2009 BMW M3: The First Test

For some reason, I like this one better than the M3 coupe. White's a good color for this car.

I always wonder why IL didn't put it against the GT-R VS ALL test last year. It should be better than the normal 911 for the numbers...

Those numbers don't seem to murder a 335 like they should.

For comparison- $68,135 CTS-V automatic (with $3400 recaros, nav and other options)

0-60: 3.9 sec
1/4 mile: 12.2 @ 119mph
skidpad: .89g
braking 70-0: 154ft (not a direct comparo)

More car, faster performance and same money. What do ya think?

Oh, and 71.1mph through the slalom.

very nice. Seems like it should be better for the price.

not too much better than a 335 or 135. i understand that the experience is a whole different game, but is it 30,000 dollars better when u hear the engine screaming at 8,000 rpm?

So an A4 sedan is faster through the slalom?

Is that super think steering wheel driving any of the staff crazy yet? I expect to see a post on that soon.

@ chavis10:

no, sorry, its just that i can trust the bmw brand, or any other import for that matter to run for a minumum of 100,000 miles of hard driving

cant say the same for an american car, sorry

dont get me wrong, i like cadillac (lets hope they dont die as pontiac has) but german power u know lol

The 335's 0-75 is half a second slower. You get a V8. Does the stock 335 break 12's in the 1/4? Doubtfull. Did I mention the V8?

I would attribute the "slow-ish", and I cringe to use that word, 0-60 down to a modest torque output. Personally, I dislike the way turbo's drive in the real world, I'd much rather a free-revving naturally aspirated engine like this one.

I don't know why but I did expect a tad more nimbleness.

I'd bet the farm the CTS-V's blown LS9 will last as long or longer than the BMW's V8. With Vishnu's 335i nipping at the heels of this M3 and the CTS-V in another performance league entirely, it takes a very peculiar brand of purism to justify the M.

One thing people here CONSISTENTLY fail to mention is that numbers alone cant translate to how the car reacts while driving. Thats one area the BMW will more than likely be superior vs the regular 3 Series and others in its class. Sure, there are faster cars for similar money (CTS-V is a bargain) but Im willing to bet they dont feel as good extracting their performance. Ill take finesse over brute force anyday.

The ///M cars communicate something emotional to the driver and thats something few cars at any price can achieve.

"1/4-mile: 12.9 @109.8"

Not a bad time, however, Edmunds numbers are usually on the conservative side and it only has 1200 miles on it.

"no, sorry, its just that i can trust the bmw brand, or any other import for that matter to run for a minumum of 100,000 miles of hard driving"

GTRB3NZ, Ive seen many domestic examples with well over 100K, your assumptions are invalid.

The great thing is that the CTS-V exists for bargain performance hunters out there. Both are ridiculously excessive, and I desperately wish to get a turn at both.

And I wouldn't count the Cadillac at a disadvantage in terms of reliability and maintenance costs. I would even speculate that there is more reasonably priced aftermarket support and maintenance options for the Caddy than the M3. The CTS-V is a low-volume vehicle, but it borrows most it has from a regular Caddy and a Corvette, both probably far cheaper to maintain than an M3.

Anybody have experience maintaining a modern Corvette or CTS-V?

@ hondacura4

It's a CTS-V, not a Camaro. This is a car Edmunds calls "among the best in any regard for anything." I'm aware it's fashionable to bash American cars for lacking that German je ne sais quoi, but you really haven't a leg to stand on with this one. As Edmunds points out, it really is that good.

If you prefer the M3's styling or the ability to wind the engine to 8400 RPM, that's something else. Like the GTR, the V is so competent that some hardy souls could find it boring. You could say the same about the M3 relative to an old 911. Don't mistake competence for a fault.

"Anybody have experience maintaining a modern Corvette or CTS-V?"

My friend has a 2005 base Vette. The maintenance by itself isn't that bad, but he claims one has to replace the tires every year and that's at least 2 grand.

@hondaacura 4

yes ur right, many domestic examples out of thousands

its fine though, u can drive domestic, ill stick with imports :)

Great numbers, just a tick slower than the coupe which can be expected with the 18s and a few more pounds. I agree the CTS-V is a sweet car if you don't mind the gaudy styling, but the reality is I've seen a dozen M3 sedans and Merc C63s and only one CTS-V. Of course maybe that's due to the fact that GM won't be able to make their $1 billion dollar June payment and thus will file for bankruptcy. Who knws

"It's a CTS-V, not a Camaro. This is a car Edmunds calls "among the best in any regard for anything." I'm aware it's fashionable to bash American cars for lacking that German je ne sais quoi, but you really haven't a leg to stand on with this one. As Edmunds points out, it really is that good."

