2002 BMW M3: Gateway Drug Meets Real Deal

The shifter is better, the maintenance is better and the durability is better. But the M3 remains a great car.

Yup. Bought a brand new '00 Prelude in 2000, about a year after I graduated college and had a real job. Wanted an M3, but with an entry level job, the prelude was the next best thing. Absolutely loved that car. I traded that in when I found out I was having my 1st child a few years later. Then had run of the mill sedans and SUVs since.
I was actually looking for a clean Prelude last year as I got the itch for something fun. Ended up with another SUV instead. About 8 months later, I'm ready to get rid of it and get into 2001 - 2003 330i.
The shifter on the Prelude was awesome, absolutely loved rowing through the gears at WOT.

I think that Honda's 4 cylinder engines have gotten better in regards to pull down low since they have upped the displacement on most of them to 2.4L. My TSX pulls quite nicely after 3,000 rpm and that 6 speed stick is a delight. Once the cam profile switches at about 6,200 rpm the run to redline is fun!

I've never driven a new BMW, the last one I drove was my father's 1984 533i a couple of years ago, and even for it's advanced age it has such a strong pull, and it was so smooth and effortless.

I'm thinking that even if I could afford an M, it would be a used one. Lately, spending anything over 30,000 on a car just feels wrong. Plus my 2008 Miata was only 21,000, so there is still cheap fun to be had.

All to make that 0-60 trek in LA rush hour that more exciting.

I don't know. For the $$$ a trap speed in the 105-106 range just didn't do it for me with the E46. I guess I just think that a 3500 lbs sports car needs to have a little more torque at that price level.

As a Honda S2000 owner (among other things), what I'd really like is a sub-3000 lbs coupe based on the S2000 drivetrain with a beefed up diff and a i-VTEC equipped 2.2 liter engine revving to 8500 rpm and priced at under $35k. 260 hp and 170 lbs-ft of torque would be solid. And while the torque/weight ratio wouldn't even beat the E46's, I'd be willing to trade that for the lower price and the nimbleness associated with lighter weight. Not that such a thing is every going to happen....

The E92 has continued to follow the ongoing bloat fest in the automotive industry as well, but the engine has promise. Just dyno'd one today with an uncorked exhaust and it sounded so beautiful compared to the rather subdued and dare I say, anodyne, exhaust note of the stock car. Picked up a fair bit of hp too.....

^^^Mr. Shawn Church, good to see you here. I'm TOV member "CivicB18" aka Patrick.

Since the torque subject surfaced, I dont know how much torque some expect out of a high revving 3.2L I6. If I recall correctly, it made 262ftlbs (at peak) which is much better than average for its displacement. However, Ive never seen dyno numbers for an E46 M3 so Im not sure how thick the torque curve is overall.

"But the experience did remind me that Honda's classic VTEC fours are total gateway drugs for M power."

Im glad someone other than myself has drawn the same conclusion as Honda and BMW are alike in so many ways.

"I suspect I speak for VTEC owners everywhere when I say that these Hondas are what you drive until you can afford an M."

Id say a lot of us true Honda enthusiasts lust after anything with an ///M badge, the new X5/6 M being the exceptions. Ive always wanted a E30 M3 as I really like the purity of that generation. Of course Id "settle" for an E36, E46 or an E92 M3 and any E39 or E60 M5 would do.

"a motor that practically begs you to drive the whee out of it."

A lot of enthusiasts who are more interested in large displacement engines dont understand the appeal of the smaller high revving units. They fail to understand these engines want to rev as they are built to do just that. Sure, they are not stump pullers but to me their powerbands are just so much more enjoyable.

To me the appeal is the eagerness to rev freely, the eargerness to always be willing to play, that rush of power in the middle of the powerband, and the sound of these engines and the super high revving capabilities. Its an experience unmatched by the majority of performance offerings today.

"Just dyno'd one today with an uncorked exhaust and it sounded so beautiful compared to the rather subdued and dare I say, anodyne, exhaust note of the stock car. Picked up a fair bit of hp too....."

Shawn, what kind of base numbers did it put down and how much gain did you see with it being uncorked?

"A lot of enthusiasts who are more interested in large displacement engines don't understand the appeal of the smaller high revving units. They fail to understand these engines want to rev as they are built to do just that. Sure, they are not stump pullers but to me their powerbands are just so much more enjoyable."

You nailed it. That's precisely why I enjoy flogging my 318ti so much. A 2700 lb car with 151 bhp(mine has a Conforti chip doesn't sound all that exciting, but keep the tach needle above 3500 rpm and you can maintain some very high average speeds. Yes, I'd like more horsepower-and I may fit a 2.2 stroker engine someday-but the car is a real blast to drive exactly the way it is.

