[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: 200 vs. M5



I did see the article on the M3s. Thought it was only about newer
generation M3s, not older ones, though I imagine there are options
available. Thereís always something faster, but dollar for dollar you
can *make* a faster Audi, particularly with the older (91 & later)
Audis. For what you pay around here (So Cal) for a used M5 or M3, you
can find an Audi of same year for a lot less money - spend the
difference wisely and youíll have a faster car with the Audi.

Believe me, I donít think my big heavy 91 200q corners nearly as well as
an earlier M3, but thatís an apples and oranges comparison. The M5 is an
appropriate challenger. However, year for year you can buy an Audi for
less $$ and throw your choice of mods on, which by the time youíve spent
a little brings you into the same dollar ballpark as the stock BMW, with
higher overall speed/handling limits thanks to wonderful quattro
all-wheel drive - eg youíd have a faster car on the track even if the
Bimmer maintained a little edge in lateral grip: Just put your foot in
it, spool the turbo up and shoot out of the corner. Look behind you.
Yup, there he is. :) (repeat as necessary)

My perspective is from Southern California where older (91 down) Audis
are particularly undervalued, and Bimmers are (in my mind) over-valued
largely for the status merits of that silly little propeller on the
hood. (propellers belong on boats, not cars). Perhaps my dollar for
dollar argument/perspective doesnít hold true elsewhere in the U.S.,
though. 

Sarge


Kwattro@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 97-05-31 23:37:11 EDT, you write:
> 
> << ou may be correct regarding the 88. The M5 I was referencing was a
>  newer body style car (91 or so). I beat it but barely. My car was
>  running very well, pulling 2.0 bar max, and this was on the highway, not
>  the track (eg straight line accelleration).  >>
> 
> Early M5's were almost a Munich call back to the days of muscle cars, when GM
> and Ford underestimated hp to meet laws.  Stock the car is supposed to have
> 250 hp.  My fathers was recently dyno'd at 251 hp.  At the rear wheels.  Old
> M5's are incredibly fast.  Not too reliable, but fast.  As for Gen1 M3's, the
> driver you encountered must have been a slug...I have seen M3's beat just
> about every car on every track, leaving high dollar car owners (Corvettes,
> 300ZXtt's, Porsche 928s 944 turbos 911 turbos, BMW M5's) in their dust.  They
> are an incredibly formidable car, especially in evolution form.  Might not
> have the kick of the new 6 cylinder, but quite a car indeed.  I suppose you
> didn't see the article on the turbo M3's?  Or that they make a 2,500$ bolt on
> supercharger kit?  Yes, the 200TQ is fast, very fast.  But there is always
> something faster...
> 
> Kwattro