2002 BMW M3: Would You Trade It In For The New M3?

I'd rather have a Z4M Coupe. Better looking than either, IMHO. If I need a sedan though for practicality, no doubt about it, the new M3 sedan is a great all-around every day car.

"Josh: For my money, I think I might keep the E46 and buy a new 328i wagon with that $37k."

I would do exactly the same. (But then again, my wife hates station wagons, and would have overruled me and spent that $37k on an Acura MDX.)

It's all about the money. If I had that kind of cash to throw around I'd probably get it.

There is something to be said for keeping what you have and becoming attached to it over the years. Sure the new versions will perform better, but you've bonded, and you'll always miss it.

I wish I could keep all the cars I've ever owned, just for nostalgia.

One thing that cannot be denied is that the E46 M3 is a gorgeous design and you'd be hard-pressed to find fault in its seductive shape. The new M3 is awkward and ugly from some angles and aggressive and muscular from others. It's got more swoops, bulges, creases and flame surfacing than a car that size should have. It is not as good looking overall and as well composed as the E46!

Interesting question. I think I "like" the E46 better based on looks and the exotic I-6.

Honestly not sure which I'd go for if money wasn't a factor.

I'd get a CTS-V.

You know all those folks who said they had some vintage car that would be worth serious money today? That would be you if you traded in the E46.

If you've got an extra $37K in car money lying around, buy a G8 and save the rest for M3 mods.

I'd keep the E46 and use some of the money to upgrade the interior of the car. Since the leather has aged I'd reupholster the seats and dash...or simply replace them. Upgrade the stereo and in dash GPS Nav display with something more up-to-date.

I'd keep everything under the hood intact unless the clutch or transmission need some work. I'd upgrade the suspension and replace the rims with something lighter.

If I hadn't read how much money you guys put into this car, I would have said go with the 2002 M3.

I'd keep the old car for those all too few times that you can use that performance and buy something else with the $37K for a daily driver.

I was lucky enough to have owned an S2000 with AP1 engine and now the E90 M3. I personally think one must "graduate" to better engines that still retain the high rev nature to broaden their perspectives.

The S65 is incredibly special and owning one will do justice to replace the S54.

save the e46 and fix the clutch and shifter and other issues with the 37k

I hate this car for the same reason I expect my parents' generation hated (and still do hate) cadillacs and lincolns: I AM SICK OF HEARING EVERYTHING COMPARED TO IT!

Everything in engineering is a tradeoff of one kind or another. When I hear a statement like this is "the best all around car in the world", I'm convinced that this is because you are defining one car as the best in the world, and then comparing everything else based upon how close it comes to your standard (in this case, these freak'n bmws). At least my parents' generation's overhyped luxury rides actually supported the US economy!

The previous post about the cts trying to hard to drive like a bmw is absolutely right, but cadillac realized that in this day-and-age living by bmw's standards would be the only way they could get some bloody respect from the bmw fanboy journalists!

Just yesterday I was at the dealer getting my E46 M3's yearly state inspection performed. While I was waiting, I drifted over to the used lot and found a 2008 M3 coupe (E92) for sale. Needless to say, I couldn't resist comparing it with my car. Some random observations:

* The styling is certainly less restrained -- even sitting inside the E92 you /really/ notice the bulge on the hood, which I have never noticed from the driver's seat in the E46.
* The trunk space isn't lined nearly as well on the E92 as it is on the E46 (I can see painted metal) -- small nitpick, I know.
* The climate controls on the E92 seem much more sensible. Dual-zone, and no more pounding at buttons to set the temperature. I wish there was a dial for the fan speed, too!
* Can't comment on i-Drive -- the E92 didn't have it
* The ride on the E92 is much more comfortable. There are 18" wheels on both my E46 and the E92, so that's not it. I think it's part seats, part suspension, part more weight.
* The E92 sounds better. The E46 has a rasp at around 3-4k and very distinct mechanical crescendo in the upper rev ranges. The E92 has more intake noise, a less mechanical sound, and a bit of V8 rumble (like an old American V8 without the lumpy cams). Very nice.
* The E92 has more power, and that power is better distributed across the powerband. (Haven't seen dyno plots, but I can imagine how they would compare.) You really need to get the E46 past 3k to appreciate how fast it is. You appreciate the E92 instantly.
* Gearbox and shifter felt about the same, but I appreciated that the E92 differential doesn't "clunk" at low speeds like some E46 diffs do (mine included).
* Clutch pedal was noticeably worse, IMO at least. Apparently too many people complained that the E46 had a stiff clutch, so they made the action easier at the bottom of the stroke. However, the initial disengagement force is still high, so you feel as though you have to press hard at first, only to have the pedal shoot to the floor. Very annoying.
* They seem to handle about the same. I like the E46 in this regard, so that's a win in my book.

