When you can get an equivalent E39 M5 for less money?

I chopped in the E36 for a totally mint 2001 M5 with 22k one owner, warranty etc recently, and within a week some imbecile crumped into the rear wing while it was parked.  At least he left his details.

Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I've been given a 2004 M3 courtesy car while it's being fixed, I get my M5 back tomorrow.  I've done about 1000 miles in the M3 and don't get me wrong it's nice -- nicer than the E36.  Slightly faster more surefooted but quite a bit noisier and tiring on a trip. 

But considering I spent 500 quid on my last M3s insp 1, and the M5s just came to 360 (I supplied my own oil) including the 4 year coolant change and 2 year brake fluid change, and considering the M5 has relentless grunt from anywhere compared with the rev hound M3, and considering it would cost more for a 2001 M3 with 22k miles than I paid for the M5, the question is....

Why go for the M3?  Ok, it might have the edge on the lanes (but I'd not bet on it!) and the racecar feel would appeal.  But on speed, comfort, running costs (ok, 25mpg versus 29mpg on the same standard ~100mph/130 mile run), practicality, perhaps looks too if you don't want to scream "look at me", it wins hands down.

After a week-and-a-half thacking about in this M3, I absolutely can't wait to get back into The Daddy.

Andy

I think the post answers it's own questions.

The points you raise are why people buy them.

It's not a racecar feel though, nowhere near it.

Ok, ok I'm sorry.  -More- of a racecar feel than the M5.  I mean a bit flickier in the corners if you like, stiffer suspension, more direct, a bit more like a gokart.

I'm a bike racer, what the hell do I know?

Andy