2009 BMW M3: Screwed, but in a Special Way

Wait a second, I thought M3 had run-flats?

"Wait a second, I thought M3 had run-flats?"

It does not.

"There's one manufacturer (who shall remain nameless) who has a knack for making a vehicle look competitive on paper, even superior in terms of track results, but rarely does the vehicle feel "right" or come close to overall benchmark status because the feedback is all wrong."

Gee, emmm I wonder who that could be...?

Why it doesnt have run flats and other bmws do?

Bimmer, tell the name u are thinking of...

It must be Infiniti ...

@cr_driver

"Bimmer, tell the name u are thinking of..."

I think it begins with a G and ends with a M.

Nobody wants to say it 'coz everyone's afraid of 1487!

Great post! Some cars have an "it" factor that those who really don't enjoy driving won't understand. Is it worth the price of admission? To each their own.

My guess would be Lexus, though I feel the IS-F is a really good car. Just not as good as the M3...

Good for you. I agree with you completely.

It reminds me of the analogy I told my 55 Year Old Father when he was considering buying an iPhone 3GS 32GB because he liked how the texting interface is.

I told him that 1) You listen to talk radio, you completely eliminate the "i" in the "iPhone", 2) You don't even know how to use the internet on a computer, let alone a phone, and 3) The only texting you will do will be to write "ok", or "yes".

Then I told him its the equivalent to buying a Ferrari and feeding it 87 Octane, and driving it at 55 on the highway.

He then got a Samsung Blackjack. Has he ever texted since his new phone? - NO

I have a hard time believing he meant Lexus. Although the IS-F puts down some good numbers (think it may even beat the M3 at 0-60 as I recall), the M3 well outpaces it on pretty much any track--partly because until its most recent iteration the IS-F lacked a true LSD. Lexus has now remedied this and I think the figures will reflect this (if they haven't already been published).

In fact, my first thought was the GTR, but for all the downsides the GTR does have, I don't think these are the complaints you'd hear about that car--and the GTR is in another realm, performance wise.

That really narrows it down. There are few if any cars at this performance and price level that perform *better* than the M3, yet are less *complete* experiences. The Cayman is slower, but arguably a better driver's car, the C63 has to be excluded as it was explicitly mentioned, the RS4 is a bit slower, and the RS5 isn't out yet.

After thinking a bit, my best guess is that he's talking about the Cadillac CTS-V, which bests the M3 in most figures, is a bit cheaper, and I suspect while better than most American cars in terms of feedback and the driving experience (I've never driven one so I can only guess), is still not quite up the M3. So, that's what I'm going to go with.

bimmerjay,

Very clever!

Since he listed MB, Porsche, and BMW, though, I think he's talking about Lexus. Saying that GM as a whole doesn't feel right is way too general. Also, Lexus is known for cleaning up at the quarter mile track but definitely not on the skidpad. I guess that's just what grandma asked for!

Why it doesnt have run flats and other bmws do?

The M3 doesn't have run flats because run flats compromise ride and handling for the safety net of the ability to drive while "flat." The M3 is about no compromises so you get a can of goo, an air pump, and a phone number for BMW roadside assistance.

@cr_driver,

"Why it doesnt have run flats and other bmws do?"

Call it a difference in philosophy between the M Division, which has substantial power and independence, from the rest of BMW. In a nutshell, consumer-level BMWs need a higher balance of convenience with performance, which RFTs provide. On M cars, convenience is less important than all-out performance. RFTs are heavy and do compromise traction and handling, all traits that run counter to the M mission. So for M cars you still don't get a spare, but you do get a roadside kit and lifetime roadside assistance.

@everyone

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Other Germans-Audi.

"After explaining all that to my wife, she said, 'I'm happy for you--now can you please stop driving like that?'"

I am SO lucky; the only time my wife says that is when someone challenges me at the Stop Light Grand Prix...
As a matter of fact, when I told her that the M5 I test drove didn't feel as fast as I expected she said: "Doesn't your friend Jim Conforti have a re-flash that will add some more power?"
She is most definitely a keeper.

OMG -- how could all you otherwise very intelligent people fail to see that he's talking about GM? Lexus is a bit player in the high-performance game. The CTS-V has had a television show dedicated to it, and has been pitted against the M3 in a couple of major enthusiast magazines. The General has a long history of doing this -- the F-Body Z-28/Trans Am, the C4 Corvette, the "Eurosport" series of Chevys... and on and on.

While you guys make a strong argument for GM, I immediately thought of Nissan.

From the Spectra SE-R to the 240SX, 300ZX and 350Z, for as long as I can remember Nissan has produced cars that were very appealing on paper and put down solid performance numbers that drove like absolute crap.

Haven't driven the 370Z yet, but I have incredibly low hopes.

The Sentra SE-R of the late 1980s was definitely NOT crap, and neither was the 240SX. I can see your point on the 300ZX, and slightly on the 350Z, but those old SE-Rs and 240s were quite wieldy handlers.

"'[the] Eurosport' series of Chevys... "

Back in the fall of 1983 my dad was having his Caprice serviced at the local Chevy dealer. The owner asked me when I was finally going to buy another car. I told him I just about ready to buy a 1973 BMW Bavaria that my girlfriend(now wife; see above) had found in Cincinnati. He told me that I should be patient and wait for the 1984 Celebrity Eurosport.
I managed to keep a straight face.
Barely.