So, would I trade? Yes. I'm going to wait for the price to come down a bit first, but from my initial impression, the engine alone is worth the price of admission. The better ride, additional interior space, and updated electronic and safety systems are a nice bonus too... :)

Id keep the E46 M3, purchase a 06-07 Acura TSX 6MT for daily driving and use the rest of the $37K for mods for the M3.

Maybe I'm jaded, but I think the e46 m3 is going to be a classic. As in 20 years from now it'll be one of "the" cars to own (like the e30 M3 is now).

I feel the same way about the 2003 e39 M5.

uncanny_man -- find one and drive it before you hate it. There is a reason why a lot of people like it. Don't let your inner contrarian get in the way of enjoying a fine car and a fine motor.

I'd keep the E46. As to what I'd do with the surplus $37K, who knows? I might pick up a nice CPO 335i if I needed a sedan. But then I might also get a really nice E39 M5 or S4. Best of all, I'd still have about $10K left over, so I think I'd get something like a Mazdaspeed Miata. No wait! A Triumph Street Triple R. Yeah, that's the ticket.
For today, anyways...

"Maybe I'm jaded, but I think the e46 m3 is going to be a classic. As in 20 years from now it'll be one of "the" cars to own (like the e30 M3 is now).

I feel the same way about the 2003 e39 M5."

Absolutely. The E46 M3 *will* go down as one of the best BMWs ever made.

Now I'm teetering among getting an E92 M3, a CTS-V, or waiting for the Audi RS5.

@bimmerjay,

Have you driven a CTS-V yet?

If not, I'd be interested to hear whether it's still on your list after you've tried it.

For me, the CTS-V is a car that makes eye-popping numbers while somehow managing to be rather unengaging to drive, i.e., very un-M3-like.

-Josh

Why doesn't someone on the staff buy the E46? I think it's worth keeping, although I do like the E92 (coupe only, as I don't like the styling of the sedan).

I think the E46 will definitely be a future classic, and so will the E92, because it will likely the be the last M3 with a V8.

If you want an E46 4-door M3, the closest thing is the 330i with the ZHP Performance Package. Not quite the same, but you get M-tuned suspension upgraded over the Sport Package, free-flowing intake, camshaft, and exhaust, as well as Alcantara interior trim and some minor exterior differences. I absolutely love mine. It doesn't have quite the kick in the backside the M3 does but it drives and handles like a dream.

I'd keep the older car.

The rust-leather interior of the new one makes me want to vomit. I also don't like too many electronic gizmos in a car.

2 points:

1) I'm of the opinion M enthusiasts should always skip a generation. All the "should Is" come from the evolutionary nature of the changes between models, which is a blurry line. Lots of E46 M3 owners are somewhat angst-ridden about going to the new M3. You'll never hear that from someone moving from an E36 M3 to an E90 or an E34 M5 to an E60 M5- the improvements are too dramatic, no matter what you think of the increased weight and all the electronics. I say keep it.

2) Let's stop kidding ourselves about the E46 M3s future classic status. Not happening, same as the E36 M3, and that goes for the E90/92 M3. The E30 M3 is the only classic M3 - smaller numbers, handbuilt, first of its kind, etc. Doesn't mean the people that enjoy them have to stop.

I prefer the older car's looks, but the technology in the new one is pretty tempting. I do tend to think the new M3 sedan is pretty awesome. Overall I'd probably get the old one and save they money. $37k is a lot of money.

epbrown:
I do think that an E46 with the ZCP package might qualify as a minor classic in about 10 years or so.