Okay, I have to ask... The 2002 BMW M3 is coming near the end of its run in the long-term fleet. If the Prelude is only a gateway drug, why not just buy the M3 once its run is actually over?

(I'm assuming there's no company policy in place that prevents employees from buying Long-Termers once the year of testing is up).

Just to give one piece of information, the Honda k20 engine (available in the 2002-2006 RSX-S, and 2006-present Civic SI) is a 2.0 liter engine putting out 197-210 crank HP in it's US variations. About 140 lb/ft of torque, 90% of which becomes available at 3000 rpms.

Pretty much a consistent 15 second quarter mile engine in these cars, with traps around 93-94 mph.

Nothing to impressive. What's impressive is how much speed it gains for a small displacement naturally aspirated engine, with simple bolt-ons.

A race header and cold air intake, with the stock exhaust and no tune, will drop it to around 14.3-14.5 seconds and up around 97 mph (IIRC).

A race header, cold air intake, cat-back exhaust, and a Hondata ECU tune....14.0 at 100 mph on street tires is well within graph.

And, at the end of the day, it's still a car that will run forever like that and get 30-35mpg on the highway.

Anyway, just thought I'd share this: Honda engines don't impress people much anymore for their output. Everyone derisively calls them torqueless....even though they tend to produce great torque for their displacement.

But they've still got amazing potential with simple bolt-on modifications.

It went from about 360 whp to a little over 400. And sounded much better. Shape of the curve really didn't change (power peaks and holds flat from about 7000 rpm to redline), but just made more power everywhere.

About the E46, it just doesn't have a Honda-esque top end charge feel to me. If you look at the torque curves, you can see why. Torque peaks at about 5000 rpm, then drops 25-30% by redline. Most Honda DOHC I4 VTEC engines tend to drop less than 10% from peak to redline. Although to be fair to Sadlier, the Prelude probably feels more like the M3 (in terms of shape of curve) than any other DOHC Honda as it tends to drop about 20% from torque peak to redline.

Again, this isn't a criticism of the E46. It'll roast any stock Honda made in a straight line short of an NSX (a 3.2 liter NSX to be specific). There's nothing wrong with the motor, it just doesn't feel Honda-esque to me.

@church123,

"About the E46, it just doesn't have a Honda-esque top end charge feel to me."

Yep, I agree, in that there's no discernible high-rpm kick a la old-school VTEC fours (the new ones, e.g. the TSX's 2.4, seem devoid of that character).

But honestly I have a love/hate relationship with that kick. In the Prelude, for example, the VTEC crossover point seems to be 5,200 rpm, which is good for impressing passengers, but not so good when you're charging through a corner with the wheel turned, knowing that the car might lunge forward on a VTEC high at any moment (same goes for a laggy turbocharged engine, of course). I found myself looking down a few times on Thursday night to see how close I was to 5,200, and that's attention that would have been better spent on the road ahead.

Now you might say I should be keeping it above 5,200 anyway in hard driving -- that's the VTEC way -- and sure, I'll buy that. I'm still getting acclimated to the car. But in the M3, like I said in the post, there's just "a seamless surge until the rev limiter intervenes." This allows me to drive by sound and feel, without looking down to make sure the car's not going to leap forward at an inopportune time. So in short, I agree with you, but I prefer the character of the M3's motor.

-JS

Yeah, Honda always set the VTEC point too high on the DOHC VTEC cars (except the B18C1 GS-R). Droppign VTEC down to 4000-4400 rpm on the H22 makes for a much smoother transition and even torquier curve. Still comes up on the cam but without the lurch of VTEC. I still think the abnormally high VTEC points were a marketing thing - no good engineer would allow that if they weren't forced into it - IMO of course.

"About the E46, it just doesn't have a Honda-esque top end charge feel to me."

Church, Ive only had the pleasure of driving a few M3's (2 E46's and a E36 sedan). Unfortunately, I didnt get to do any heavy spirited driving. Going by its high revving nature I just assumed the M3's engine had a similar character to the DOHC VTEC engines.

How would you compare the Honda NSX C32B and the E46's I6 in terms of overall chracter? From a output perpective it would seem the M3's I6 would be mode docile and powerful in the lower/midrange as it put out significantly more torque. 262 vs the NSX's 224.

"I still think the abnormally high VTEC points were a marketing thing."

Ive been saying that for years as the VTEC point should have been lower and the transition should have been more transparent. The way it was implemented wasnt good from a maximum output (under the curve) but it did put a smile on ones face.