Alexidi, my post was in no way disrespectful to the CTS-V nor was I doubting its performance potential as its an awesome car, V or not. My point was that ///M cars have consistently carried a certain emotional element that its competition was lacking. On the contrart, if Cadillac has managed to equal or better that emotional connection and the overall high level of tactility the ///M cars offer, more power to them.

contrart = contrary =)

Here we go again. The endless comparisons between GM cars to German ones. The only reason the CTS-V doesn't command a higher pricetag is because no one will pay that much for a GM car. Deal with it. If GM knew their car could command that much, believe me, you people wouldn't be here playing, "that car is cheaper" card.

For those wondering about Vette maintenance: it's an incredibly easy experience to maintain a vette, and not too expensive either. Considering the car's performance (nowadays).

Basic fluid changes is about it, and not too often either. You don't need to keep running ridiculously expensive RFTs either. You can get a new set of matching front and rear sized tires for $900 or less installed. And that's on the "performance package" model.

Performance is not as hard to maintain anymore.

GTrbz:

Step out of the 80s and join us in the 21st century. Every GM product (even the CTS-V) has a powertrain warranty that covers the engine for up to 100k miles. Thats more coverage than you get with any M car or AMG model or the ISF. Its pretty silly to claim that the CTS-V's engine wont last past 100k miles when its warranted for 100k miles. I doubt GM engineers are smart enough to design an engine that fails at 100,001 miles. Give me a break.

Honda:

The "feel" argument has been beat to death. I have not driven a CTS-V and I doubt you have either but the reviews make it very clear that the car "feels" like an M5. The steering, engine, braking and overall performance have been praised. What evidence do you have that an M car feels better? The primary problem with the CTS-V is weight but most car mags have said it doesn't feel like a 4100lb car.

The M3 numbers posted above are about 5% better than a $35k Camaro SS. Keep in mind IL said the Camaro's .88g performance on the skidpad was ho hum and yet the $67k M3 only recorded .9gs. Also, the Camaro 1/4 mile time was about .1 secs slower than this M3 in spite of weighing almost 4000lbs.

"The only reason the CTS-V doesn't command a higher pricetag is because no one will pay that much for a GM car. Deal with it."

CTS-V costs more than M3 sedan in terms of base price. You know nothing about nothing. A loaded CTS-V is close to $70k.

The CTS-V outperforms both the M3 and M5 is just about every measureable category. To me, the magazines seem reluctant to test them in a conventional comparo so as of now, all we can go on are the numbers (unless any of you have personally driven them back to back which may be the case). The only caveat is that the CTS-V manual is slower than the automatic until you get well above 120 mph so comparing to the M cars is more an apples to oranges matchup in terms of pure acceleration.

Road & Track has been the only outfit to pit the CTS-V against the M5 (SMG) and the CTS-V was faster around the track.

We can argue about durability and all that jazz but the CTS-V's hardware has already been proven from the engine to MR shocks. That's the advantage of a huge parts inventory- you can create a world beating sports sedan with off the shelf components.

Chavis:

IL compared the CTS-V to M5 and C63 and rated the CTS-V #1. C&D and MT have refused to compare the CTS-V to its natural rivals for obvious reasons.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot- the above performance is slightly worse than the $50k Mustang GT500 IL tested recently. Yeah I know, live axle, lack of refinement, etc. Bottom line is that the lowly mustang with its low tech suspension can keep up with this $67k BMW. Props to Ford in my book.

If I were in the market for a 70k vehicle, I'd definitely give both the M3 and the CTS-V a look. I don't know why you wouldn't at least try the various options before making an informed decision. I'm sure there will be aspects of both vehicles that you like and dislike.

I think the M3 is almost the MORE subtle one, at least looks wise. Other then the hood bulge and the M badges, its a pretty calm looking vehicle considering its abilities. The CTS-V is a little more "look at me". From my experience, the BMW has the advantage when it comes to dealership experience (though perhaps not the cost of dealer work). Does the CTS-V have a maintenance package like the BMW?

I'm a big fan of both vehicles, though if I chose the CTS-V I'd budget some extra money to improve the exterior look.

If both cars are a in a similar price range, its going to be little things that separate them. Someone who buys the BMW is willing to sacrifice some performance for the "name/history".

"Bottom line is that the lowly mustang with its low tech suspension can keep up with this $67k BMW. Props to Ford in my book."

1487, I would hope a 540hp SUPERCHARGED V8 GT500 could KEEP UP with the 420hp M3. Regardless of on paper performance numbers the M3 would be much more entertaining drive vs the GT500 and would maybe post better lap times as the M3 is a more balanced machine. I guess that would depend on the tracks layout as the GT500 would have a clear advantage in straight line acceleration.