Having driven an '05 M3 recently (was in the market) and driven an E92 M3, I'd trade up to the new one if I had the money. That's if I got the sedan. If it was a choice of coupes only, I'd save the money and get a 135i. My wife and I actually enjoyed the 135i more than the E92 M3. The M3 has steering that's telepathic, but we loved how tossable the 135 was compared to the grand touring feel of the E92 M3. I do prefer 4 doors though.

I wouldnt.
This weekend I went to a BMW car club auto X.

There were several new E90/92 M3's and E46 M3's.

While working the course I was at a great corner able to see all cars fly by.

The E46 M3 looks like a proper M car as it approached. The E9x M3 just does not look as balanced. A few friends have the new M3 so I dont mean to insult their choices.

BU they kept saying they didnt want to drive the older model when I suggested a low mile E46 M3. It was a perception issue. Even though a low mile competition packake E46 M3 can cost over $40K.

I loved the S54 engine and bought a Z4 M Coupe for the rarity and pure driving experience. THe dash is ver simple and people cant beleive its a 2007 car with so little knobs and buttons.

Having a 4 door GTI as a daily driver makes a great driving combo for me.

After seeing the times the V8 M3 got at the track it was obvious a decent driver with the E46 M3 can out manuever the E9x M3.

As for the great V8 sound, a Mustang GT was in the event and sounded better than the V8 M3.

I would buy the 135i instead.

Just saw a white M3 coupe with the 18"s at lunch time. The driver was going much too fast in the busy commercial downtown area but I did get to hear the engine. It has a nice tone but its not deep like the 4.2L Audi engine in the RS4.

"For me, the CTS-V is a car that makes eye-popping numbers while somehow managing to be rather unengaging to drive, i.e., very un-M3-like."

suppose one wasn't a BMW fanboy. Would the CTS-V then be considered exciting? I can see how 556hp could be rather unengaging though. Sounds like a real snooze to drive.

The performance of the 335i is so close to that of the $14k more expensive M3 that it makes the M3 pointless. Either get at 335i or a CTS-V if you insist on spending $60k.

I own an '04 M3 coupe and I absolutely love it! I've had it for a year and a half now (bought it used with 8800 miles on it - prev owner barely drove her) and I still jones to get behind the wheel and drive. I smile every time I'm behind the wheel. Would I trade it for a new one? Nope. I'm happy with my little girl! If you can, get one!

teekay13-- I don't hate the car. I hate all of the hype that surrounds the m3 and bmws in general. Like any other car or piece of engineering, it is not perfect since everything is a trade-off. The only way one could call it perfect is if they define a perfect car by the m3, then compare everything else to it, which I think is exactly what happens (more road noise than a bmw = loud, less road noise than a bmw = isolating, etc).

"@bimmerjay,

Have you driven a CTS-V yet?

If not, I'd be interested to hear whether it's still on your list after you've tried it."

Hi Josh,

I am fortunate to have driven the CTS-V at Milford and also on the streets of Metro-Detroit for a few days. My impressions compared to the E92 M3 I've also driven (6-speed coupe w/19" wheels):

- Intoxicating power from the CTS-V. Delivery is so much different than the M3. I love the burly V8 in the -V, however the ///M V8 just strikes me as so much smoother and more sophisticated. It relies more on intake/engine sound to please you aurally whereas the -V hits you with the exhaust note. I actually prefer the -V's 6-speed and clutch action over the ///M's, but I wonder if the ///M had BMW's imfamous CDV.

- I was pretty impressed with the -V's handling overall, but compared to the ///M it is not as easy to place in corners and I was missing the apexes. The -V was easier to induce oversteer but it was harder to follow a precise line. I also don't think it's as easy to tell what the tires are doing as the Caddy has a heavier, more isolated feel to it. The magnetic shocks were great at keeping the car flat and delivered a surprisingly smooth ride on the road.

- The -V's steering feels somewhat numb to me. With stability off I swear the effort gets heavier, but it's still difficult to be precise. The suede grips were really cool.

