Auto Makers:
Acura
Aston Martin
Audi
Bentley
BMW
Bugatti
Buick
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Chrysler
Dodge
Ferrari
Fiat
Fisker
Ford
GMC
Hennessey
Honda
Hummer
Hyundai
Infiniti
Jaguar
Jeep
Kia
Koenigsegg
Lamborghini
Land Rover
Lexus
Lincoln
Lotus
Maserati
Maybach
Mazda
McLaren
Mercedes-Benz
MINI
Mitsubishi
Morgan
Nissan
Pagani
Porsche
Ram
Rolls-Royce
Scion
Smart
Spyker
SRT
Subaru
Suzuki
Tesla
Toyota
Volkswagen
Volvo
Other Makers:
Alfa Romeo
Ariel
Citroen
Gumpert
KTM
Noble
Opel
Peugeot
Renault
SEAT
Skoda
Wiesmann
Zenvo Automotive
Description: Under the hood, the SK II package produces an output of 562hp and 417 lb-ft of torque. It can accelerate from 0-62 mph in just 4.4 seconds and, according to G-Power, can reach a top speed of 211 mph w...
Add Comments
30
sr-71 blackbird would beat you guys to space. Good luck trying to get there with your hayabusa
Muscle (straight-line)?.....possibly...but try a proper course, then we'll see : ) ///MPower
This is a M3 people. This is one nasty vehicle. It shouldn't even be compared to a Mustang GT. Especially newer Mustangs. Now if were going muscle, then sure, I'm down with a Mustang.
Someone should build a car based off that plane!!! That would be sick!
Well if we're all going to get off topic: The F22 Raptor could smoke all of those!
Idk about acceleration, but top speed is the bmw....used to be the busa, then it was the ninja zx-14r, and now its the bimmer....
When i said superbikes, i meant custom drag monsters. Also the fastest accel bike is some suzuki right?
the fastest bike is the bmw s1000rr which is in the 18k range....only bikes like the mv agusta cost over 30 and theyre not even faster than ur cbr 1000s and gixxer 1000s....
10k gets you a low end bike, and probably has no top end speed. Also 70k was kinda an exagerration, but there are some that expensive, look it up.
Really? I thought a 10k street bike does 0-60 in like 3 seconds. I didn't even know you could buy a 70k street bike, that must be SICK!
Plus a corvette gets more head turns. People who know nothing about cars know it's a very expensive car (many people think it costs over 100k), people who know nothing about cars just think an m3 is a common BMW. My friend at work has an M3 and people ask me about my vette and I have to explain to them that his car is really nice too.
"we’ve seen a base M3 run to 60 in as few as 4.1 seconds" from car and drivers review of the M3 GTS. The CTS-V does it in 3.9 and that issue said the V was faster. It shows in it's Nurburgring times...
Guys we must also remember that we are able to buy 1000hp supras on eBay for 70k and we can beat any Ferrari.
What's with the Mustang GT comparison? Why not compare the M3 to the new Boss 302? The acceleration and handling characteristics are more formidable than a lesser GT. Don't get me wrong, I think the new mustangs are beautiful, so no complaints here!
Top speed is only affected by the the final drive gear and aerodynamic limitations. So why would they change the first 5 or 6 gears? The 0-60 time should drop unless wheelspin is taken into account, much like the SLR
Well regardless we know the 4.4 is wrong, and the mustang gt is cheaper than an M3, and has more potiential.
Car and Driver pitted the M3 against a CTS-V and an RS5 in issue number 3, volume 56.
Car and drivers lowest was 4.1 not 3.9 and usually they were at about 4.6. Maybe the 130k M3 GTS hit 3.9 though, but for 130K I could do it in 2.7 with a 911 turbo.
The mustang is faster in a line, but M3 is like 1-2 seconds faster on a track, but withmoney saved you could buy a supercharger and be better.
Well considering it's BMW that supercharger is cheaper than most ha. And a Mustang GT isn't faster than a M3.
They have low gearing in it for top speed. That's why your 0-60 is off a bit.
4.4 seconds does seem a bit off considering Car and Driver was able to pull off a 3.9 second 0-60.
Doesn't the M3 do 0-60 that fast stock? Maybe that is supposed to be 3.4?
Yea and considering you can still buy a stock mustang gt and be faster.
Hahah you say that, because you're not privileged enough to sit under that hood.... ///MPower
@Shane yeah, who actually cared about the royal wedding? it's just 2 ppl getting married, my god.
Uh if you guys have been in BMWs, then you know there is quite a bit of plastic, my bmw isnt high in the luxury department lol
@jeremih....if im drivin an m3, i dont care about driver preference....all i want to do is set my seat and leave it, cuz im not letting other ppl drive it....
The whole deal of "I'm going amazingly fast....in a Lexus." Cadillac's a similar thing.
Whats that? My big problem with the LFA is that 400k is slightly out of my price range and they were basically all sold before they were even produced. Is there even more lol?
It's got more space than an M3 too. It's still got the same problem the LFA does though.
Yah, I'm not saying it's a bad car, I actually like them, but it's no performance value. The CTS-V is faster, has a nicer interior, looks better, and it's more reliable (according to JD Powers it has FAR less problems per 1000 vehicles)
It's not the value that people are attracted to- it's because it's the best at what it does.
If you're looking for a luxury car that you can take to the track as opposed to a non-luxury car (Corvette, WRX, Mustang GT) or a luxury car that's not good on a track (normal 3 series) then I suppose you could consider this good value.
I'm with Chris and Ryan. Way overpriced and overhyped. For the same money I can get an old 302 fox body that will eat an M3 for lunch
It's true that the M3 can be slower than cheaper cars but remember the 3 series is an entry level luxury car. The corvette, WRX, etc. Are not.
Terrible deal for the money, slower than many cars that are much cheaper around the Nurburgring (including the front wheel drive Megane (sp?), the base Corvette, a WRX. Slower around a track, in a straight line, or autocross than any of those for 20k+ more money. BMW is not a good value, a good car, but not for the dollar here in the states.
I bet he brought how BMW is better than everything else when they arent