2000 BMW M3 (E46)

That may be true, but like i said, ALOT of people, Whithin those 3 countrys will not know the difference, u have torque/Nm u have lbs/kg u have Kw/Bhp/Ps, but no 0-60mph/0-100kmh? and alot of people come from those nations who are on this site, thats why you should put them, also most care that are newly added always have the 0-60mph times added instead of the 0-100kmh time added, do you not go everyday without getting the 0-100kmh time mixed with the 0-60mph time? so if you have both metric And omperial times listed with the other stats you should put them in the performance stats as well.

the reason why we use metric system is simple..because there are only three nations in the world NOT using the metric system... one is the USA

IMO, the reason they probably don't use both is that it might cause more problems than it solves. For example suppose 1 European magazine gets 5.6 sec for 0-100kph then an American magazine gets 5.6 sec 0-60mph. Everyone will be like "WTF? How can they both be the same" (Different cars, different conditions, numerous other reasons)

But most people dont know that. thats why i say this site should have both metric and imperial datas. i mean they do on everything else, why not performance? well atleast 0-60mph times.

^0-60mph isn't the same as 0-100kph.

100kph=62.14mph (approx.)

WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE ON ABOUT... MY M3 E46 GOES 0-60 IN 4.6s. Try loosing some weight :)

i got mine to Sub Way

Got mine to sub 11

11.0 to 160kmh can be accurate, the fastest time i have seen has ben 11.3, but 11.0 is definetly possible.

I think 11sec 0-160 is a bit optomisitic guys...??

probably closer to 12 secs..

I have E55 W210 and i always beats this M3 after 165 km. The informtion here is either wrong for E55 or M3.

The Laguna Seca time was set with an E46 that is stated as having race tyres and 350bhp..... its a good time but not stock so I've deleted it.

How did this get such a good time at laguna seca faster than a current generation e92 m3.

how stupid are you?? your actually comparing a $53,000 333bhp NON track car to a 475bhp $193,000 PORSCHE track car, just how stupid are you..REALLY. and if you ahvent noticed BMW's CSL is only 4 SECONDS of the 996 GT2's time. and that only has 360bhp and still costing $73,000 LESS. so buddy, eat sht and stop wasting everybodys time with your dumbass comments, your starting to sound like Adam Eduardo Wood...and that AINT ad good thing!!!!!!!

this is not exactly what id call slow, especially for a 00 model. you obviously dont understand the difference between performance and other stuff that costs money. its like youre exppecting an m5 sedan to be as fast as a high-end porsche round a twisty track.

Just to show you how slow this car is compare the 997gt2 did 45 seconds faster on the ring than this car, bmw cars are definitly not track cars. So what are they good for???

no, csl specs are much faster, 0-60mph in 4.4- 0-100kph 4.8 for the csl and o-100mph 10.5-0-160kph 10.6. but it all depends on the driver!

i have a m3 e46 and i liKE 0-100 in 4.8 and 0-200 in 16.8 but i think those are CSL specs
i think corect is 5.2 and 18.2
most optimistic owners are saying 5.0
please respond
thank you

the Laguna Seca source claim race tires... and there are so many different M3 Laguna Seca laptimes?

Ok, i was confused because there's also an BMW engine that's named R6. But i get the point haha. Thanks for clearify.

In fastestlaps.com we don't have a seperate field for engine names/codenames. What we have is a field titled "Engine type" and "R6" is type of engine - not a name. R6 stands for 6 cylinders in a (R)ow or you can also call it "inline 6".

The 5,2 figure is right. That's the official 0-100 time according to the books. However the M3 engine name is not R6 but S54.

Ok! I thought only official figures are used here :) Hope you know what i mean with the 5,2 sec.

4.8s was clocked by auto motor und sport in 1/2003 and again in 01/2005 by sportauto