- Overall the M3 just feels lighter, more tossable, and tactile (steering, brakes, engine, seat-of-the-pants), like it's wired to you and responds directly to your brain's whims. The CTS-V is an undeniable bruiser of a car though, much more like the brute force an AMG provides versus the delicate precision of the BMW. The CTS-V might wrench you around the track just as fast but you definitely have to be more skilled to do it.

The M3 coupe and CTS-V I've spec'd out both come to about $68.5K, surprisingly. The CTS-V has largely stayed on my list because I will probably be able to get one for more than $12K less than sticker, whereas the ///M will be a Euro Delivery if I can at probably the ED MSRP price (figure 7% off sticker).

I am also very curious about owning a GM car so I'm willing to overlook some of the CTS's flaws (awful piano black trim, quality issues, garish styling). I drove the previous gen CTS-V at the track several years ago (against a C6 Corvette, no less) and found that car to be crude with an awful interior, so it's quite impressive to me how GM has managed to improve this car so much for the second gen.

Bimmer:

I'm sure you know the CTS-V feels heavier because it is larger and heavier. Priced like an M3 but sized like an M5. A 4200lb car will never feel as light as an M3. The fact that it performs like the M3 in spite of its weight is what makes it incredible. You seem to be the first I have heard who is comparing the V to an AMG product. Most feel V series cars are much closer to M than AMG in terms of driver involvement and tactile feedback. AMGs are more like German versions of the muscle car.

What "quality issues" are you speaking of? Whats wrong with the interior of the V? I found no issues with the interior. The last V was less refined and capable but C&D still said it was a good match for the last gen M3 and M5 in an informal comparo. It was aimed at the last gen M5, not the current one. The interior was hardly "awful" compared to contemporary German interiors that were awash in angles and black plastics/vinyls. The CTS interior looked bad without nav but the 8" nav screen was standard on the V and it looked OK.

Speaking of fanboys...

@bimmerjay,

Yep, those impressions sound similar to mine. Numbers rarely impress me as much as feel and character, and your assessment of the M3's character relative to the CTS-V -- "feels lighter, more tossable, and tactile (steering, brakes, engine, seat-of-the-pants), like it's wired to you and responds directly to your brain's whims" -- is spot-on.

Also, yes, you're right, the CTS-V's steering effort does get heavier with stability off! (And also with stability in "competition mode" or whatever, I believe.) I noticed that too.

Cars like the CTS-V and the GT-R have been engineered to make amazing numbers at the test track, but I think a lot of enthusiasts, myself included, care more about a car's character than its numbers on a track sheet. That's why I said awhile back that I would rather own an E46 M3 than a GT-R -- it's more involving to drive. BMW has nailed that "gotta-drive-it" factor with the M3, whatever numbers say.

-Josh

Josh,

Have you ever spent any time in an E30 M3? One of my most memorable driving experiences involved spending a day lapping Sears Point(now Infineon) Raceway in a pristine 1988 equipped with a Conforti chip and a Dinan suspension. Pure heaven. That said, an E46 M3 is still on my short list for my next track toy...

roadburner,

No. I'd love to though. As much as I dig the E46/E9X M3s, there's unquestionably a thick layer of refinement there, so it would be interesting to drive an M3 that's more of an elemental sports machine.

Josh,

I hope you get an opportunity to seriously flog one someday. I'm not one of those who finds refinement to be a bad thing, but in the case of an E30 M3, it's almost like the thing can read your mind. Let me know if you are ever in the Memhis, TN area; I have a friend who has an E30 M3 that he transformed into a replica of one of the Warsteiner Touring cars. It eventually pops up on the slideshow at http://bmwcca.org/ if you are patient.

1487, when you're comparing the 335i to the M3, you're strictly going by numbers. With the M cars, it's not just about numbers -- it's about how the car feels while generating those numbers. It's about how much of the capability of the car a driver can use. Numbers aren't everything.