"That's the advantage of a huge parts inventory- you can create a world beating sports sedan with off the shelf components."

Very true Chavis and in the end it gives the CTS-V a much lower purchase price vs the BMW M5.

I dont know why this subject keeps surfacing as the CTS-V, M3 and M5 offer great performance. Its all based on personal preference.

For all you GM employees in here: Better use your employee discount for the CTS-V sooner rather than later while you still have it.

I really like the CTS-V but I could never own it for the same reason I could never own a STi.... it's Fugly.

M3:

If there are any GM employees here hopefully they will heed your advice. Smart aleck comments wont make the CTS-V any less of a performanc bargain but you can keep trying. Real mature.

I find all the comments about the CTS-V's appearance funny. The M3 is so subtle most people wouldn't notice its not a run of the mill 3 series. I want my $60k 556hp sedan to look somewhat aggressive and distinctive. Why would you want the CTS-V to look like the regular car with larger wheels?

Honda,

I know the Mustang has more power but its also heavier. Besides, my real point was that is considerably cheaper than the M3. I sincerely hope its put on a track with the M3 but it probably wont happen becaues the mags are afraid of the potential results. Just note this: the 426hp Camaro is slower than the Mustang GT and came within 4 secs of the M3's time at Nurburgring. To me that says the Ford could easily be as fast or faster than the M3 on a track. Not bad for $50k.

Shut up about the CTS-V already!

Geez, the magazine racing in here continues.

Let's establish a few things for such paper races:

1. Skidpad & slalom does not always correlate well with laptimes. I can show a tirerack test where a BMW 328i was tested with 4 tires. The tire with the best skidpad/slalom had the worst track time.

2. Why does a .2 second difference in the quarter mile of two cars tested on different days by different drivers make one car "faster"? And besides, faster at what? Which car is faster 50-70? 30-80? What matters to you most?

3. How exactly does paper racing a car make it more enjoyable to drive? Are we telling car manufacturers to make cars the best on paper, or the best to drive? If they read these comments, it's the former. Personally, I want a car that has the best subjective feel. Some of the fastest cars I've ever driven don't excite me.

This M3 is freaking heavy, and that is an impressive trap speed (~110mph) for a heavy-arse car driven by a 4.0 liter V8. This is a GT car that can be used for race days as well. Seems to have hit it's mark.

Joe

"1. Skidpad & slalom does not always correlate well with laptimes. I can show a tirerack test where a BMW 328i was tested with 4 tires. The tire with the best skidpad/slalom had the worst track time."

Often they do however. Do I need to name some examples?

"2. Why does a .2 second difference in the quarter mile of two cars tested on different days by different drivers make one car "faster"? And besides, faster at what? Which car is faster 50-70? 30-80? What matters to you most?"

People and mags tend to compare 0-60 and 1/4 runs, not passing times.

"3. How exactly does paper racing a car make it more enjoyable to drive? Are we telling car manufacturers to make cars the best on paper, or the best to drive? If they read these comments, it's the former. Personally, I want a car that has the best subjective feel. Some of the fastest cars I've ever driven don't excite me."

Except for the fact that the cars we are talking about have been praised for "feel". Its always interesting when people want to dismiss performance of cars they don't particularly care for by talking about "feel". As if any car not made by BMW feels sloppy and disconnected.

"Shut up about the CTS-V already!"

When they get one, people may stop talking about it. Or maybe they wouldn't. I guess GM isn't giving away long term cars in their current situation. When you talk about high hp sedans for under $70k the CTS-V will always come up. Sorry.

Go ahead and name some examples of cars tested on the same day. Links appreciated. By the way, I said "does not always correlate"....meaning, it's not a worthwhile test without a track time. FYI, my Civic SI with Michelin PS2s will slalom at/over 70mph and pull around a .9g skidpad. But I won't beat those other cars on a track by anymeans.

My point behind #2 is that people comparing those times are wasting their time when the times are so simlar :)

You must've missed that point.

And by mentioning passing times, you must've looked right over my final statement, "What matters most to you?" Personally, I've owned a couple cars with good 0-60 and quarter mile times that felt completely unimpressive when I put the pedal down at 30mph, or 50mph. Because launching at 4000 rpms and powershifting a few times doesn't correlate well to a car's feeling when you are driving day-to-day :)

#3 - Interesting that I was talking about people wasting their time making meaningless comparisons, and you go back to, um, making meaningless comparisons. I guess what matters to you is how many different sources agree with your assessment of a car. That seems to match up well with all your posts pointing out how different magazines felt about a car :)

Joe

Hi my name is 1487.