I think he meant GM. Chevy corvette, maybe cts-v. Chris I think you owe it to us to give us the answer.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about Audi, not GM. Most journalists are amazed by GM because they can take barely-competitive, out-dated technology and turn out phenomenal cars like the Corvette and CTS-V that as a whole run with the best (and often even surpass them). They are a prime definition of more than the some of their parts.

Audis, on the other hand, have the sophisticated aluminum chassis, exotic carbon fiber panels, top-end Quattro AWD systems, gorgeous interiors, and cutting-edge direct-injection engines yet rarely win any comparison tests. They are beautifully put together, but there is no passion there (although recent RS efforts have begun to chip away at that).

It must be GM. I mean how many times have we heard a "we're gonna beat BMW at its own game" comment from a GM official and then hear from reviews months later that their "BMW-beating" vehicle is "almost but not quite as good as the BMW".

A lot of manufacturers claim to be able to beat so and so, world class, blah blah, and then fall short, GM does not own the exclusive rights to that. I thought it was pretty unanimous that the ZR-1 and CTS-v are exceptional cars and two of the best cars GM's ever made?

I'm pretty sure it's Nissan that he's referring to in his post. Namely, the 'world beater' GT-R. Sure, it looks ridiculous on paper, but didn't seem to translate too well to the real world. There were complaints about how jerky and whiny the transmission was, and how it felt like you were playing a video game, ie disconnected feeling.

C6 Corvettes notwithstanding, my thought is GM. If you're thinking he's talking about Nissan, you also have to include Infiniti, which seems to have discovered the "feel" mojo with this current generation of cars.

"There's one manufacturer (who shall remain nameless) who has a knack for making a vehicle look competitive on paper, even superior in terms of track results, but rarely does the vehicle feel "right" or come close to overall benchmark status because the feedback is all wrong."

I'm nearly certain Chris is referring to GM. And to that I say, he should drive a CTS-V first before making such an ignorant comment.

Cool explanations guys, :)

@stingray:

I agree, he is clearly talking about GM. I wonder if Chris would reply that you should drive an M3 before calling him ignorant. I think the CTS-V and the M3 are both fantastic and both have very distinct driving characteristics. It would be tough for me to decide between the two, assuming I one day have the money to make such a decision. However, like styling preference, the ultimate decision will likely be based on a group of subjective factors that don't show up in the raw data. I think that is all Chris was trying to say.

"However, like styling preference, the ultimate decision will likely be based on a group of subjective factors that don't show up in the raw data. I think that is all Chris was trying to say."

Agreed. I have no doubt that the CTS-V is a world class high performance sport sedan, but I could never see myself owning one. The thought of giving aid and comfort to Gubmint Motors and the UAW stops me cold.

As far as the "it" factor goes, I guess I felt a bit of it tonight, after I got back into my non-M 3-series after a day of tooling around as a passenger in a Chrysler Sebring. My car and her car are the same age (hers admittedly has higher mileage, but is not driven nearly as hard as mine), and the difference in the cars' solidity, feel and overall driving experience are night and day.

"the difference in the cars' solidity, feel and overall driving experience are night and day."

You've just been brainwashed by all those BMW ads as well as the countless positive reviews in the automotive press...
;)

" roadburner says:

03:12 PM, 12/15/09

Agreed. I have no doubt that the CTS-V is a world class high performance sport sedan, but I could never see myself owning one. The thought of giving aid and comfort to Gubmint Motors and the UAW stops me cold."

That thought of yours is not rational. Besides, you already gave aid and comfort to GM and the UAW as a taxpayer. Because the government told you they know that is best, and you don't know any better. Welcome to the socialist Obamanation.

I'm no fan of the UAW (or almost any union for that matter), and I don't like the government's meddling and stupid bailout programs. BUT, I would rather spend my money purchasing a car from a company that will benefit Americans, than some random Germans. And that's coming from someone who is of German descent. I'm an American first and foremost. I'm a German-British American second. Germans are proud of their country, and proud of their cars, and usually purchase German cars. Americans should be proud of their country, and should be proud of American cars too, and there's every reason they should be, because for the most part, they are good cars.

It's a damned shame so many Americans don't feel this way. I question why they stay here.

stingray454.

"Besides, you already gave aid and comfort to GM and the UAW as a taxpayer."

Precisely. Which is why I refuse to compound the fiasco by also giving them a percentage of my disposable income.

"And that's coming from someone who is of German descent."

I am too. So what?

"I'm an American first and foremost."

So am i. Your point?

"Americans should be proud of their country, and should be proud of American cars too, and there's every reason they should be, because for the most part, they are good cars."

I agree, I simply prefer German cars; they are the best at satisfying MY needs and wants.
That said, I do prefer British motorcycles to their German counterparts.

"It's a damned shame so many Americans don't feel this way. I question why they stay here."

Evaluating someone's level of patriotism by the car they drive. Nice. I envy your powers of discernment. Would I get back in your good graces if I grew a mullet and subscribed to "Super Chevy" magazine?