Josh:

Read MT's comparo of the CTSV and M5. They certainly don't agree with your assertion that the V is designed to generate numbers wihout offering much feedback. They say the steering feel is superior to that of the M5. The CTS-V is the size of the M5 and is closer in weight to the M5. Its too large to feel as agile as the M3. I am willing to bet you have logged far more miles in M3s than the CTS-V so perhaps you just need more time to experience the V. Comparing the V to the computer controlled GTR and its high tech AWD system is a stretch. In fact, MT noted that you need driver skill to get the most out of the V on the track because oversteer surfaces quite easily unless you are judicious with the throttle. GTR makes almost any driver look good.

sguide:

Spare me the "its not about the numbers" speech. The 335i offers about 95% of the M3 performance. Since the 335i is praised for feel and feedback I would love to know how you could prove that the M3 is far superior in both ways. The two cars are too close in terms of performance to justify buying the M3. Unless you are on a track the M3's additonal perforance is superfluous. Its kind of like the Challenger R/T and SRT8. The SRT8 doesn't give you much more for thousands of additional dollars other than exclusivity.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0907_bmw_m5_cadillac_ctsv_comparison/index.html

Can't wait to hear how everyone dismisses this result. MT lists a few demerits for the V, but none involve lack of feedback or driver involvement.

I guess vehicular mass matters none when saying the M3 "feels" better than the CTS-V. I wonder how the V feels compared to the E63, M5 and XF-R, you know, since they share similar weights and dimensions. I'll say it again, the M3 and CTS-V only have one thing in common and that is price.

Guys, we're talking about the M3 sedan, not the M5. Different beasts.

Here's what I think of the M5, if you're interested: http://blogs.edmunds.com/strategies/2008/10/weekly-top-3-an-m-badged-impostor.html

Quotable quote:

"The M5's steering stinks."

-Josh

The E46 M3 isn't anywhere near a race car, and seating 5 in that car is beyond a stretch unless all but the driver happen to be midgets.

Edmunds needs to step away from the BMW corporate Kool-Aid - you guys are getting punch drunk from it. The M3 is a nice car, but it's not the best all around car in the world.

"The CTS-V might wrench you around the track just as fast but you definitely have to be more skilled to do it."

Try FASTER than, not just as fast. Every CTS-V versus M3 comparo on the track I've seen proves the CTS-V is faster around the track.

"The M3 coupe and CTS-V I've spec'd out both come to about $68.5K, surprisingly. The CTS-V has largely stayed on my list because I will probably be able to get one for more than $12K less than sticker, whereas the ///M will be a Euro Delivery if I can at probably the ED MSRP price (figure 7% off sticker)."

You won't be able to get a CTS-V for more than $12k off sticker anytime soon. You're dreaming. Best deal you'll find on one now is about $4k off.

You know you're going to be buying the M3 anyway - you're not V material as a BMW fanboy.

stingray,

The "race car" quote was in reference to the new M3 sedan, not the two-door E46 M3. Though I'd submit that the E46's engine has fundamentally the same ferocious character. Of course, I didn't mean a literal race car; it's the M3's eager, uninhibited nature that I'm talking about.

Anyway, the E90 will seat 5 in a pinch and 4 in reasonable comfort, no problem. The E46 will actually carry four adults, believe it or not, with adequate headroom, but there's ingress/egress issues, plus less legroom than in the E90.

Re: CTS-V's eye-popping numbers, again, no one's disputing that it makes 'em. But when I think about this class (and price), what's important to me is character. That's why, as noted above, I once said I'd rather have the E46 M3 than the GT-R. The E46 is just more engaging and fun to drive, regardless of what the numbers say. For the same reason, I'll take the E90 M3 over the CTS-V every day of the week. And I'll take an S2000 over a Solstice GXP or 370Z ragtop. And so on. YMMV.

"What "quality issues" are you speaking of? Whats wrong with the interior of the V? I found no issues with the interior."

My car had a grinding nav screen mechanism and some random interior squeaks (mainly a noise from the ultraview roof). Another CTS 3.6 DI I've driven had the squeaky driver's seat like the IL LT car plus a misaligned interior piece. And Edmunds' car obviously has its share of interior quality issues.

