Difference between 3.0si & 3.2M

Having followed Guiseley and Taz yesterday I can testify the 3.0si Coupe is a quick beast.

For my contribution to the debate I'll repost something I added a few months ago which might help to show the performance difference between a 3.0i Coupe and an M. At up to 50mph there isn't that much difference. As the speed rises though the M starts to really pull away.

The M is often mistaken for a car with a lack of low down torque. The opposite is true in my opinion. The in-gear times in are really good (e.g every 20mph increment from 30-50 through to 90-110 is dispatched in under 5 seconds in 4th and under 6 seconds in 5th and 50-70 in 6th is only 6.9 seconds.

Standing start - First times are for the coupe (based on Evo Magazine test) and those in brackets are for M Coupe (from Autocar roadtest). Incidentally the M figures were in a car with only 1200 miles on the odometer in damp conditions. I've seen 0-100 mph recorded as low as 10.9 but I would've thought 11.5 (same as E46 M3) would be more accurate.

0-30 2.1 (2.1)
0-40 3.2 (3.1)
0-50 4.3 (4.0)
0-60 5.8 (5.1)
0-70 7.5 (6.6)
0-80 9.3 (8.1)
0-90 11.9 (9.6)
0-100 14.2 (11.9)
0-110 17.8 (14.2)
0-120 22.4 (16.8 )
0-130 27.4 (20.0)

Note how a 0.7 second gap at 60mph has grown to 7.4 seconds by 130mph. That's the difference between the M and the 3 litre. It just keeps on pulling really fast in 3 figures. The 0-130 mph time is identical to the TTRS as an example (again based on Autocar roadtest data).

In gear times are based on the quickest time but as I pointed out earlier the M is very quick in the gears. The M will do 80-100 in 5th in the same time as the 3.0 will in 3rd as an example.

20-40 2.2 (2.0)
30-50 2.2 (1.9)
40-60 3.3 (2.0)
50-70 3.4 (2.7)
60-80 3.5 (2.8 )
70-90 5.0 (3.0)
80-100 5.3 (3.5)
90-110 5.9 (4.4)
100-120 7.1 (4.9)
110-130 9.2 (5.7)
 
here's some torque curves for 2006 models

Z4 3.0si http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=641
Z4MR http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=606

it's a bit hard to read them, but,
you can see the 3.0si peaks at 300Nm at about 2750rpm and is about 275-290 from 1500-6000
and the M is 300Nm or more from 2000rpm - 7500rpm

they might be about the same up to 1500rpm

edit:
the M has slightly bigger tyres as well I think, 255/40/18 rather than 255/35/18
but it also has a lower ratio diff, 3.62 vs 3.46 which pretty much cancels the tyre difference out
so the overall gear ratios are about the same I think between the M and the 3.0si

edit2: and based on that 3.0si curve, I'd now guess the most economical speed is about 38mph in 6th :wink: more testing required :tumbleweed:
 
Interesting debate. If you've driven a Z4 35i with DCT then you'll know that it is effortlessly fast but ultimately lacks some of the sparkle of a Z4M. In the end it's not just about performance but the way it's delivered. A TVR or Morgan for example deliver their ( often flawed) performance in a fantastic involving way. :)
 
Okay using the power runs as found my Nicko, ive digitised them all on http://www.dyno-plot.co.uk. Heres a tasty comparison, where all power ratings are at the flanges/hubs! All tested on 95RON, which it seems the M seems to like more than the more modern M54/N52.
http://www.dyno-plot.co.uk/dyno/dynoplot/id%3D783_786_785%26sort%3Drec%26but_sea%3Dqs/index.htm

Whoever says the M has no low down torque is talking out of their bottom (unless you count 1500rpm!) :P

Image:
Z4PowerGraphs.png
 
original guvnor said:
The M will do 80-100 in 5th in the same time as the 3.0 will in 3rd as an example.
Click to expand...
Hah that's a very cool stat. 8)


Wondermike said:
Reckon in 85% of driving situations a 3.0Si auto would be a better bet.. But the other 15% is so much fun.
Click to expand...
I almost put that too.. it's probably true.
 
The way I look at it is......

I used to have a Z3 2.8 what a great car in performance but after a while I wished I had the ///M.

Then I had a 330i, great engine in every way. But after a while I wished I had the M3.

Then I had a Z4 2.5, great engine. Not long after I bought it I wished I'd bought the 3.0....But ultimately I wished I'd bought the ///M.

When I changed last time I thought about the Z4C 3.0si, but this time I bought the Z4MC.

What I'm trying to say is....I've always wished I had bought the ///M.

But now I have the ///M, I've never once thought I wish I had the 3.0si !!
 
That was a major factor for me. I'm always buying with my head (or an Excel spreadsheet) and secretly wishing i had the other one.

Not this time! It's well worth the extra expense IMO.
 
Thanks for everyones input, lots of interesting graphs, also interesting to see the power difference on a dyno using 95 ron, wonder what figures we would see with 99 ron? Good to see that the M is virtually always giving out more torque above 1,500 rpm, so faster from that point on all the way up to 7,900 rpm when horsepower Kicks in (or torque x RPM).

Yes i am also considering costs and if i will get pissed off with constantly filling up, but wonder if i would forget all this in reality when driving a Z4M.
 
shiney28 said:
The way I look at it is......

I used to have a Z3 2.8 what a great car in performance but after a while I wished I had the ///M.

Then I had a 330i, great engine in every way. But after a while I wished I had the M3.

Then I had a Z4 2.5, great engine. Not long after I bought it I wished I'd bought the 3.0....But ultimately I wished I'd bought the ///M.

When I changed last time I thought about the Z4C 3.0si, but this time I bought the Z4MC.

What I'm trying to say is....I've always wished I had bought the ///M.

But now I have the ///M, I've never once thought I wish I had the 3.0si !!
Click to expand...

Well said, sums it up very well.
 
I've checked that stat...... :oops:

The M can do 80-100 in 3.5 seconds (third gear), 4.1 secs in 4th, 5.3 in 5th and 7.6 in 6th.

The Coupe CAN'T do 80-100 in 3rd because of gearing. The fastest it can do it in is 5.3 seconds (4th), followed by 6.7 (5th) and 8.9 (6th).

So it's almost true...

That the beauty of the M. The 8000 red-line. Another example... 40-60 the M can dispatch in 2.0 seconds (2nd gear), 2.8 seconds (3rd gear). The 3.0 can't do that increment in 2nd because it needs a gear change so in 3rd will do it 3.3 seconds.
 
Which is exactly why you get that huge kick in the back feeling in the M, which you can not always do in the 3.0
 
The 3.0i will hit 63mph in 2nd and 95mph in 3rd :)

The si around 2mph more due to an extra 500rpm but smaller final drive.
 
Incredible thread. So you guys are telling me the 3.2 in the ///M stomps the 3.01si engine? This is absolutely shocking news, I never would have guessed it.
 
NickC. said:
Incredible thread. So you guys are telling me the 3.2 in the ///M stomps the 3.01si engine? This is absolutely shocking news, I never would have guessed it.
Click to expand...

If you are just joking then ha ha very funny :lol: If you are just taking the p%ss then you missed the point, we were talking about the difference as in mid range torque and drivability not just is the M quicker when doing a drag race. After some car reviews that say they prefer the 3.0si and don't see much benefit in having a 3.2M
 
I had both si and M at the SAME TIME, and getting straight out of the M and into the si was a massive difference. Anyone who can't notice any difference, clearly isn't worthy of driving one.
 
I've got the M roadster and a 3.0se SMG roadster. The difference is like night and day. Though I've not driven the Si so can't comment on that one 8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom