The old dictum that racing improves the breed has always been part of the creed of all motorsports enthusiasts. It is sometimes difficult to shower how technology trickles down from the likes of an Indy or an IMSA GTP car; but when the racing hardware is similar to what is sold for the street, an immediate benefit for the consumer is more believable. But how much of a racing sedan actually finds its way to a street machine? Usually, previous little; there are virtually no market pressures to apply racing technology. At best, a bit of the image rubs off.

Enter the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) and its rules for Group A racers. To qualify a car for Group A, a manufacturer must produce at least 5000 cars of that type in any given 12 month period. The cars must have a minimum of four seats. Minimum weight is related to engine displacement, but the cylinders may not be bored out more than 0.6mm to reach the displacement limit for that weight class; similarly for sleeving down engine too large for the desired weight class. Individual components may be modified, polished, lightened, machines, etched or heat treated, but not replaced by parts stemming from other sources. The original fuel injection system must be retained, but may be modified. The camshaft is free, as is its timing. Suspension pickup points must remain unchanged. Wheels and tires must be contained within the original bodywork; they aren’t allowed to stick out. Add-on aerodynamic aids beyond the car’s original roadgoing equipment are not allowed.

The result of all this is that cars not immediately associated with racing are used to good effect tin this predominantly European class. Victory Lane at the Nürburgring or Spa has in years past been occupied by the likes of Volvo and Rover; the 1985 Class 1 (over 2.5 litres) was won by Volvo, closely followed by Rover with MW a distant 3^rd. In Class 2 (1.6-2.5 litres) Alfa Romeo beat out BMW. In 1986 BMW won both Class 1 and 2, against competition from Mercedes-Benz (190E 2.3) and Rover Vitesse, what we used to call the 3500.

The manufacturers were beginning to get serious about touring cars, fielding teams both above and below board. For 1987 there would be several racing series for Group A cars, including the new World Touring Car Championship, coinciding with the European touring Car Championship except for four races in Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Track wins meant more dealer sales. To achieve its own unfair advantage, BMW decided to enter Group A in a big way – by laying on a series of 5000 cars for the road designed solely to field similar cars on the track. A direct example of racing improving the breed or, more correctly, the right breeding making racing possible. The car is called the M3 and is based on the familiar 3-Series sports sedans. We compared this homologation special to its more civilized brother, the 325is, and the results are very interesting.

The M3 is a product of BMW Motorsport GmbH, but motorsport is not that group’s sole business. Other M products range from the Formula 1 engine and tuned street cars to designer clothes and “Motorsport” dead pedals in designer colors. The M3 is the first BMW since the M1 to be built for homologation.

The M3 at first glance looks like a typical café racer. But on this car, all the add-ons have a purpose. It’s all there because it needs to be there for racing. Remember, no spoiler on the road car means no spoiler on the racer, no add-on fender flares allowed. Not immediately noticeable is the greater rake to the backlight, achieved by moving its bottom edge back and fairing it all in with a plastic cap over the C-pillars and the rear edge of the roof. The trunk lid was raised by installing a plastic molding to replace the normal metal lid. Spoilers, skirts, fat tires and boxy fender flares capable of covering wheels up to 10in. wide (the largest allowed in its racing class) complete the zoomy kit. Despite, or perhaps better said,  because of all the add-ons, BMW claims a Cx of 0.33 versus 0.39 of the 325is.

Under the skin more modifications have been made. The front suspension, for example, has altered pickup points. The front hub carrier is different, giving the M3 more caster than the “civilian” versions for better high-speed stability and more steering feel. The power-assisted steering has been quickened. Lower control arms are aluminum instead of steel. The car has been lowered, and rising-rate springs have been installed at the rear. Spring, shock, anti-roll bar and rubber-bushing calibrations  have been changed. The brakes have been upgraded to those used on the 6 and 7-Series cars. A 25 percent limited-slip differential and ABS brakes are standard.

The shift lever of the US market car displays a conventional shift pattern, in contrast to the European model that has 1^st to the left and back. Gear ratios, too, are different. The US car is geared significantly lower in 1^st and 2^nd, for better acceleration. Ratios in the remaining gears are similar but not identical.

The engine bay is also heavily modified. The engine is surprisingly not the newer, lighter, aluminum M20 inline-6 used in other cars of the 3-Series, but rather the S14 inline-4, derived from the old M10 that also spawned the F1 powerplant. The M3 engine develops 192bhp at 6750rpm and 170lb-ft of torque at 4750rpm. In contrast to its 4-cylinder older brothers in the BW family, the M3’s engine has siamesed cylinder that also serve to stiffen the block. Why the step backward, to a four? The shorter, forged crankshaft of the four is stiffer, more resistant to torsional vibrations, and can be revved higher; the new six was designed for low weight and easy, cost-effective assembly and is therefore not as strong as the older design. Also no 4-valve head is readily available for the new six, while the old four had 4-valve heads as long ago as 1966.

Note that the new six is not to be confused with the bigger six used in the larger 5-, 6-, and 7-Series cars and the 4-valve M1 powerplant now used in the M635CSi and M5.

The M3 engine features two chain-driven cams and a cast-iron block, while the 325is has a single belt-driven cam. The M3 has far greater power potential than the new six and can rev higher in racing trim; BMW claims 10,000rpm is possible. The induction system uses a Bosch Motronic III and four throttle butterflies, one per cylinder, to reduce lag. A larger cast-aluminum oil pan, with windage tray and baffles, holds the greater quantity of oil required on the race track.

The interior of the car has the familiar, excellent BMW ergonomics. Subtle changes tell the driver that this is an extraordinary coupe; the speedo goes to 160mph, the tach to 8000 with a 7300rpm redline, and the fuel-economy gauge in the speedometer has been replaced by an oil-temperature gauge. Although the M3 is intended to provide a basis for a race car, it comes fully equipped with all manner of creature comforts, including sunroof, electric window lifts, central locking, sound system and air conditioning. About the only option is metallic paint. Automatic transmission is not available.

What shall we use as a yardstick? A good candidate is the BMW 325is, basically similar to the 325es tested in Road & Track, December 1986. The 325 family features the new 2.5 litre inline-6, which develops 168bhp at 5800rpm and 164lb-ft at 4300. Compare these figures to the M3; although power is less, torque is similar and is developed at lower revs. That’s significant, as we’ll soon see. In comparison to the M3, the gearing is taller all across the board, which should hurt the 325is in acceleration. The 325is has limited-slip differential, sport suspension with twin-tube shocks similar to the M3, sport seats, front air dam and small body-color rear lip spoiler and a number of detail changes compared with last year’s model.

Seat time. The first impression upon entering the M3 is how well everything is laid out for serious driving. The steering wheel fits the hands’ the gauges are where they should be. The grippy seats, among the best to be found anywhere, are adjustable for rake, reach, height and thigh support, thankfully without any electric motors. The ventilation system works well. Materials and workmanship in the interior are excellent.

On the road, the M3 exhibits a typical BMW trace of oversteer at the limit, useful when mastered. Cornering performance of the M3 is spirited, with little body lean. The car feels tossable. The pedals are easy to heel and toe, and the shifter has a somewhat notchy but accurate feel. Smooth, quick shifts are easily mastered. Steering is light but precise with nice feedback, allowing control of that oversteer. The suspension is not as hard as one might expect. The ABS brakes are, as always, simply wonderful, with a nice, hard pedal.

Now the down side. The car’s strongest asset, its engine, is also its largest liability. It is the logical choice for BMW’s motorsport activities, in view of its power potential; but under most driving conditions one is likely to encounter without need of a helmet, it is harsh, rough, buzzy, and boomy. There’s lots of valve-train noise thanks to the chain-driven overhead cams. There is a lack of power off the line, but BMW wisely chose high numberical ratios for the first two gears. The gearing is useful around town but long-legged if need be. The engine comes on the cam at 4500rpm or so.

By comparison, the 325is engine is quiet. Although not as noiseless as, say, the prime mover of the Acura Legend or the bigger BMWs, it is certainly one of the smoother engines around. A wee bit of valve-train noise can be heard, but it’s more of the well oiled machinery variety and not an annoyance to the enthusiast. One staffer summed it all up by asking, “Who needs the M3’s 4-cylinder peakiness with this car’s smooth, torquey, very tractable quick six?”

All of this is forgotten when the M3 is driven quickly on a mountain road. Preferably with the windows down. All of that booming and buzzing around town suddenly seems insignificant; in fact, it’s pleasant….and fun. This is what driving is all about. The engine, when revved hard, shoots the car from turn to turn; the four butterflies make it a happy responsive revver. The hard brake pedal and ABS allow braking deep into the turns, even in the face of guardrails and 500ft drops, far past the point where prudence would have one back off in lesser cars. The shifter and clutch are quick and precise. The steering is accurate; the driver is in control. Suddenly it all makes sense. This is as close as most owners will come to participatory motorsports and that is what this car was designed to do. Said one driver, “It seduces me despite my better judgment.”

And how does the 325is fare under such driving? Not at all badly. Although breeding will tell, and the 325 is not racebred, it does quiet well. It, too, is a joy to drive under such conditions; it, too, has the foolproof of barking and predictable handling. The difference is in degree; the brake pedal is a bit softer, the steering a mite less precise, the suspension a tad softer. Where the 325is shines is in all-around utility. The engine develops more torque at lower rpm than the M3, allowing spirited performance around town and away from stops, in spite of its gear-ratio handicap.

In other forms of performance driving, the M3 runs up to 60mph in 7.1 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.4 sec, 91.0mph. By comparison, the 325is does the same in 7.5secs and 15.7sec/88.5mph. On the skidpad, the M3 circulates at 0.82g, compared with the 325is’ 0.79; the cars run through the slalom at a commendable 64.7 and 64.6mph, respectively.

Which one to buy? The M3 is the choice for those who crave a car whose racing image is more than skin deep. This is a race car, make no mistake; every significant part on it is there to justify its presence on the racers. When pushed to its limits, it performs like a race car – fast and noisy.

For customers who don’t absolutely need the motorsport image, who may feel a bit self-conscious about the M3’s plastic body bits and spoilers, the more conservative 325 is a more logical choice. It’s far more civilized, and offers very nearly the same performance at a significantly lower cost.

Finally, after all this investment, did the M3 bring home the laurels for BMW? Two yeses, one no. The M3s won the German Touring Car Championship and the European Touring Car Championship quite handily. In the World Touring Car Championship, things were not quite so easy. The series was hotly contested by the BMW M3s and the Ford Sierra Cosworths, with the nod finally going to Ford in the final race of the season, at Mount Fuji. The series promises to be even more exciting next year. Without a doubt, BMW, will not take this lying down, no doubt developing even more tweaks over the winter, to improve its breed both on road and track.

Related posts:

1. Group A Comes to America Group B rally cars, the Killer Bees, were among the...
2. Hör Technologie M3 Hör Technologie has been steadily cranking out a small, high-quality...
3. BMW M3 Thoroughbred Bavarian race technology for the street....

The German town of Hockenheim is perfect for comparison tests. In addition to having one of R&T European Editor Paul Frére’s favourite Greek restaurants – essential for discussing the cars after a good day of driving – it also affords access to the freedom of Autobahnen,the beauty of country roads and the majesty of Hockenheimring, a world-class race circuit nestled in the woods.

From Ingolstadt, Munich and Stuttgart we gather an Audi Coupe S2, a BMW M3 Sport Evolution and Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.5-16 Evolution II and lined them up, toe to toe and tire to tire, in and around Hockenheim. There could be no more fitting a place for these three makes to square off than Hockenheim. After all, full-on race versions of the BMW M3, Mercedes 190E 2.50-16 and Audi V8 have been chasing each other around Hockenheimring, Nüburgring and other tracks and street circuits all year in pursuit of the victor’s trophy in the Group A German Touring Car Championship.

Each of the three cars in our test is a sort of hybrid machine, its spirit placed somewhere between that of a road car and that of a race car. Each is significant as it represents the forefront of its maker’s technological abilities, from computerized engine-management systems to aerodynamics. Each is also a limited-production car that may or may not ever see American roads deserving of its talent. And so it was that we traveled to Germany and assembled three of the best and brightest “something-extra” cars that the country has to offer. We poked, prodded, tested and pushed them on a race track, experienced them flat-out on the last public frontier of high-speed driving – the German Autobahn – and enjoyed them on the lovely secondary and tertiary roads in the southern province of Baden-Württemberg.

The spiritual essences of the three cars are, of course, their engines. Motivation of our Teutonic trio is supplied by two normally aspirated dohc 16-valve 2.5 lire 4-cylinder powerplants (in the M-B and BMW) and one turbocharged dohc 20-valve 2.2 litre inline-5 (naturally belonging to the Audi).

The journey that a stock 190E 2.5-16 engine takes on its way to becoming an Evolution II engine is a short but meticulous one. Slight modifications in compression ratio, valve lift and timing, intake porting, combustion chambers, catalytic converters and computer chips combine to contribute more muscle to the Mercedes. At the end of the day, the Evolution II puts out 232bhp DIN and 181lb ft of torque compared with the stock 2.5-16’s 195bhp and 170lb ft of torque, and the tachometer allows 500rpm more reach before redlining at 7700.

As if to match its Group A rival in Stuttgart, BMW bored and stroked the stock M3’s 2.3 litre four into a 2.5, bringing its volume to within a few capfuls of the Mercedes engine. Thus stretched, the new BMW M3 Evolution engine produces 238bhp DIN and 177lb ft of torque.

Comparisons of the 2.5 litre powerplants came naturally to the drivers: “The Mercedes’ engine seems slightly less aggressive than the BMW’s (keeping in mind that the M-B is more than 300lb heavier),” began one entry in the Evo II’s notebook, “but it is exceptionally smooth for a big four right up to its 7700rpm limit.”

Another driver contrasted the two engines this way: “The BMW’s engine, which is not quite as smooth as the Mercedes’, has fair midrange torque and revs beautifully, if loudly, to the upper limits.”

Moving up in piston count, but deceptively down in horsepower is the Audi Coupe S2. Ingolstadt is justifiably proud of the S2’s deep breathing, intercooled 220bhp DIN straight 5, which descended from the Sport Quattro’s 306bhp competition engine. Although it came up about 250cc and a few bhp shy of its 2.5 litre competitors, the S2 engine was far from being the runt of our test litter. You see, if the Audi couldn’t win the horsepower numbers war, its race-bred 2.2 litre turbocharged engine – with ignition program remapped and turbo boost boosted – still approaches that magic 100bhp per litre benchmark. And the S2 engine’s torque characteristics – a significant 228lb ft cranked at an appreciably low 1950rpm – slammed the door on the two Evolution cars.

“I suspect that the Audi’s performance is quite deceptive,” wrote one perceptive editor. “It has the smoothest and torquiest engine, with very good turbo response.”

The Coupe S2 complied with that editor’s impressions by posting a 6.0-second 0 to 60mph time – fully a half-second quicker than the BMW and 0.9 sec more fleet than the Mercedes. The Audi proved itself adept not only as a sprinter, but as a quarter-miler as well, once again besting the competition with a 14.6 sec run.

The power created by each of the 4 wheeled lions in our test was transmitted through a 5 speed manual transmission. The Audi’s shift pattern is the familiar one, but the Mercedes and BMW gearboxes come with a racing shift configuration. First gear is down and to the left and the other four forward gears make up the “H” pattern. The gate for reverse is at the upper left, above 1^st.

And it was in this transmission realm that we discovered one of the few areas where all three cars shuffled their feet.

“The Mercedes’ gearbox is too notchy,” complained one notebook entry. “The M3’s gearbox is quick, but slightly notchy,” said another. Even the S2 couldn’t escape some criticism: “In hard driving, the shifter’s notchiness is magnified. The gearbox has a rubbery feel to it, with imprecise gates.”

Despite our dissatisfaction with the feel and action of the three gearboxes, we agreed that the ratios were well matched with their respective engine.

Because of the exacting nature of much of the driving we were doing, we paid a lot of attention to how well the cars reacted to steering inputs and how well the feedback through the steering wheel was connecting us to the roads. Power-assisted steering systems – rack and pinion on the S2 and the M3, recirculating ball on the Mercedes Evo II – appealed to us in varying degrees, but as a general rule, the surest way of receiving our praise was by not getting in the way of our driving. This is where the Audi Coupe S2 received some of its most stern criticism: “The Audi’s boosted steering is much too light. The boost is speed-sensitive, but the effort remains too light throughout the spectrum. This gives a disconnected feeling to the driver, one step further away from the road than I am comfortable with, especially at higher speeds on sweeping corners.”