I don't keep cars for very long (1-2 years) so I'm personally not concerned about long term durability, but initial quality is a BIG deal to me. I'm nitpicky and notice the kinds of problems that Edmunds has experienced. Though they are not major, they would annoy the hell out of me and I would fear frequent dealer visits for all these minor issues. I don't have the time or patience for that, so given my experience with the CTS it concerns me. I've had my 335i for almost 2 years now and it has yet to give me a single problem. No squeaks or rattles either. This has generally been the norm for the German cars I've owned - extremely solid interior construction with the few problems I've had relating to electronics, and generally easily fixed.

The only major flaw I found with the -V's interior is the piano black trim. It's everywhere and loves to collect fingerprints and reflect sunlight. The worst part is you can't opt for anything else. A high-performance car should have matte interior finishes to minimize interior distractions; the fact the M3 gives you 4 choices for trims is a nice plus. I do however really like the french top stitching on the -V's dash, it's a premium touch not usually found even at this price. I'm neutral on the overall interior design, and most of the switchgear is surprisingly high quality and Germanic (the first GM car I can say that about with a straight face). The only other thing I dislike is the nav screen - I much prefer a deeply-recessed fixed design. I want it displayed at all times anyway unless I'm on the track (BMW lets you shut it off) and the retracting design forces design compromises on the center stack - like the odd vents.

"1487, when you're comparing the 335i to the M3, you're strictly going by numbers. With the M cars, it's not just about numbers -- it's about how the car feels while generating those numbers. It's about how much of the capability of the car a driver can use. Numbers aren't everything."

@sgude

This is so true, and not just with the ///M cars. The actual numbers between the 335i and M3 might not be that far off, but the cars are very different at 7/10th's and up. It's much easier to exploit the limits of the M3, and the aforementioned tactility is not as present in the 335i (RFTs are partly to blame, I'm sure). The 335i is definitely softer and more relaxed by comparison. I've hammered a lot of 335i's at the track.

"You won't be able to get a CTS-V for more than $12k off sticker anytime soon. You're dreaming. Best deal you'll find on one now is about $4k off."

Well, maybe you or most others can't, but I can so that's why I said it. I would not be getting the car through conventional channels.

"You know you're going to be buying the M3 anyway - you're not V material as a BMW fanboy. "

I'm not sure what "V material" is but thanks anyway for the unprovoked insult.

Bimmerjay, I know. It is seemingly impossible to get 1487 to see the point that while he thinks the 335i offers 95% of the M3's performance, it's how the cars FEEL in generating that performance and how much of that performance is ACCESSIBLE to the driver at a given time, on the street and especially on the track. No 335i -- stock -- can keep up with a stock M3 on the track, unless the 335i is being driven by Bill Auberlen or somebone of his competence level.

bimmer:

You need to get in more GM cars if you think the CTS is the first and only to have high quality switchgear. Not surprised you think that however. That seems in line with your views. Based on your comments about the V I seriously doubt you would get the car. Basically you are saying its inferior to the M3 in every way but you might subject yourself to the V based on price alone. Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of the V at all. As for the interior- I fail to see how an all black interior is a "distraction". The car doesn't have piano black trim, it has real real that is stained black. I've read nothing suggesting it was a distraction nor did I find it overly bright when I was in the car. The IL doesnt have "its share" of interior issues, it has a squeaking seat. Apparently that is an issue on some CTS cars but hopefully it has been remedied on 2009 vehicles. German cars rattle just like all other cars. C&D had a GTI that rattled for the duration of its long term visit. For the record, they haven't mentioned any rattles in the CTS after close to 20k miles.

sgude:

Feel is subjective so its pointless to debate it as if its quantifiable. If I paid $70k for an M3 you can rest assured I am going to argue until I'm blue in the face that it "feels" better than a much cheaper 335i. There are no complaints about the "feel" of the 335i nor has any magazine ever suggested it can be improved upon. That said, I would love for you to explain to me how the M3 drastically improved upon the feel of the 335i. The main difference between the two cars is in the engine bay. The M3 has a few other electronic tricks but essentially its a more powerful 335i. I would argue that the "feel" of the instant torque form the twin turbo could be superior to the high winding V8. Where did I say the 335i would be faster on a track? I explicitly said the track is where the M3's advantages could be utiliized. On the street the 335i offers more than enough performance for any driver.

