I've never been so happy to be the slowest car in the group

[rhipsher]

Originally Posted by scottfab

My stock 90 does 12.6 in 1/4.
M3 eats dust.
In fact I made one blow up once.
I figure it had an engine issue.
It was brand new.

Mine does to but mines not stock anymore either. My point is that for being and M3 which is one of the lowest BMW's on the BMW performance totum poll 13.4 is not shaby. I drove Robs 530i BMW and I kept hitting the rev limiter in it because my Z revs so much higher. And Rob also has a 93 ZR-1 that makes 410rwhp although the BMW cornerd awesome even he admits in a striaght line our Z's would eat it for breakfast. But when you start getting into the M5's and up its a totaly different story.

[scottfab]

Originally Posted by rhipsher

And Rob also has a 93 ZR-1 that makes 410rwhp although the BMW cornerd awesome even he admits in a striaght line our Z's would eat it for breakfast. But when you start getting into the M5's and up its a totaly different story.

Well since we're changing from an M3 to an M5 why not compare an M5 to a ZR1 ? Wonder which one is best on the Nurburgring track?
It's probably better to compare a BMW to a Cadillac.

[RHanselman]

The Lambo's at the mile were running anywhere from 135-165. Our Z's were running 150-178.

I'm compairing the field at Nellis... Not Apples... Btw, Roberts 368 topped them all...

So don't count yourself out just because there's a big dollar diff... All you need is a 90's tech 368...

[Kevin]

In perfectly happy with bringing up the rear in that group cept that the ugly *** of that BMW was in my way of the Murci and I love that car

[rhipsher]

Originally Posted by scottfab

Well since we're changing from an M3 to an M5 why not compare an M5 to a ZR1 ? Wonder which one is best on the Nurburgring track?
It's probably better to compare a BMW to a Cadillac.

Im just saying the M3 is a quick little booger. No need to get your feathers ruffled over it.