I check and comment on the M3 inside Edmunds forum every 5 minutes to talk trash about the M3 because I can't afford one.

I jerk myself off to sleep every night thinking about how the CTS-V will give me a penis enlargement.

My life is awesome..

See, I can be immature. I dont care if that gets me banned, as long as it gets rid of u bud.

DrMiller - Perhaps you should grow up instead?

I only regret buying a 335i over an M3 when I hear the M3 drive by. The engine sounds like heaven. The gas mileage seems like hell.

FWIW, white is a horrid color for the E90 - it collects dirt at an alarming rate. I owned a White e90. Like a black car it looks clean for at best a day in So Cal's dusty environment.

"By compliance on April 24, 2009 8:56 AM
Shut up about the CTS-V already!"

Ummm, how about NO! Go away if you don't like reading about it.

I can't believe that you are comparing a decade old technology versus today's. Keep on paper racing...

BGDC - I bought a white Subaru Legacy thinking "White hides dirt and scratches, and it's better than Silver!"

O---M----F----G--

I have never, ever, worked so hard to detail a car in my life. I just spent 3 1/2 hours washing, clay baring, polishing, and re-sealing the paint. And I wasn't even diehard....there's still stuff on that paint.

That doesn't include detailing the interior or engine bay. Just the exterior and the wheels.

I'm going with a Deep Blue I think for my next car.

Silver was the greatest for living in PA.

Joe

"I know the Mustang has more power but its also heavier. Besides, my real point was that is considerably cheaper than the M3. I sincerely hope its put on a track with the M3 but it probably wont happen becaues the mags are afraid of the potential results. Just note this: the 426hp Camaro is slower than the Mustang GT and came within 4 secs of the M3's time at Nurburgring. To me that says the Ford could easily be as fast or faster than the M3 on a track. Not bad for $50k."

I understand what youre saying 1487 however I have to disagree as Ford has somehwat shot itself in the foot with the GT500. Sure, its better handling than the previous 09 GT500, however, a Mustang GT w/ the Trackpack would probably be the trackstar in terms over overall chassis composure and balance.

If Ford would have stuck more with that foundation instead of going after monumental power (to make its curb weight less apparent), and further ruining its weight distribution I would consider the GT500 superior to the Mustang GT and maybe the M3. More expensive or not Id take the M3 over the GT5 as there is much less compromise.

In my eyes the main goal of a high performance variant is for it to be better in ALL areas of performance. The M3 and CTS-V are better (in all areas of performance) vs their regular counterparts (335i-CTS 3.6) but I cant say that about the GT500. Its compromise has come back to haunt it in a few areas.

I think people who would buy an M3 would probably be also interested in a car like an Audi S5, but not a cadillac.

"I can't believe that you are comparing a decade old technology versus today's. Keep on paper racing..."

Exactly what are you talking about? Seriously.

kinghalas:

Th S5 is definitely not on par with the M3. Some (like you I presume) shop based only on badges. Other might actually consider performance and price. What a concept.

drM3:

I have to say you might actually be making ACE look semi intelligent with your latests posts. You may be going even deeper into the gutter than he's ever been. Then again, the gutter is where people with nothing to say thrive.

HOnda:

What you are saying makes sense, except for one thing: the reviews of the GT500 have been very positive and have noted an improvement in handling. I'm not sure what compromises it makes (except price) relative to the GT. Just as the 335i is very good and the M3 is better the GT500 is a step up from the GT in every way.

Joe:

You are right. I am just stupid enough to look for consensus amongst the automotive media before forming an opinion about how a car performs. That may not mean much to you but I don't get paid to drive V8 sport sedans for a living so I have to trust some of what the experts say. You cannot get off this notion that non BMWs perform well on paper but likely don't feel as capable as BMWs in the real world. If you have any reason to believe that let me know. Nothing I've read about the CTS-V suggests that its made for "paper racing" as you like to call it. What exactly would the car have to do to ensure you that it is as capable as its performance numbers suggest? You are right that the difference in performance between these cars is negligible but interestingly that would never come up if we were talking about a BMW beating some other brand of vehicle on a track or in the spec sheets. That said, give me the CTS-V which has more space, more power and is more exclusive. M3s are hardly rare in most large metro areas.

"Joe:

You are right. I am just stupid enough"

Nah, I think you are fairly intelligent but have a reading comprehension issue. The rest of your response to me was aimed at something I didn't say, so I'll stop here.

Joe

1487, I question the more space comment.

CTS - 98 cubic feet of interior
14 cubic feet of trunk

BMW e90 - 93 cubic feet.
12 cubic feet of trunk.

