Re: UrQ vs M3 (E30)

["Steve Marinello" <smarinel@neosoft.com>]

I would have to agree with Bill. I had my '83 Urq when I test drove the M3,
so I was able to do back to back testing.  In fact, I did back to back to
back testing with a "regular" 3 series with the sport suspension.  For all
around use, I was happy to keep the q; better all around, better build
quality, far superior in thunderstorms that frequented my former locale
(Tuscaloosa, AL), far more exclusivity (only 2 in the state) and far greater
higher stealth quotient, even in Mars Red.  

The M3 was an absolute blast IF you were at somewhere around 9/10 or above. 
The test drive was one of the most fun occasions I've ever had, because of
the car's abilities and because of the cocky young salesman who thought he'd
show me how great a driver he was before turning the wheel over to me.  He
probably would have gotten away with it if not for the fact that he decided
that a triple digit run out towards the North River Country Club was in
order....with LOTS of traffic coming at you on a two lane road.  Anyway, I
digress.  Suffice it to say that I showed him a particular run that included
a sparsely traveled road under the old river bridge that he didn't know
about.  The car was fantastic, as long as you kept the revs up.  Wonderful
tail out control and dead on steering.  The steering was a notch above the
q.  However, to get all the enjoyment, you had to be on it all the time.  It
was not too particularly exciting at anything under 9/10.  Low on torque and
power and an unsettled feel in the suspension at the lower speeds/less
spring compression. And more awareness of the build quality shortcomings.

On the other hand, for that time period, the sport option on the regular 3
series was superior to the M3 until you hit the upper strata.  It had more
torque to be used around town and in "normal" high speed driving and the
suspension I remember as a much better compromise mated to the engine.  I
almost considered that car after I realized that I'd almost never be driving
the M3 the way it was going to be enjoyable...recently married and limits
placed on my time, you understand.

I have thought about picking up that vintage M3 at least twice since coming
to Louisiana.  Why?  because the q sits in the garage most of the time
anyway with a company car and if I was going to run around, the M3 would be
a blast on those occasions.  Of course, it probably hasn't held together as
well as the q, but it is more of a blast at 9+/10.

Steve
----------
>From: William Elliott
<CN=William.Elliott/OU=MKE/OU=CORP/O=MMS#064#MMS%lngw@wtgw.corp.mei.com>
>To: quattro@coimbra.ans.net (IPM Return Requested)
>Subject: re: UrQ vs M3 (E30)
>Date: Fri, Feb 12, 1999, 12:40 PM
>

>I think the E30 M3 is one of the most desirable cars ever made.  Great 
>performance, terrific handling.... very responsive in every way... but not 
>really a good car to compare to a UrQ.  The M3 is high-strung, requiring an 
>aggressive foot to keep the revs up.  The torque peak is only 170lbs or so... 
>and doesn't happen until 4700 rpm or so.   I agree with an earlier post... it's 
>a hard car to drive really well... but very rewarding if you do.
>
>I'd love to have one for a "fun" car, but I'd still use my UrQ as the daily 
>driver.  More mid-range torque, more top end power, and more relaxed fun.  A 
>20-valve-UrQ would be even better... so we're told. ;-(
>
>Bill Elliott
>Lake Mills, WI
>
>