The two Evolution cars, on the other hand, were praised for the excellence of their steering feel and turn-in, with the BMW coming out as the favourite: “The M3’s power steering is the best of the group. It is nicely weighted, has good feel and is quick around center.”

Modifying the stock suspension setups of the Mercedes 190E, the Audi Coupe and the BMW M3 for the competition versions of each was anything but a complicated matter of redesigning components or rethinking layouts for the race track. The course of action chosen by all three manufacturers was, instead, a relatively simple one of adding more girth to the cars’ already athletic suspension muscle, spring and sinew.

Throughout the two-year history of its sports-minded Evolution models, Mercedes Benz has generally left the stock 190E 2.5-16 front suspension of modified MacPherson struts, lower A arms, springs shocks, anti-roll bars and hydropneumatic levelling in place.  The primary suspension build-up on both last year’s Evolution I and our Evolution II test car involves a strengthened version of the standard sedan’s multilink rear suspension. And just to even things out, as it were, the Evo II’s suspension system is also equipped with a hydropneumatic self-leveling control system.

Tested and finalized at the Nürburgring, the Audi Coupe S2’s upgraded suspension features stiffer springs and shocks, and thicker anti-roll bars. For added chassis rigidity, a cross-brace has been installed between the front shock towers.

In creating an Evolution model of the M3, BMW has addressed one of our chief reservations about the M3 models currently zooming around in the US,: namely, handling-verus-ride. The “sport suspension tuning” version on the standard M3 (recalibrated springs, shocks, anti-roll bars and bushings at both ends with MacPherson struts and lower A arms in front, semi-trailing arms at the rear) is great for spirited driving, but a tad too stiff for comfortable everyday use. In response to this problem, Munich has endowed the M3 Sport Evolution with EDC (Electronic Damping Control), BMW’s version of cockpit adjustable shocks. Just select your current mood from the rotary dial on the center console – Comfort, Normal or Sport – and you’re off, ready for sport or pleasure, a point not missed by at least one driver: “The adjustable suspension on the BMW transforms it. I don’t like the M3 we have in the US, but this car is really different, much better. And the adjustable suspension has a lot to do with it. The Normal setting is best, with just a little body roll and still a lot of handling.”

Other editors were even more effusive in their praise of the BMW’s sportiness, “The tires grip is like spikes, and the chassis is well-high impossible to upset. The M3’s stability, handling and road feel remind me more of a race car than of a street car set up for extra-urban activities. The Mercedes, on the other hand, feels like a luxury sedan resisting the transformation from street car to track car.”

Drivers who preferred the Mercedes appreciated its ride/handling balance and its tendency to be less temperamental than the BMW: “Drop-throttle tuck-in is just right for an average driver and sufficient for an expert. The BMW has more luck, which makes it better for an expert driver.”

Although there isn’t any mention of Audi’s full-time all-wheel-drive system in the proper name of the Coupe S2, the car is definitely a Quattro, with all of the best and worst traits that go along with that.

The first entry in the Quattro’s credit column is the extra stability and peace of mind that come with having four wheels pulling for you instead of just two. The Quattro system features a Torsen center differential and a rear differential that can be locked manually from inside the car by pressing a button.

The S2’s Quattro edge was instrumental in enabling it to keep up with the BMW and Mercedes on snakey, twisting roads, the awd making up for the rear wheel drive cars’ advantage in rubber: The Audi gave pursuit on 205/55ZR-16 tires, while the BMW rode on 225/45ZR-16s, and the M-B was hoofing on 17-in. wheels shod with 245/40ZR-17 tires.

So what price does the Audi Coupe S2 have to pay for its four footed stability? Well, all-wheel drive cars from the Subaru Justy to the Porsche 911 Carrera 4, understeer and the S2 is no exception. “Although the Coupe S2 is very forgiving and easy to drive at speed (it has a fair amount of body roll), it understeers – almost to the point of being frustrating at times,” lamented one of the editors.

The added weight of the Quattro system aggravated the condition, and the Audi ended up behind the BMW and Mercedes (which exhibited better balance and more poise) in high-speed transitional maneuvers like our slalom testing.

As far as top-speed runs go, we managed to find a few rare miles of Autobahn that weren’t overcrowded, so we were able to stretch the cars’ legs a bit. Our three coursers were all so smooth and tracked so steadily at their preset limits – 154mph for the Audi, BMW and the Mercedes (manufacturers in Germany have agreed upon a limited top speed of about 1555mph for their sedans) – that it almost made the thrill of speed without legal limits seem common. The kick was in how each car got there: the Coupe S2’s turbo whining and reaching out for more power, the Evolution II’s engine building toward a peak as the revs increased; and the M3 Sport Evolution’s engine pulling relentlessly up through its wide powerband.

Braking is a crucial aspect for cars of this caliber, so it pleases us to report that the stopping characteristics of all three competitors were excellent. The Mercedes and BMW (both sporting beefier disc brakes than their non-race-ordained counterparts) were nearly parallel performers, while the Audi had to give up a few feet to its lighter rivals. ABS, fitted to all three cars, takes the variable of driver skill out of the equation for quick stops. Only the Audi, however, offers the added option of an ABS override button for drivers who like to take threshold braking into their own hands.

Our notebook contained laudatory remarks for the braking of all three cars, but it was track driving that really allowed us to test the mettle of the cars’ braking system: “The Audi’s brakes got a bit spongy after a track session with some fairly hard braking.”

“The Mercedes’ brakes are excellent; I experienced no fade after 20 consecutive fast laps on Hockenheim’s short circuit.”

As any peacock will tell you, being voted top bird in the aviary isn’t everything – how you show off your feathers counts for a lot. By the same token, the Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.5-16 Evolution II didn’t garner any winning votes in the performance category. But it attracted more attention than the other two “birds” combined. Being a 4-door sedan had a little to do with it: The Evo II is slightly longer, wider and lower than either the 2-door BMW or the Audi Coupe. But what really pushes the Mercedes over the top as far as looks go is its sensational, trunk-mounted rear spoiler. No other aerodynamic piece on the car can even approach it. The snarling fender blisters, adjustable front air dam and aero rear bumper play functional second fiddle to the most outrageous wing since the Plymouth Superbird.

The BMW’s adjustable rear wing looks half-hearted by comparison. Munich lowered the M3’s nose by about a half-inch while creating the Sport Evolution, and it flared the fenders even more to accommodate the SE’s wider-than-stock-M3 tires. But the BMW is still no match for the Mercedes in the double-take department, although most of us agreed that the overall appearance of the BMW was more integrated and less tacked-on-looking than its Evolution counterpart from Stuttgart.

Then again, it’s hard to argue with the M-B’s 0.30 coefficient of drag (the BMW’s is 0.35). A ride-height adjustment switch, located on the dash, allows the Mercedes to hunker even closer to the ground for a little extra aerodynamic advantage.

Another important part of the Evolution II’s air management is an opaque plastic deflector fitted over the upper portion of the rear window. This piece was a constant source of complaints because it reduced the driver’s rearward vision dramatically. We understand that we are not alone in our frustration with the deflector because at least one M-B project engineer has cut out a large section from it on his personal Evolution II.

The Audi Coupe S2 is distinguished from other Audi Coupes principally by its new front-end treatment (based on the V8 model), special 5-spoke alloy wheels and S2 badges placed front and rear.

One would be hard pressed to find a better mix of sporting-yet-comfortable interiors than in these three cars. The Audi was generally looked upon as the comfort leader and the BMW as the race driver’s choice, but all three basted snug, supportive seats, grippy steering wheels and big, readable gauges.

The Mercedes’ interior characterized by the feeling of businesslike austerity that German cars are known for. That isn’t a complaint, just an observation. One editor, in fact, could have stood with a little less opulence in favour of lightening the car’s load: “Comfort is quite acceptable for a car in which handling is a priority,” he noted, “although I would prefer a car not so burdened with weighty gimmicks such as air conditioning and electric windows.”

Such restraint was shown in the BMW, which, while it did have air conditioning, had manual-crank windows. There is an air of race readiness about the M3 Sport Evolution’s cockpit. The tactile sensation of the steering wheel wrapped in brushed black leather is enough to get one itching to do hot laps. The distinctive BMW Motorsport blue and red, stitched into the upholstery of the M3’s superb seats, adds to the effect.

In the Audi, the stitching says “Quattro,” and the seats are just as nice. Our Coupe S2’s seats were done up in a green fabric that was designed to complement the lush, deep green color of the car’s exterior paint. The Audi’s elevated comfort level was noted by all. Its light gray faced gauges made an impression on us as well, earning praise from some, while others thought they looked gimmicky.

Our final tally found the editors evenly divided between the BMW M3 Sport Evolution and the Audi Coupe S2 as the sports car of preference.

“I was astonished that the Audi was my choice as the winner among the three cars,” confessed one driver. “I liked it best because of the all wheel drive, and I thought it was the best all-around car. It would be a great skier’s car, for instance, and it’s easy to drive every day as well. If I had to buy one car from the bunch, it would be the Audi.”

“For me, the M3 Sport Evolution is the easiest to drive of the three cars in this test,” responded a second editor. “Whether I was running it around Hockenheimring, tooling through the city, or opening it up on the Autobahn, the BMW felt right at home. With just enough gear selected, the power rolls on beautifully, and the engine pulls like a demon.”

A third editor put the debate into perspective by saying. “The Audi is the most civilized of the trio, but the M3 is the greatest fun of the group.”

And the Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.5-16 Evolution II – still a knockout performer – got stuck somewhere in the middle, playing bridesmaid to one car that was a better road automobile and to another that was a better Evolution.

The gap between the Mercedes and the other two cars is widened even further when price is taken into consideration. At $72,960, the Evolution II is easily the most expensive car in the group, followed by the M3 Sport Evolution at $56,700. The quick and comfy Coupe S2 stands out as the bargain of the field tagged at $45,700. True, the Audi is a bit less exclusive than the other two contenders – Mercedes is only building 500 Evo IIs (and all are spoken for). BMW is drawing the line at about 600 Sport Evolution M3s – but it also has the best chance of finding its way to North America.

Until then, we can take comfort in our memories of the race track in the woods, Baden-Württemberg’s back roads, the fleeting wonder of the Autobahnen and the excellence displayed by our three favourite traveling companions.

Related posts:

1. BMW M3 Evolution The Sport Evolution has been honed by serious drivers for...
2. BMW M3 Evolutionary Leap BMW's excellent M3 sports saloon has ceased production, and you...
3. Bloodless Evolution BMW's M3 is a super road car, but not the...

This company, is not hunting big game. No, leave that to other larger West German tuning firms whose employees delight in modifying Porsche 928S 4s and Ferrari Testarossas by cramming multiple turbos and superchargers into every underhood void, all the while thinking prurient thoughts of doubling, maybe tripling the engine’s output. They writhe with excitement at the thought of covering gauge faces in leather, creating visual unrest with clashing interior colors and covering impossibly wide tires with b bodywork that oftentimes is tasteless.

Hör (that’s pronounced her) Technologie has been steadily cranking out a small, high-quality product line composed of camshafts, timing gears, high-performance suspension springs and exhaust systems, all in applications to fit most German cars since it was established in 1979. Though not a prominent name in the U.S. market, Hör Technologie has been steadily toiling away for years, manufacturing camshafts that are sold under the names of other manufacturers. Now it’s coming out of the closet, so to speak, looking to make the Hör name as familiar a word to the enthusiast as Alpina or AMG.

Aftermarket parts glisten, gleam and look wonderful through the glass of a display case, but what’s
really needed to show them off is another showcase, the rolling kind. Enter Hör Technologie’s recently opened U.S. branch (1800 N. Glassell St. Orange, Calif. 92665: 714-974-4655). The folks there arranged for Road & Track Specials to borrow a privately owned example of their project car: an orange/red BMW M3 fitted with a sampling of Hör parts as well as other manufacturers’ performance bits they market.

By selecting the BMW M3, they presented themselves with a challenge. The M3 stands for Motorsport, and this 3-Series Bimmer was built from the outset as a homologation special to compete, albeit in somewhat modified form, in the Group A class for 4-seat sedans. The racing car does quite well, thank you, as demonstrated by its popularity and strong showing so far in this year’s German touring Car Championship. As one would expect, the road going M3 has a very competent chassis, honed and modified through racing efforts. And making it all the more difficult for Hör Technologie to improve it.