Bear with me as I like the CTS. But when my wife got comfortable in the CTS (she's five-four at best) and then put we put my son's car seat behind her...well we had to move the seat forward so her knees were bent. Odd. On paper the CTS has more cubic feet of space. I'm not sure where it's hidden though.

I ended up with an e90 and my son's car seat fits with ease while my wife's seat allows her to totally stretch out. I can't explain this based on cubic feet of passenger space. On paper the CTS is bigger inside. In reality my family fits better with the 3. Head scratcher...

Probably different ways of measuring. This isn't a knock on the CTS, at least not meant to be, but I was surprised by it's cramped rear seating. It looks like it would have alot more.

Then again, I feel the e90 front seats don't have much room. And the e90 definitely has NO foot-room for backseaters. My size 12s have nowhere to go back there.

"I can't explain this based on cubic feet of passenger space. On paper the CTS is bigger inside. In reality my family fits better with the 3. Head scratcher..."

This comment isn't directed to the CTS-V vs M3 war.

bdcg your experience is a perfect example of how numbers on paper do not always represent real life utility/performance. This is a fact that many spreadsheet racers fail to grasp.

Those are good numbers but it will be improved at the end of the long term test after the engine is broken-in. That E90 you guys got there looks great on AlpineWhite.
Anyway, please stop comparing cars based on paper! It's a matter of preference whether someone likes particular car or not. Personally, I like the CTS-V, so I would add it to my list if I was looking to buy 4 door supersaloon (RS4, RS6, M5,M3, C63 AMG for example.). Most people who buy these kind of cars will buy it using their heart, not their head or some magazine test numbers.
Anyway, we must not forger who was the real daddy of all super saloons- the E34 M5. We got to be thankful for original M5, now there is no shortage of fast 4 door sedans that'll rip your face off. (TG)
"To sum it up then, Lexus does a lot of things brilliantly. But the BMW (E90 M3, that does everything brilliantly. In the past, you had to be a cock to buy one. Now though, you're a cock if you don't" (JC, Top gear 12x5)

'Hi my name is 1487.

I check and comment on the M3 inside Edmunds forum every 5 minutes to talk trash about the M3 because I can't afford one.

I jerk myself off to sleep every night thinking about how the CTS-V will give me a penis enlargement.

My life is awesome'"

drmillerM3: That has to be the best-and most accurate-post of he week! Poor guy; you can detect his bitter envy in every one of his posts. I do feel a bit sorry for him, however- with every passing day he has one less Government Motors division to support...

I know plenty about engineering, thanks. I'm an engineer.

If you don't think the M3's V8 is a marvel of engineering just because it doesn't have direct injection, or because it has poor mileage, or doesn't have enough midrange for you liking, then you simply don't know what you're talking about.

From an engineering prospective, a compact, flexible V8 that cranks out over 100hp per liter and weighs less than most six cylinders, is far more impressive to this engineer than a big supercharged V8 or a twin turbo six.

You can yak about how much more power the CTS-V has than the M3. Sheer output is not all that matters to me. On driving dynamics, the M3 hits all the right buttons for me, which I find far more important to me than lap times or boasting about how much power I have.

Go ahead 1487. Insult me some more. Iam impressed how much the others love you for your intelligent comments.You are probably the only person who thinks of yourself as smart.

"CTS-V costs more than M3 sedan in terms of base price. You know nothing about nothing. A loaded CTS-V is close to $70k."

Um, dumbass. The CTS-V is comparable to the M5 not the M3. Look up the prices of an M5 and your GM junk CTS-V. To compare a 414hp car with some supercharged joke and say the latter is a bit more expensive, is dumb even by your standards and further confirms my point.

sherief, thats what I have tried to tell these GM idiots. Iam no engineer but I have done some studies about cars and I agree that a output per liter is more impressive than supercharging an already massive displacement engine.

Why do you think that people find an S200O or an M3 more engaging than any Vette or Cadillac, 1487?

Tecnology is for smart people. Pushrods and such are for people like you.

drmillerM3: Its like you are phychic. LOL!

"On driving dynamics, the M3 hits all the right buttons for me"

what does this mean ? Seriously. Is the steering more communicative, does the car exhibit less understeer, etc.? People use terms like driving dynamics, well sorted out chasis, chassis composure and balance (above), etc. and they convey some kind of sense without having any actual content. Then if they watch top gear a lot they also tend to use the word "proper" in associated with the terms above.

I do agree on the lack of utility in paper racing. For example while on paper the M3 may be a bit faster than the Camaro SS, due to overall feel and non quantifiable dynamics and je ne se qois coefficient regressed against the refinement factor, the Camaro may actually be a slightly better overall car :)

i really just want to know if its worth the buck over a 335. i understand that it is absolutely better of a car in almost every way, but does one find themselves able to use all this awesomeness often enough to justify the $30,000 jump.

