1994 BMW M3 Coupe from UK and Ireland - Comments

Have only had the car a few weeks, but OK so far. Just done inspection II, and nothing reported.

Even non-car people like the M3.

Great handling/performance.

Not as expensive to maintain/run as people think.

Far better prospect than Japanese imports (WRX, EVO blah..)

Hows the insurance on the car? and fuel consumption?

Raziel.

The Maclaren F1's engine is essently 2 e36 m3 evo engines, most of the technology in the car is based on the m3 evo, gues why? it's so damn good, that's why, ultimate driving machine? you bet it is!

I have had my 94 E36 M3 for a couple of years now and it's a great car. Excellent on Fuel best I have got is 7.5l per 100KLM sitting on 120kph on the highway if you have a go they dont mind a drink but who cares. No major service issues. These cars are now a real bargain and really do offer bang for your buck.

Oh, please!!! The McLaren F1's engine was designed from the ground up, and purpose built for the F1 to meet Gordon Murray's very specific power, weight and packaging criteria. It was not two M3 engines welded together, basically or otherwise.

Yes it's a V12 which could be construed as two sixes welded together, but the fact that it displaces 6.1 litres and not 6.4 is just one clue that it is a totally different engine. That, and a quote from McLaren Cars' own website:

"McLaren Cars commissioned the BMW S70/2 engine, designed and built specifically for the F1"

The M3 and F1 both have four wheels and both run on petrol. That's about where the similarities end, I'm afraid.

I've had an E36 M3 Evo for 6 years now, it's a great car and I know probably all there is to know about these engines.

I'm afraid the last comment is false. The M3 Evo motor is a development of the McLaren V12. Trust me!!!

I've had my 1994 m3 cabriolet for 2 years. Its never let me down and I can honestly say its the best car I've ever had.

The downsides are they do eat back tyres and it can be a bit thirsty.

I also have a 1994 M3 cabriolet. Black on black. Have you researched the number of cabrios produced in 1994? my VIN# ends in 00300. Imported privately to the US in 2003. You may email me at eswilliams3@msn.com if you have any information. Thank you very much.

Not sure why everyone is writing about Evo's in the 3.0 coupe section! I would like to know about the non-Evo.

The 1994 M3 Coupe is far far the best looking M3 I've ever seen. Even the new M3 Coupe's don't come close to the real M3. The 1994 model has earned its name and I would like to say thank you to the creaters of such a marvelous car.

27th October commenter - you say you know all there is to know about these engines and maintain the McLaren F1 engine is developed from the M3 unit. You are wrong. It was custom built.

The M3 engine has a bore measurement of 87mm. The McLaren unit has a bore measurement of 86mm. How can the McLaren engine possibly have been developed from an M3 block? What did they do, use filler to reduce the bore size? This is not a wet liner engine, and can't be "sleeved down". They would have to have machined a new block from scratch.

If this engine has any relation in the BMW road car range, it's the 5.0 V12 from the 750i and 850i models of the time. Both share the M70 designation, but almost all the components were upgraded, strengthened or replaced for McLaren. By the time the M division were done, about all the McLaren unit had in common with the 7 series version was the V12 layout.

The physical length of each cylinder bank in the McLaren engine is completely different to the block of the M3 engine as well. It is a COMPLETELY different engine. Gordon Murray's specs were very tough in relation to packaging, weight and dimensions, and two M3 units would not have made the grade.

Murray famously said at the time that only two manufacturers in the world were capable of designing an engine meeting the required specs in the time allowed. One was BMW, the other Honda (who weren't interested in the project). If it had been a case of bastardising an existing engine (or two), the project would have been done in house. "Making" a vee engine out of two is not in engineering terms a massive exercise. There are guys making 15,000 RPM, 250 bhp 2 litre V8's from motorbike engines in their garden sheds using the most basic of tools.

To re-engineer the M3 lump and join two together would have been well within McLaren's in-house expertise, plus of course brought untold benefits in terms of project ownership and control. The whole point was that it had to be a new development to meet exacting criteria which is why it was farmed out to BMW to come up with something to suit.

The McLaren engine uses a development of the M3's VANOS valve timing system, as do most BMW's on sale today. That's about where the similarities end. You are misinformed.

Oh, come on! see for yourself here:

How is the Euro-spec M3's 3.2-liter engine (S50 B32) different from the previous version (S50 B30)?

When creating the 3.2-liter M3 engine, BMW M relied upon much of the experience it had gained when designing the V12 engine for the McLaren F1 supercar.

http://www.bmwmregistry.com/model_faq.php?id=15

Yes, I think that BMW used some of the principles which they learnt from building the McLaren engine in the M3 EVO - mainly the Vanos, but to call it half a McLaren F1 is incorrect. I suspect that it probably bears the closest relationship to the stillborn V12 500bhp M8 (M850i lightend and tuned) which BMW decided not to market. In summation they are both excellent engines from the same stable. Do F1 owners agonise that their car's engine is two M3 engines welded together...

McLaren F1/GT: 6064cc 627hp 650Nm 103.4hp/L 98.4Nm/L

McLaren F1 LM: 6064cc 680hp 705Nm 112.1hp/L 116.3Nm/L

E36 M3 Evo: 3201cc 321ps 350Nm 100.3hp/L 109.3Nm/L

ACS CLS II: 3201cc 350hp 355Nm 109.3/L 110.9Nm/L.

Regardless, Evo engine is better than "half a McLaren" & without breaking the bank, plus to stay on topic Australian M3R (a 3.0 variant) bored out to 3.2 makes 380hp (a streetable Evo endurance engine makes 360-400hp), cheers! ;)

http://www.bavariacars.com.au/article/?id=44

Just a quick further note, it appears that nobody has a clue what they are talking about on here. E36 m3 has an inline-6 and thus has a six cylinder block. It's called a v12 for a good reason. It denotes that the cylinder block is in a v orientation. If, as many people here seem to be suggesting, you "welded 2 m3 lumps together" the best you could hope for is a boxer 12, where 2 banks of six side by side in the conventional upright position. Either they designed a a completely new block or adapted one from there range of v12's end of story!

Yeah, the M3 Evo engine might produce more than half the horsepower of the s70/2 in some examples, but that's because a 6 cylinder motor will not have nearly as much emissions as a 12 cylinder motor operating at twice the power level. In order to make it street legal, the engine is not free to breathe without constraint, whereas the m3 evo motor probably is allowed to breathe more. Remember, Gordon Murray himself said that without regards to emissions, running the motor to 10000 rpm would generate 1000 hp. Although that might be an optimistic figure without reworking the engine a bit to handle the rpm and hp, I agree with the principle. 850 hp would be achievable, and your m3 motor, limited in capability by the displacement would have trouble getting past 400 hp. 425 hp might be achievable with a lot of reworking, but even the e46 gtr's v8 was originally only capable of 444 hp (later around 500). Please do correct me in regard to the e36 motor, but nonetheless, even if you were able to get two of them together, it would generate some loss in power (considering no tweaking other than putting them together). It's not simply just adding up the horsepower.