sjrick777

Hello all -

I've read so much on this Forum about folks trying to decide between an S2000 and an M3, of folks selling one and buying the other, that it makes me curious.

Why are they so often compared?

They don't seem particularly comparible. For instance, I can understand weighing the purchase of an S2000 vs a Boxster, an Elise, even (ugh!) a 350Z convert, but why S2K vs M3, hardtop or otherwise? (That said, I wouldn't mind having one of each - heh heh)

Just curious - if you've owned one or the other please state when you reply. If not, I'd still like to read your opinion.

Much thanks!

Rick

hondaracer

Both are RWD, fairly small, fairly light weight and are universally praised for good handling.

MaxGeek

Price. E36 M3 and S2000's cost about the same now. Both 240hp. S2000's lighter, but E36 M3 has a good amount of torque (~220) and easier to mod.

kenstyle

Guys, I think he's referring to comparing the s2k with the e46 M3.

The reason why so many of us compare these two cars is that they both are high-revving, high performance cars, and both at the top of its class. Most of us, I'd imagine, wonder if the M3 is really worth the extra money. Also, it isn't uncanny that many ex-s2k owners have upgraded to the M3. But the most crucial aspect of this comparison IMO is the drivability and fun factor of the BMW. We all know the s2k is a blast to drive, especially with its go-kart handling and 2800-lb chassis. The m3, however, is much more portly, and at 3400+ lbs (for the coupe, I can't even imagine how much the convertible weighs), it can concern some people about whether this car can still bring a smile to your face as much as the s2k does.

hpark

i think this is because they are probably the best (for the price) cars in its respective segments....S2000 is the best sports car short of a boxster S (2X the price).......M3 is the best GT car short of a 997 (another $20K)

Silver_S2000

I hear what you are saying. The price for the two is NOTHING at all similar and they are two very differnt "types" (so to say) of cars. I dont get why people are fighting the decision either. The BMW will have all the creature comforts you can expect out of any BMW, and to S2k is a roadster...Two very different catagories. BUT on the other hand I was battling the s2000 ~Vs~ Evo decision for awhile. After the test drive with the s2k it was so much more fun to drive (and fit me better) I went with it and LOVE it. but a buddie just picked up a 2005 Apex White Evolution MR and i'm jelous He loves my s2000 also. We're gonna have to switch key's on a friday night so I can get this stuff out of my system!

mooky928

I would assume the comparison is to the e36 bc they are ruffly the same. 99 e36 is about 30 k with low miles. My friend has the M3 and lets me drive it all the time. Both are great cars. The s is a roadster while the m is a coupe so they are two diff vehicles. cant really go wrong either way however the s would be new and not used. The e46 m3 is much faster but twice the price.

countach

Despite the numbers coincidence (power, etc.), there is no point in comparing an M3 with an S2K.

thonda

if the E46 M3 was priced at $33K new, i doubt very many of us would be driving S2000's.

mosesbotbol

The new 3 series is out and a new M3 will be out soon too. That's going to make the current M3 look dated (it was already dated looking). Just something to think about. Do you want to a car that has pretty dull styling to start with?

I've enjoyed driving the M3, but the rawness of the S2000 make it more exciting as a driver, even if the M3 is faster. If you need the comforts and room the M3 affords, then there is no argument.