ordinary and good fun. I could blow up 2 miles down the road, it could last forever - it's a collection of metal parts and metal wears over time, you can only do your best to mitigate that with proper maintenance, oil and letting the engine warm up properly - as you should do with any car! As I've mentioned, for me they are chalk and cheese with the added bonus that if looked after, come sale time you shouldn't loose too much if anything and it is relatively easy to jump back into an si if it doesn't work out.

 

[idej_z4]

I've never driven an ///M

Ultimately the fact is that after a period of time any car won't feel as fast as it did when you first drove it and this thread is about the Z4M and the 3.0si in comparison to one another. Both have merits and both have drawbacks, the si is an everyday, every man's driveable car that is comfortable, predictable and fun to drive in a myriad of different settings, the M is probably less so. Some say the S54 is fragile and must have the valves and bearing shells done and is one drive aware from blowing up. Some indy's say they've never had to adjust the valves some say they have, some say the shells have worn on low mileage cars, some say engines with 150k+ that have been thrashed on the track have been fine. Most do say that as long as the correct grade / quality oil is used and they are allowed to warm up they are generally bullet proof. When it comes to the si people bemoan the imminently failing water pumps, the failing solenoids or the blocked internal CCV. If I get an M I intend to keep it stock and appreciate the car for what it is - I won't be bombing around on public roads at killer speeds, I wont be exploiting its full potential on the track either. What I will be doing is enjoying driving a car that is something a little out of the ordinary and good fun. I could blow up 2 miles down the road, it could last forever - it's a collection of metal parts and metal wears over time, you can only do your best to mitigate that with proper maintenance, oil and letting the engine warm up properly - as you should do with any car! As I've mentioned, for me they are chalk and cheese with the added bonus that if looked after, come sale time you shouldn't loose too much if anything and it is relatively easy to jump back into an si if it doesn't work out.

I've never driven an ///M so my thoughts are based purely on what I do know...although I might add I was getting pretty close recently to potentially making the switch but life happens and things change very quickly.

What I would say is that the things that worried me were the cost of road tax (double), service (double) and parts (harder to come by and therefore more expensive). It also costs more in fuel and insurance. With that in mind I was always conscious that if the ///M didn't feel worth double my money I probably wouldn't make the switch. Reading this thread though it is likely that it isn't double the car, but that isn't the point! Maybe I'm just not rich enough yet to own an ///M if Im always looking over my shoulder at general running costs.

One thing I would say though is I don't totally agree with your comments around what you'll lose in a couple of years, especially on the Coupe versions I've had my Si Coupe for over two years now and reckon I've lost around £1,500...maybe £1,750 at the most. I don't think that amount is much different to what I would lose on an ///M if I did the same mileage.

 

[mmm-five]

I’ve only ever had the M version of BMWs.

My 3.6 e34 M5 felt nimbler/quicker than my later 3.8 e34 M5, but this was simply due to the fact that the 3.6 was about 100kg lighter and the engine revved a bit more freely.

Being 30bhp/left down meant it wasn’t as fast in real life (acceleration or top speed), but it felt it.

However, I’d happily have a non-M coupe, as long as it had the same enhancements as my current M (including the hydraulic steering). I’d even have a non-manual, if SMG was available, but not a full-auto.

 

[tomscott]

The E46 M3 and E86 Z4Ms are the same platform but man they are very different.

Both excellent cars and would have either again. Depends what you want. With the M3 you cant get away from the fact its a fast saloon not a sports car although does a decent job of bridging the gap. The Z4M is rawer in all aspects and is no where near as refined, compliant or as comfortable. Mostly because of the fact the seats are over the rear axel and you sit so low, in the E86 the ride is very similar to the ride in the M3 but in the rear seats. In the E46 its far more comfortable as you sit almost in the middle but that also means you dont get the same feel.

Some people love or hate those differences. The E86 took me a while to get used to but loved it.

You can see these things as positives and negatives. The e46 m3 is one of my fav BMWs of all time but the Z4M is a very close second.

Paper to real life is vastly different.

That being said I would have an E46 M3 for family duties and an E86 Z4M for the weekend all day long. Great combo imo...

The two I had.

BMW Z4M Coupe, Ulswater Boat house, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

BMW E46 M3, Alston, Hartside, Cumbria, CSL wheels by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Thats if 911s didnt exist...

Porsche 996 Carrera 4 S Convertible, Lowther Castle, Penrith, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Porsche 996 Carrera 4 S Convertible, Lowther Castle, Penrith, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

TBH I was always anti the roadster, now im a bit older I appreciate it much more and for the cost difference the M coupe is gorgeous which to me is the main draw. That being said it is super claustrophobic, boomy and if anything the aural experience is no where close to the roadster. I didnt even know how much noise the coupe made until I was photographing mine out the back of another vehicle with my dad driving, the induction noise is very loud outside the car.

BMW Z4M Coupe, Silver Grey, CSL wheels by Tom Scott, on Flickr

I dont think the coupe is so much better that it asks 3-40% more than the equivalent roady. If you want an M the roady is the bargain atm and like the Z3M will take longer to get there but will certainly appreciate too.