"It went from about 360 whp to a little over 400."

Damn! Was that gain from just the uncorking or were there any other mods or tuning involved? How much potential do you think the M3's V8 has in terms of simple mods like the usual I/H/E and something like the equivalent of a Hondata reflash?

Honda, bring back the Prelude!

Toyota, bring back the Supra!

Updated versions for 2011 would make life so much more fun.

@ joefrompa ~

It's about two different ways of looking at things. You illustrated one way, the other one is more old-fashioned.

"You want a faster car, you buy a faster car."

I'm reminded of a Firebird owner who walked into an aftermarket car parts shop. After listening to a young man telling the shop owner about how he had shaved a second off of his quarter-mile time, on his 4-cylinder Honda; the Firebird owner was told that there were no custom mods available for his V8 Pontiac.

He left wondering why the young man didn't just buy a faster car.

Two different ways of looking at performance. Still, if you can afford it; a BMW would be sweet. But the Prelude would likely spend less time in the shop. (Assuming both the Honda and BMW had caring, prior owners).

The M3 had a flash as well.

On the dyno he NSX motor is actually only 15-20 hp down on the M3 even though the ratings are over 40 hp apart. The torque curve is not as meaty in the midrange so it is flatter overall. This makes it _feel_ like the power is climbing more at the top end (thanks to less midrange). VTEC is smooth but the engine is much rougher in vibration than the E46's. Of course, the lighter weight of the NSX makes it feel stronger than the M3 even though the engine is not.

What's with the M3's fog light?

Josh,

You are going to love the Prelude. I had three:
86 Si
91 Si
97 Base

Unfortunately, all were automatics because they were originally my parents cars before I got them. But I still had fun shifting myself, especially in the 97 with the SportShift lever.

All were stone cold reliable. Got the 86 & 91's at 120K & ran them both up to 200K. Got the 97 at 75K & ran it up to 175K.

The 97 up in the VTEC zone was pure heaven. I actually looked forward to the changeover to the high lift cam lobes at 5200 rpm. And the sound was glorious, particularly in the summer with the windows down & roof open. Smooth as silk, too. And I averaged 27.7 mpg.

Do you have the SH with the trick differential? Doesn't look like it, since I still see the third brake light on the rear shelf & no wing.

Keep your M3. Honda engines are dramatically complementary to superchargers.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j92/Salec/Loki/ae1b.jpg
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j92/Salec/Loki/9af7.jpg
(320rwhp, 170ft/lbs)

Forgot to mention, piggyback controllers allow for a reduction in VTEC engagement. I have mine engaging at 4,100. It's still quite a rush (you definitely know when it hits).

Estreka, Im assuming thats your boosted S2000? If so, how do you like the Vortech charger?

If I dont go the custom turbo setup on my...well our AP1 (wife will eventually get an AP2 for herself). I want to try the Kraftwerks supercharger as I hear its the best supercharger system for the S2000 and other Honda applications.

My setup is a little different than most. Mine was developed as a prototype for the S2000 and I'm sure they've modified it considerably since inception. I'd say mine is a little loud (the compressor, not the BOV) but I know they make a quiet version these days. As far as various makes, I honestly couldn't tell you. Vortech has the massive belt you saw which provides great traction and low mnx.

Whatever you decide to do, keep in mind that the wear on your clutch will be significant. I drive mine enthusiastically, and I must replace it every 3-5 years. I've also heard that the pumpkins are not strong enough for significant mods, but I haven't had a problem yet. I DID however, snap a rear axle in half (insert bravado here).

Things to consider/buy:
Piggyback controller
bigger rims/tires (I run 255 rears)
exhaust (listen before you buy, some are ungodly loud like mine)
my setup uses 5.1Q of oil

If you're really interested, check the S2000 thread or send me an email @ estreka@yahoo.com.
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j92/Salec/27apr1.jpg

@farvy,

Correct, non-SH. Not ideal, but for a negotiated price of $7,400 with 68k miles, I wasn't going to be too picky.

-JS

Yes, but M3 has a much bigger trunk.

Josh,

Understoood. I don't think you are losing much by having the base model instead of the SH. The base is less complicated & lighter by 40-50 lbs. Unless you are planning a bunch of track days, the base will be fine.

Enjoy your new ride. Don't forget to change the timing belt, balancer belt, accessory belts, & water pump at 110K miles. These are interference engines & can be heavily damaged if the belt breaks. I did mine by myself. Just make sure you have the right tools, like the crank pulley holder. You can get one made by Powerbuilt on Amazon for $20-$30. Good thing Honda is now switching to chain drive.