Josh:

I dont think you would be stupid enough to dispute the CTS-Vs peformance. You are simply saying that any car that isnt made by BMW isnt going to satisfy your subjective cravings and thus the V would not be your car of choice since its a Cadillac. The M3 is MUCh lighter than the CTS-V so I dont think anyone would be surprised to learn the M3 feels lighter. It is lighter. My problem is that you claimed that the V is a blunt intrument designed to acheive jaw dropping numbers without any feedback to the driver. Nothing I've read suggests that is the case. The V is possibly the best handling and most engaging large sedan sold today. Its engine, steering, brakes and suspension have been lauded. If those systems arent responsible for providing tactile feedback to the driver I would love to know what qualifies.

As this post prepares to breath its last, I'll just point out that the M3 is obviously not "essentially a more powerful 335i." Check the mechanical bits on each car -- engine, suspension, brakes, drive settings, etc. -- and you'll see what I mean.

The M3's *numbers* are essentially those of a more powerful 335i, I suppose, but any enthusiast would notice that the characters of these cars are dramatically different.

1487 isn't an enthusiast, so he doesn't appreciate this point. It's like me with wine: as long as it doesn't make me grimace, I'm fine with it. I'm not a wine enthusiast, so I can't really appreciate the difference between the $30 bottle and the $50 bottle made by the same winery. There's no shame in not being an enthusiast, of course, but by way of (obvious) explanation, I think that's what's going on here.

-JS

"Guys, we're talking about the M3 sedan, not the M5. Different beasts."

No, we are talking about a 4300 lbs car not being as agile as a 3800 pound car. It's not rocket science. For the last time, the CTS-V competes DIRECTLY with the M5 because they are virtually equal in mass and size. That's the car Cadillac aimed to beat and that's exactly what they've done. The V happens to cost the same as an M3 so all of a sudden you and others are trying to alter physics by placing priorities on intangible criteria which always favor a lighter car. No one will argue the a CTS-V can feel as lithe as an M3 because it's heavy as a hell and has a pronounced forward weight bias. However, the fact remains that despite the increase in mass and exterior dimensions, it is still faster in a straight line and around a track and those who can appreciate such a feat will remain impressed. The CTS-V is dynamically superior than the M5 and faster than the M3 and many objective car nuts can appreciate what that means. I don't race and never will and if I had the money (which I likely never will) the CTS-V would be enough for me. Perhaps if I lived in SoCal where there are roads that drop off of cliffs into the Pacific, I could appreciate your position but I don't nor do I care to drive dozens of miles out of my way to find such thrills. I want a car that provides the most fun in whatever conditions I experience and 0-60 in under four seconds means I could spank a GT-R if the drivers hasn't properly set his controls on the flight deck. No beans in that torqueless M3.

I'd also argue the 335 would be more than capable for 99% of "enthusiasts" out there. I guess the insinuation is that if you can afford an M3, your driving skill is elevated to the point that a 335 seems dull? Give me a break folks. Now, non M BMWs aren't engaging enough to drive? I've heard it all now.

The bottom line is this: the M3 is not that fast (compared to MUCH cheaper 335 and similarly priced & better performing CTS-V). If superlative feel is worth $20k+ over a 335, then more power to you. For most folks who live in the real world and drive on real roads, the M3 doesn't add up- especially approaching $70k.

Josh:

Any specifics that prove the M3 isn't a 335i with a larger engine and upgraded tires? I've read little about the M3 having a substantially upgraded suspension or steering rack compared to the 335i. That said, its interesting that suddenly people feel there is so much room to improve upon the 335i. If we were talking about the 335i without considering the M3 folks would be contending the 335i is the perfect car. Furthermore, I would love if you would elaborate on the major differences between the characteristics (aside from powertrain)of the M3 and 335i. I do love it when people try to avoid offering details by suggesting that people in the know already have the answers. Since you are sure I'm not an enthusiast that surely you will humor me by offering a tutorial on the dramatic differences between the lowly 335i and the M3. I would be very interested in how these changes justify a $14k price difference.