"i really just want to know if its worth the buck over a 335. i understand that it is absolutely better of a car in almost every way, but does one find themselves able to use all this awesomeness often enough to justify the $30,000 jump."

That's a question that only YOU can decide. In my case I'd probably order an M Sport 135i to my exact specs and fit a decent LSD- the result would be an extremely engaging track toy. With the remaining $25K or so I'd buy a clean 2004 330i ZHP daily driver and bank whatever is left over.

What a refreshing and insightful discussion. Thank you, gentlemen.

thanks for your support guys; I didn't think I was the only one that felt that way :)

I realize I may have taken my comments a little too far, but I don't resent saying it.

Roadburner:

Just let me know where I said anything negative about the M3. Offer a few quotes since your feelings are so hurt. Here a tip: you wont find anything. Considering your lack of maturity and sa

Shareef:

Hp/L is one measure of performance. As with most people knee deep in BMW propoganda you seem to assume that the BMW way is the superior way without any objective basis for that position. Here is my question: what is the point of a small engine with high specific output if said engine doesn't produce any tangible efficiency or performance gains? Since you are an engineer you should be able to answer that question for me. I don't know the exact weight of the 4L V8 so I don't know how its weight stacks up vs the LSA or LS7. I have no doubt that its lighter than a 5L DOHC V8 but that doesn't have much relevance since we were primarily comparing it to a car with a 16V OHV V8 and supercharger.

meant to say: Considering your lack of maturity and savvy I have a hard time believing that you are a prototypical BMW owner. I least I hope not.

drmiller:

Just for the record when you say "guys" that would indicate that multiple individuals expressed support for your juvenile foray into vulgar references that would be considered in poor taste if we were in 8th grade. You got one ringing endorsement from Roadburner who makes it his business to patrol these forums and make sure all participants adhere to BMW worship as he does. Considering his track record and his tendency to duck legitimate points and resort to cheap insults of other's income level, education and choice of vehicles I'm not sure why you are so proud to have his support. Those who can't offer well thought out retorts are the first ones to get into name calling and insults. I've yet to see a reasoned response from you or you new #1 cheerleader that actually deals with the issues being discussed in an adult manner. Birds of a feather I suppose. I may be to uneducated to afford a BMW but I assure you I left middle school a long time ago. How about you?

BDC:

I've been in the back of the CTS and found the room more than acceptable. A longer wheelbase typically leads to more rear reat room. That said, leave the space out of the equation. CTS-V looks better, performs better and is more exclusive. Those are enough reasons for me. The only reason to buy the M3 at this point would be to satisfy a BMW fan boy urge or to buy what everyone else has been buying for years. Doesn't make the M3 a bad car in ANY way but if you are not a BMW lover there are few objective advantages to buying the M3 over the CTS-V or the C63 for that matter.

"On driving dynamics, the M3 hits all the right buttons for me, which I find far more important to me than lap times or boasting about how much power I have."

What I find incredulous about BMW syncophants is that they wont even bother to pay attention to the competition and yet will gladly offer expert testimony on the deficiencies of the competition. Where did you get the impression that the CTS-V is nothing more than a RWD car with a big motor? I understand that Ring times mean little in the real world but the point of using the Ring as a barometer is that the course is very demanding of a vehicle's engine, brakes and suspensions. One could reasonably say those systems in the CTS-V are capable of outperforming their counterparts in the M5 and M3. Period. I don't know how much you've read about the CTS-V (not much apparently) but the car's steering, engine, seats, ride and handling and overall performance has been praised effusively. If you have reason to believe the car lacks tactile feel or handling finesse let me know. I have read nothing that supports your claim. All of the empirical evidence we have suggests the CTS-V is as good or better than comparable M cars from BMW. Against all of that we have the word of you and the noted automotive authority known only as "ACE47" claiming that the car is little more than a big engine without matching handling reflexes. Pardon me if I side with IL, MT, R&T and C&D on this one.

" That said, leave the space out of the equation."

That's tough to do considering I ditched my Cooper for a bigger car. Getting rid of my great go-cart for a larger car and then getting one that's still tight wouldn't ring well with my skewed logic.

"CTS-V looks better, performs better and is more exclusive."

I don't buy cars for looks. I've owned nothing but bland looking cars for years (Protege, 330i, 335i, Cooper S, A3, etc). Exclusivity is about as important to me as having a good looking car. My car is not an individual statement, it's not a showpiece and it's not something impressive. My car is a toy with a level of utility.

"if you are not a BMW lover there are few objective advantages to buying the M3 over the CTS-V or the C63 for that matter."

The only one of the 3 that made me smile broadly was the M3. The sound of the engine is amazing. The CTS DI in general was quite nice BUT it lacked the room I wanted and the price seemed extreme for what it offered in terms of driving experience. Had I not driven a 335i manual back in February there would be a 2009 WRX wagon in my parking spot at the office right now. Again, appearance didn't make the difference, exclusivity didn't matter either but satisfying my need for fun and utility did matter.

CTS-V may be fantastic but I wasn't on the verge of the CTS-V in late January. That was the 08 M3 sedan and at around 8k below MSRP it was a steal.

to each his own BDC and we know your tastes are esoteric and hardly representative of the mainstream.

I consider looks when buying a car because today's vehicles largely perform similarly when there are corresponding similarities in price, drivetrain layout, weight, etc. If styling isn't important to you I can see you being perfectly satisfied with a ubiquitous 3 series and that is fine.

CTS DI is available with sweet discounts so I'm not sure how cheap you expect such a car to me. As for space, its not smaller than the 3 series or C class. I would think the M3 would be more exhilirating than the standard CTS with 304hp and a 4000lb curb weight. The real story is how the M3 compares to the CTS-V. Both cars sound fine to me.

Here's the bottom line: both seem to be good premium performance cars and there can be arguments made for both however, the M3 holds NO tangible advantage over the CTS-V. That's just a fact. If an 8400 rpm redline is more important to you then raw performance or having the faster car, then the M3 is your obvious choice. For those who value total performance superiority, a unique package (styling, etc) and more interior room, the CTS-V is peerless because of its price tag. If we want to argue driving "feel" then the CTS-V needs to be compared to cars of its size and mass such as the M5, E63 and XF5 because it's much bigger than the M3.

"meant to say: Considering your lack of maturity and savvy I have a hard time believing that you are a prototypical BMW owner. I least I hope not."

Coming from a person with such expansive automotive knowledge I find your comments extremely hurtful.

"Considering his track record and his tendency to duck legitimate points and resort to cheap insults of other's[sic] income level, education and choice of vehicles I'm not sure why you are so proud to have his support."

And just exactly where did I insult anyone's income level or education? As for choice of vehicle, you seem to get your undies in a bunch if anyone even mentions that you own a car. I just can't figure out why...

"And just exactly where did I insult anyone's income level or education? As for choice of vehicle, you seem to get your undies in a bunch if anyone even mentions that you own a car. I just can't figure out why... "

Not really. Nothing you say it actually clever enough to be offensive. I have a high tolerance for silly quips about what I drive, but low tolerance for illogical ramblings by someone who thinks its a crime to suggest that someone other than BMW knows how to design a performance car. My point to you earlier is that you are quick to change the subject to Saturn Aura when you are backed into a corner. Its a sign that you have run out of ammunition. Its a not so clever attempt at a diversion to distract people from the fact you have nothing of substance to say. You made the poor decision to offer a response to my every post even if you have nothing to add. You seem to believe you are doing some sort of public service but the support you've gotten from posters of questionable taste and intelligence only marginalize your commentary. Do you really want to be one of the few guys in agreement with ACE47? I wouldn't.

"Nothing you say it actually clever enough to be offensive."

Ummm... Translation, please?

"I have a high tolerance for silly quips about what I drive, but low tolerance for illogical ramblings by someone who thinks its a crime to suggest that someone other than BMW knows how to design a performance car."

Hmmmm... Haven't said that either.

"My point to you earlier is that you are quick to change the subject to Saturn Aura when you are backed into a corner. Its a sign that you have run out of ammunition. Its a not so clever attempt at a diversion to distract people from the fact you have nothing of substance to say."

I seem to remember that you brought up your car a couple of times and I did make 2-3 wry quips about it. They're always good for provoking a bit of entertaining outrage. And I even recall that it was you who first made reference to a "crappy Saturn"...

"You made the poor decision to offer a response to my every post even if you have nothing to add."

Did it ever occur to you that the overwhelming majority of your posts in the various BMW topics may also have "nothing to add"?

"You seem to believe you are doing some sort of public service but the support you've gotten from posters of questionable taste and intelligence only marginalize your commentary."

Ah, I just love your air of haughty arrogance, condescension, and superiority. It seems that you are more than willing to insult anyone who disagrees with you.

I have several emphatic endorsements across the various threads 1487. Words don't lie ;) If you wonder why so many feel similar, its probably due to your unwarranted condescending tone towards everyone else.

...or maybe its because of your pessimistic attitude and lack of constructive comments; your choice.

Before you stereotype the average BMW end user (as you were kind enough to roadrunner to assume he's not) as not savvy or intelligent you should note that they/we average over $140,000/yr. I'd say its safe to assume that the majority of people making up that cluster are both savvy and intelligent. Where do you fit in?

