It may have just looked like a hotted-up version of an E30 BMW
3 Series, but the original BMW M3 was nothing less than a track car in road-legal form. It existed only to homologate its racing version into Group A competition and came not only with a bespoke racing motor but its own body, completely different suspension, brakes and a Getrag gearbox with its trademark dog-leg five-speed layout.
The four-cylinder engine displaced 2.3 litres and generated 197bhp, giving a specific output better than that of any production Ferrari on sale at the time of its launch in 1986.
Spool forward 30 years and even a diesel-powered two-litre 3 Series has a better specific output and, despite enormous weight gain, is capable of staying within sight of the old M3 off the line: for that, thank an even more gigantic increase in torque. Flat out, there is not a single mile per hour between them. So, in bald terms, BMW’s everyday meat and two veg, top-selling motorway muncher is now nearly as quick as one of its finest, race-bred, bespoke and coveted performance cars of three decades ago.

Actually, although the figures do not reflect it, a modern 3 Series 320d actually feels quicker than an old M3 and, yes, part of me is sad to say it. It’s that torque again, not just the amount but the fact it’s all there at 1750rpm, at which point the M3 has just opened its eyes, swung its legs out of bed and is looking for its slippers. It really wants to be at 4500rpm before it’s up and running, at which engine speed the 320d is already wondering why you’ve not changed up. In the M3, it’s not a question that needs an answer: in deference to the car’s age, I’m not about to go prodding about north of 7000rpm, but I remember well that these brilliant little BMW Motorsport engines go on sounding happier and happier until, just as you think it’s really getting into its stride, it hits the rev limiter.
But even over a lap of a quick track, I wouldn't back the old M3 over the new 320d. Maybe if you put the M3 on modern rubber, it’s geometrically optimised suspension would combine with its relative lack of heft to allow it to keep up with the younger car, but I doubt it: the 320d not only has the mid-range punch but also the brakes and, on a high-speed track, aerodynamic efficiency that I expect would let it retain the upper hand.

Except for this: drive the 320d around a quick track and you will emerge impressed at how fast, secure and able a car is in an environment for which it was not remotely designed. But doing the same in the M3 is an experience of an entirely different calibre, which is where technically the quicker of the two fast becomes an irrelevance. It’s
like bumping into your best friend for the first time since emigrating
30 years ago, going to the pub and realising you still both want the same things, laugh at the same jokes and remain itching for adventure. You pick up where you last left off. There’s no need to remember to pull back instead of push forward to get first gear: your hand just instinctively does it. And then, when you’re out there, slithering around together, feeling that perfectly weighed and geared steering wheel writhing gently in your hands, you remember exactly why this M3 will always be a performance car icon, and the 320d always an effective, efficient device for doing a rather boring job.
Join the debate
289
@ Andrew Frankel
Interesting article Andrew, and point taken about the progress made over the last 30 years.
But these cars are Icons, as you say, and therefore even if they are slower or flawed, they still put a shiver up your spine which modern machinery just cant achieve.
Too big, too much tech, too heavy.....just too much of everything these days - efficient, (until the tech goes wrong), but basically just transport designed to flatter owners with little driver talent, or in many cases - little interest in cars in general....more motivated by the badge/label.
The Audi Sport Quattro is a car I still regret not buying when they were still around the £30k mark.....I dithered over a beautiful example in Wermacht green 17 years ago -should have bought it. I dont care that it has a narrow powerband and is difficult to get the best out of....thats part of its charm. I still lust over a CLK 63 AMG Black....I dont lust over or even notice a current C63 S Coupe. What an investment either of these would have been as well as being epic to drive!
Then we come to the M3. I have driven so many of these in their various iterations during my days running a BMW Dealership, and despite the fact that there are much faster (quite humble) cars today, I defy anyone to have more fun out of a small saloon. Its a bit like Lotus/Caterham Sevens, less is sometimes more. Its not always about the ultimate velocity, or playing Top Trumps over 0-60 times, its the complete package and how if you have a modicum of talent, how you can extract the rewards this car can bring. This was probably BMW's finest hour (The Ultimate Driving Machine).....sorry a 320 Diseasal repmobile just isnt!
MarkII
Walk down memory lane
How we experience speed and power is all relative and when most of the cars of the day had maybe 60 - 100hp, when it was on-song the power of that 5cyl engine seemed brutal by comparison.
Nowadays, apart from race-bred machinery, we are largely insulated from the experience and no matter what the power of the car, very few make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up or make your mouth go dry when you press the starter button.
Walter Rohrl said it best with his comment that a car is just fast enough when you stand in front of it in the morning and are afraid to unlock it - sadly I can't think of a modern car that ticks that box and the classics that do are now in the mega£££ category.
bowsersheepdog
Off topic
As he does more often than not, Frankel has produced a piece which is enjoyable to read, but of the three examples I feel that only the 320d fulfils the stated criterion of being a mass-market descendant of the older car. The other two are performance versions, albeit not the ultimate performance version available, in their model range. I suspect that if a follow-up were written, wherein more comparisons were made of old performance cars against newer models from lower down the range, that the verdict reached in regard to the two BMWs, namely efficiency doesn't replace character, would be confirmed over and over.
I don't need to put my name here, it's on the left
Porus
Audi...
tuga
Congrats on the pics.
The Quattro has aged beautifully, as has the interior of the E30.
I wonder if the BMW comparison had been made between the E30 and a modern 2er ( instead of the 3er ) if the newer car would have fared better. 3ers have been growing softer and softer with each gen, and are closer to an E34 or E39 5er in character than the car they are the direct successor to.
Spanner
In the 1980s
Audi.
the sport may be ugly, but it is an icon, along with the UR quattro in a way none of your current cars could be. Not one. Please make another quattro, a proper one that is desirable. Thanks from the 12 year from the 80s who was a group b rally junkie.
eseaton
I would, without a shadow of
I would, without a shadow of doubt, rather drive and own the older varient of each comparison.
405line
Audi haven't changed
I've seen this nose heavy piece of junk driven around several different tracks and seen the TV journalists "compensate for it's awfulness" by letting another car catch up etc...this car is a good myth. The Quattro part is really "somewhere else to send power apart from the front wheels so we can join and be eligable for proper car manufacturers at rallying"
Add your comment