 

[Simon 3.2M]

I've never driven an ///M

Ultimately the fact is that after a period of time any car won't feel as fast as it did when you first drove it and this thread is about the Z4M and the 3.0si in comparison to one another. Both have merits and both have drawbacks, the si is an everyday, every man's driveable car that is comfortable, predictable and fun to drive in a myriad of different settings, the M is probably less so. Some say the S54 is fragile and must have the valves and bearing shells done and is one drive aware from blowing up. Some indy's say they've never had to adjust the valves some say they have, some say the shells have worn on low mileage cars, some say engines with 150k+ that have been thrashed on the track have been fine. Most do say that as long as the correct grade / quality oil is used and they are allowed to warm up they are generally bullet proof. When it comes to the si people bemoan the imminently failing water pumps, the failing solenoids or the blocked internal CCV. If I get an M I intend to keep it stock and appreciate the car for what it is - I won't be bombing around on public roads at killer speeds, I wont be exploiting its full potential on the track either. What I will be doing is enjoying driving a car that is something a little out of the ordinary and good fun. I could blow up 2 miles down the road, it could last forever - it's a collection of metal parts and metal wears over time, you can only do your best to mitigate that with proper maintenance, oil and letting the engine warm up properly - as you should do with any car! As I've mentioned, for me they are chalk and cheese with the added bonus that if looked after, come sale time you shouldn't loose too much if anything and it is relatively easy to jump back into an si if it doesn't work out.

I've never driven an ///M so my thoughts are based purely on what I do know...although I might add I was getting pretty close recently to potentially making the switch but life happens and things change very quickly.

What I would say is that the things that worried me were the cost of road tax (double), service (double) and parts (harder to come by and therefore more expensive). It also costs more in fuel and insurance. With that in mind I was always conscious that if the ///M didn't feel worth double my money I probably wouldn't make the switch. Reading this thread though it is likely that it isn't double the car, but that isn't the point! Maybe I'm just not rich enough yet to own an ///M if Im always looking over my shoulder at general running costs.

One thing I would say though is I don't totally agree with your comments around what you'll lose in a couple of years, especially on the Coupe versions I've had my Si Coupe for over two years now and reckon I've lost around £1,500...maybe £1,750 at the most. I don't think that amount is much different to what I would lose on an ///M if I did the same mileage.

I think both cars have depreciated to the levels where they will likely stay, an M in decent condition should pull 10k all day long as will a nice si Coupe (The M coupe is a different kettle of fish altogether!!) If you are paying 14-15k for either then it may be a different story.

I'm fortunate in that the car will be a "toy" for me, used at weekends and in decent weather and it's more about having owned one - I wouldn't run one as an daily however, I would an si.

 

[Bodyboarder]

This is a great thread for me ..... I want a MC but probably would be better off with a 3.0 C . I have a mint Honda S2000 with 28k on that is a summer /fun day car that lives in the garage . The coupe ( in either form ) will be used for going to the gym , winter , pricing work ( self employed) winter use , will stay out side . Just seems a bit wrong doing this to an M .....

 

[Bodyboarder]

..... or a 370z ? Gets the flame suit at the ready

I’ve had 2 HR 350z’s and loved them both .

Sorry going off topic :?

 

[Simon 3.2M]

I guy drives past my work in a black Z4MC - being an everyday, all year round car isn't a problem - a lot of people forget that both the roadster and coupe are designed for year round use.

 

[buzyg]

The E46 M3 and E86 Z4Ms are the same platform but man they are very different.

Both excellent cars and would have either again. Depends what you want. With the M3 you cant get away from the fact its a fast saloon not a sports car although does a decent job of bridging the gap. The Z4M is rawer in all aspects and is no where near as refined, compliant or as comfortable. Mostly because of the fact the seats are over the rear axel and you sit so low, in the E86 the ride is very similar to the ride in the M3 but in the rear seats. In the E46 its far more comfortable as you sit almost in the middle but that also means you dont get the same feel.

Some people love or hate those differences. The E86 took me a while to get used to but loved it.

You can see these things as positives and negatives. The e46 m3 is one of my fav BMWs of all time but the Z4M is a very close second.

Paper to real life is vastly different.

That being said I would have an E46 M3 for family duties and an E86 Z4M for the weekend all day long. Great combo imo...

The two I had.

BMW Z4M Coupe, Ulswater Boat house, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

BMW E46 M3, Alston, Hartside, Cumbria, CSL wheels by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Thats if 911s didnt exist...

Porsche 996 Carrera 4 S Convertible, Lowther Castle, Penrith, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Porsche 996 Carrera 4 S Convertible, Lowther Castle, Penrith, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

TBH I was always anti the roadster, now im a bit older I appreciate it much more and for the cost difference the M coupe is gorgeous which to me is the main draw. That being said it is super claustrophobic, boomy and if anything the aural experience is no where close to the roadster. I didnt even know how much noise the coupe made until I was photographing mine out the back of another vehicle with my dad driving, the induction noise is very loud outside the car.

BMW Z4M Coupe, Silver Grey, CSL wheels by Tom Scott, on Flickr

I dont think the coupe is so much better that it asks 3-40% more than the equivalent roady. If you want an M the roady is the bargain atm and like the Z3M will take longer to get there but will certainly appreciate too.

As always cracking pics Tom

 

[R60BBA]

I wonder if putting a 4.10 diff in an E46 M3 would cure my torque issue :?

 

[Simon 3.2M]

I must say, without sounding arrogant or like I'm gloating but OMG, the M is just war!! My advice would be if you could make the jump then you definately should. Yes the running costs are more and there's the inspection 2 requirement but what a drivers car!!

 

[Mr Tidy]

I'll just have to pretend I never read Simon's last post. :roll:

Or try to sell some body parts! :lol:

 

[Jembo]

I'll just have to pretend I never read Simon's last post. :roll:

Or try to sell some body parts! :lol:

U wait until he fits a Gruppe induction... the only downside to listening to that warble is a 20% loss in MPG