Your presumptiousness never ceases to amaze. You wouldn't know much about my credentials as an "enthusiast" and quantifying that is pointless since we don't have a agreed upon set of criteria. The only disagreement here is between you and the half dozen reviews that have been published about the CTS-V in the major automobile magazines/websites. As you have made clear numerous times you are an avid fan of BMW and have little love for most other brands. Naturally in your mind BMWs are always going to feel better. I'm sure you would be disappointed by the C63, Xf-R, E63, RS4 or any other high performance luxury sedan lacking BMW bonafides. The fact is if we remove you skewed percpetions from the equation the CTS-V is the most capable two ton sedan sold in the world. It lacks the agility of smaller, lighter cars such as the M3 and yet can obliterate such cars on a racetrack. Cadillac doesn't make a car that competes directly with the M3 in size and mass but the heavier CTS-V does an admirable job of dispatching the M3 at Nurburgring or any other track. Whatever ambiguities are present with respect to the CTS' level driver feedback are inherent to any car tipping the scales at over two tons and have nothing to do with Cadillac's inability to properly tune a chassis. If the CTS-V delivers superior performance and steering feel to the vaunted M5 I think I can say without fear of contradiction that it handles as well and FEELS as competent as any 4000lb sedan ever has.

Also- Josh are you suggesting that the 335i wouldn't be satisfactory to a real "enthusiast"? Just curious.

If you don't drive on a track regularly I do wonder what one would really be sacrificing in going with the cheaper, lighter and more efficient 335i. I can't imagine how 300hp and 300lb-ft of torque along with a BMW sport suspension would be inadequate on public roads. Then again, I'm not an enthusiast so I am likely woefully off target here.

^^
"I would love if you would elaborate on the major differences between the characteristics (aside from powertrain)of the M3 and 335i."

Drive them yourself and get back to me. If you have a license. :)

1487- you don't have the means to drive expensive European cars around race tracks all day (like everyone else) so you aren't allowed to participate in these discussions. In case you didn't know, most of us on these blogs don't go to work everyday, we drive full tilt on canyon roads from 9-5 while you type away meaningless opinions. If you had a license, all you would have to do is go a BMW dealer and tell them you want to flog an M3 for an hour and return to do the same thing in a 335. That's how the rest of us do it.

To Sadlier- way to address/answer legitimate questions posed from those people who's job isn't to write about cars for a living. I've read some pretty solid points here that you either can't or won't address which leads me to believe you are full of hot air.

Chavis, I don't see why you have to be mean-spirited about this. I mean, I realize that that's what tends to happen in online fora, but still. If we were talking in person about this, would you get up in my face and say all of that, followed by "You're full of hot air"?! Sheesh. You'd think I insulted your mom or something.

Anyway, what's the legitimate question here? How the M3 is different from the 335i? You guys can look it up, but okay, here's a preview. The M3 has a different and quicker steering system, probably the best and most communicative implementation on the market of the Audi-style ultralight-to-nice-and-weighty variable power assist (335i has the familiar heavy-at-low-speeds, great-at-higher-speeds but somewhat slower 3 Series steering). It has an electronically adjustable suspension that ranges from supple to track-stiff but still livable (335i has familiar sublimely balanced but less hardcore 3 Series sport package suspension). It has a naturally aspirated V8 with an 8,000-plus rpm redline that sounds amazing (335i has a twin-turbo six with a lower redline that sounds smooth).

There's three examples that might help explain the M3's uniquely satisfying overall feel. That overall feel is why I think the M3's well worth the stretch if you can swing it financially; in fact, I'd rather have a used E46 M3 than a 335i. But that's because my crazed enthusiast brain is exactly what BMW has in mind when they design M3s. Again, YMMV.

-JS

"I mean, I realize that that's what tends to happen in online fora, but still. If we were talking in person about this, would you get up in my face and say all of that, followed by "You're full of hot air"?! Sheesh. You'd think I insulted your mom or something."

That's an understatement, kind of amazing how rude a lot of the people are on here.

-Jason (not V material)

P.S. Drove an '06 CLS55 AMG the other day. Definitely less tactile than the -V. Lazy, numb steering, artificial suspension, would probably be a handful at the track. That is all.