As for the bodywork, the Hör folks did the bet thing they could possibly do: They left it alone. Group A regulations prohibit any sort of add-on aerodynamic aid, so BMW saw fit to equip the stock M3 with a rear wing of monumental proportions, a deep chin spoiler, rocker panel extensions and a rear valance panel. The regulations also state that racing wheels and tires cannot stick out beyond the stock fenders: to that end, BMW provides lots of tire clearance with an ample set of blister fender flares.

The stock M3’s tires (205/55VR-15 Pirelli P600s) don’t take full advantage of all that under-fender room. Out they went, to be replaced by grippy Yokohama A008Gs, size 225/45VR-16, mounted on Etoile 16 x ½ in. wheels, at all four corners. Nor were the OEM underpinnings safe from their tinkering hands-the stock shocks were tossed in favor of a set of Tokico Illumina 5-way adjustable units ($454), and a set of Hör Technologie progressive rate performance springs ($345) take residence where the stock ones used to be. To cope with the increased cornering loads a beautiful Motorsport Series strut tower brace ($240) lovingly welded up from elliptical-section tubing pieces, Höres up the chassis.

The modifications improve the car’s looks considerably: it’s like comparing a custom-tailored suit to
one bought off the rack. The wider tires fill the wheel wells just right, and the springs lower the car
25-30 mm just enough to eliminate any visible, vertical gap between the tire’s tread and the fender lip. Wheel/tire packages that fit this well usually have interference problems, but no evidence of rubbing or scraping was seen, felt or heard. The polished rims and 5-spoke black centers of the Etoile wheels add the final dazzle; they’ll make the valets want to park this car in full view.

For whatever reason, some aftermarket “tuners” mess up the balance of a perfectly good chassis with modifications. Thankfully, this fate hasn’t befallen the Hör M3. The progressive springs keep body roll to a minimum without paying a high impact-harshness penalty when meeting life’s little bumps. Sure, it’s stiff, but not painfully so: the reward is a stable, responsive chassis that can put the generous Yokohama’s to their best use. The Hör M3 negotiates the skidpad at 0.852g, besting the stock car’s 0.82g by a considerable margin. Road Test Editor Kim Reynolds lauded the chassis’ competence: “It’s the kind of car you could drive real fast down an unfamiliar curvy road…you could hustle down that road safely and securely because of the car’s basic stability.”

An up rated chassis can safely handle more power, and Hör’s engineers claim they’ve increased output 27 bhp (the stock 2.3-liter 4-cylinder makes 192 bhp at 6750 rpm) through their sport camshafts, reprogrammed engine-management microchip and large-diameter exhaust package ($2595). The exhaust system includes a free-flowing Emitec steel catalytic converter (similar to ones used on some BMWs and Porsches) that’s said to reduce back pressure up to 65 percent compared to conventional ceramic units.

The accompanying acceleration figures speak for themselves. It is too bad a stock M3 wasn’t available for back-to-back testing, but when compared to previous test figures, there was no appreciable performance gain. The character of the modified engine was much like that of the stock version-smooth and not especially exciting below about 4000-4500 rpm, but humming like a kitchen blender set on puree as the tach needle bolts toward its redline 7300 rpm. The aluminum-plated steel exhaust system (which tucks up against the chassis as neatly as the stock setup) lends the spent gases a throatier, slightly boomier note that’s consistent with the car’s newfound good looks.

While I can’t condone engine modifications that don’t make a car appreciable faster or change its character for the better, the Hör M3 as a whole has better grip and composure than its stock counterpart. Its looks make it stand out in a crowd (even a crowd of other M3’s), and modifications to its suspension require very few concessions from the driver (with four adults on board, it only scraped its muffler once on a steep entrance to a gas station). It’s a car that, in a world of take-it-or-leave-it cars, gets lots of double-takes, and that in itself is something special.

Related posts:

1. M3 Squared Applying performance modifications to new car - legally and cost...
2. BMW M3 Track Test The M3, old news or not, is so well balanced...
3. BMW M3 (1988 – 1991) Within many of us there's a brilliant, successful racing driver...