[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: E30 BMW M3 v. URQ
OK. While not exactly what you were looking for, I have an article in
front of me that tested the Audi S2 with the very limited production (Euro
only) WMB M3 Sport Evolution and the M-B 190E 2.5-16 Evolution II. It is
from R&T Jan 1991. The much heavier S2 did 0-60 in 6.0 compared to 6.5 for
WMB & 6.9 for M-B. Also, in the 1/4 mile it was the same: S2 14.6, WMB
14.8, M-B 15.3.
Funny, the S2 is just the performance model (like stage 1) while the other
two were 'higher' performance versions of their 'high' performance models.
> From: Roger DeCoster <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: E30 BMW M3 v. URQ
> Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 10:21 PM
> I have a friend who is considering the purchase of a 1989 BMW M3. We
> have an ongoing debate as to the merits/drawbacks of the
> first-generation M3 as it compares to the ur-q, and have never seen
> any data comparing the two. It seems a natural comparison, as both
> are purpose-built, flared-fendered, high-performance coupes. I
> contend that with a modest chip/spring upgrade that the ur-q will put
> out the same h.p. (about 195) as the M3, with the added benefit of the
> quattro driveline. He contends that acceleration, roadholding, and
> braking all go to the BMW, hands down. I counter that if you really
> want to compare the two, you'd have to *make* a BMW M3ix, and even
> that would have an inferior driveline to Audi. The truth is that
> neither of us knows what the hell we're talking about, really. So I
> put it to you, those who have perhaps seen them go side by side or
> perhaps own or have driven an M3 at Bondurant or some such place, to
> give me some more bile to throw at this fine friend, and maybe a few
> facts, too.
> Quattroing thru the Snow, BMW in tow.
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com