By the way, 8th grade sucked and it was a long time ago, so whatever brosef.

BTW, on a more friendly note for you 1487, and I do hope you respond in the next half hour before I go home as I can't live out the rest of my day without hearing more from you...

Have you actually driven the CTS-V? I would have to imagine you have, most probably multiple times.

So why don't you just buy it and get on with enjoying life??? Or have you?

I sometimes find myself spending too much times in forums instead of driving my car. I then grab the keys and go for a drive and realize just how much better spent my time is driving my car than reading more about it. I'd recommend the same advice to you: go drive your CTS-V.

drmillerM3:
Shoot me a PM at roadburner@carspace.com.

"I sometimes find myself spending too much times in forums instead of driving my car. I then grab the keys and go for a drive and realize just how much better spent my time is driving my car than reading more about it."

Which is why I just got back from giving an Italian tune-up to my 1975 2002... ;)

This was hilarious thread! Anyhow, the CTS-V did something remarkable. It could never reach all the intangibles of the BMW M3 or some of the other great performance brands. The M3 has become a benchmark through all the enthusiasm it has generated in drivers.

Instead, Cadillac opened a can of whoop-a$$ on the contenders at a great price, and with unique style. That was the best it could have achieved, and it absolutely delivered. I think we can all say "Amen" to that, and enjoy the competition!

Wow, what a thread. Just like the old days at Inside Line when the Saturn Aura was in the LT fleet.

Nice M3 by the way...

"I have several emphatic endorsements across the various threads 1487."

I think you need to pay attention to the composition of your fan club. I'm glad that you are proud to have the support of ACE. Congrats. Thats not anything I would be bragging about but its a free country.

I do find it interesting that there are such an urge to discredit the CTS-V when its supposedly far short of the M3/M5. Since the notion of parity with the M cars is so laughable I wonder why so much time has been spent trying to "set the record straight". Also, have all the car magazines gotten the memo about the CTS-V coming up short vs Germany's best? I dont think they have.

"I'd say its safe to assume that the majority of people making up that cluster are both savvy and intelligent. "

There are exceptions to every rule. Wouldn't you agree? I wouldnt necessarily say there is a direct correlation between money and intelligence. There are athletes making millions a year with a high school education. They drive BMWs, Bentleys, Ferraris, etc. Doesn't mean they are brain surgeons. Surely you can follow that logic.

"I sometimes find myself spending too much times in forums instead of driving my car. I then grab the keys and go for a drive and realize just how much better spent my time is driving my car than reading more about it. I'd recommend the same advice to you: go drive your CTS-V."

I will explain this one last time: I have no problem with the M3. You and the lynch mob are bent out of shape because I merely suggested the feats of the M3 have been surpassed by a Cadillac. Period. YOu can scan all most posts and you will find NOTHING suggesting that the M3 is a lackluster car. Its expensive and its not the best performing or looking car in that price range, but its still a top notch car. You guys are throwing tantrums simply because I pointed out the obvious- the CTS-V matches or exceeds the M3 in every manner that counts. I know this is difficult to process for a lifelong BMW fanboy but it is reality. Don't get mad at me, get bad at Cadillac's engineers and the media who have spread the word about the V. Don't shoot the messenger. I do commend you for engaging in adult conversation and abanding the childish comments. I knew someone with your level of experience and intelligence could do better.

I don't think anyone can argue the CTS-V bests the German competition in most quantifiable metrics. But it's like the BCS footaball ranking system - there's still plenty of flexibility to root for your own team, despite the standings, and say, "our team didn't get a fair shake! We're #1!". Enjoy the game, and try to be a good sport, even when your team's a$$ is handed to it by an upstart. Those topsy-turvy changes make this exciting!

"I will explain this one last time: I have no problem with the M3. You and the lynch mob are bent out of shape because I merely suggested the feats of the M3 have been surpassed by a Cadillac"
Yeah, 800 times now!!
You have repeatedly talked about how its not a great example of engineering, how it lacks torque, and how lackluster it is to a CTS-V. We don't care about your stupid comparisons of the M3 and the CTS-V. Only you do! So do it in your own space.

The issue is that you attempt to insult someone with every single post and you can't help yourself but to talk about the CTS-V every chance you get. There is a place for that, but not in this M3 section. Furthermore, none of us disagree about the CTS-V's performance. So quit being so defensive. Take a hint.

I'm glad to see you completely evaded commenting on the whole point of my lasts two posts and went on a tantrum yourself. You've still given no reason why you haven't bought the you know what.
I'm done with you, because your worth than a brick wall.
Do us all a favor: Buy it, drive it, and hang up your keyboard

*worse.