M3 takes the one-two punch punch from the c63 and Cayman S-KNOCKOUT!
#17
11-29-2007, 02:24 PM
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 6,245
Rep Power: 287 
that is why the m3 is for sale.
#18
11-29-2007, 03:19 PM
Indeed. I confused myself, I was looking at an article today where they pitted the 135i against a regular Cayman. I have too many cars on my mind :-)
-Adam
-Adam
#23
11-29-2007, 07:19 PM
(not flaming, but just some thoughts)
When I was an early teenager getting into cars, these magazines and their "comparisons" were like car bibles to me,
But nowadays, these magazine comparisons are just as useless as the people who use them as support in e-thug arguments. These magazines are the grandfather of bench stat racing.
When a person becomes old enough to purchase the car they want, the last thing they should do is let a magazine review be a guiding light.
Simply put, we as consumers have the luxury of going out and trying each of the given cars and making a personal subjective choice.
Am I happy to read that the CS is considered a better sports car than an m3? Sure.
Do I care? .................................. nope.
EDIT: To continue the rant, from a business perspective, any given company could very possibly make a better car than another.
But can't people see that all these "comparisons" are of cars with different focus points and visions as companies??
AMG C63: Raw power, the auto tranny is actually an AMG philosophy from day 1, not an inability to develop transmissions.
RS4: Balanced comfortable wolf in sheeps clothing. AWD part of Audi DNA
M3: Lighter than above two, but still pretty heavy free revving GT rendition of a sports car, tail happy LSD standard fun car.
CS: mid platform, lightweight for todays standard, designed to be an agile engaging car.
All of these cars are so different in scope, it's no surprise that certain people like certain models over the others. Who the heck cars what some car nut journalist prefers best, when the differences are clear and additionally evident should be which car suits you.
When I was an early teenager getting into cars, these magazines and their "comparisons" were like car bibles to me,
But nowadays, these magazine comparisons are just as useless as the people who use them as support in e-thug arguments. These magazines are the grandfather of bench stat racing.
When a person becomes old enough to purchase the car they want, the last thing they should do is let a magazine review be a guiding light.
Simply put, we as consumers have the luxury of going out and trying each of the given cars and making a personal subjective choice.
Am I happy to read that the CS is considered a better sports car than an m3? Sure.
Do I care? .................................. nope.
EDIT: To continue the rant, from a business perspective, any given company could very possibly make a better car than another.
But can't people see that all these "comparisons" are of cars with different focus points and visions as companies??
AMG C63: Raw power, the auto tranny is actually an AMG philosophy from day 1, not an inability to develop transmissions.
RS4: Balanced comfortable wolf in sheeps clothing. AWD part of Audi DNA
M3: Lighter than above two, but still pretty heavy free revving GT rendition of a sports car, tail happy LSD standard fun car.
CS: mid platform, lightweight for todays standard, designed to be an agile engaging car.
All of these cars are so different in scope, it's no surprise that certain people like certain models over the others. Who the heck cars what some car nut journalist prefers best, when the differences are clear and additionally evident should be which car suits you.
Last edited by Eddie; 11-29-2007 at 07:25 PM.
#24
11-29-2007, 07:26 PM
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 6,245
Rep Power: 287 (not flaming, but just some thoughts)
When I was an early teenager getting into cars, these magazines and their "comparisons" were like car bibles to me,
But nowadays, these magazine comparisons are just as useless as the people who use them as support in e-thug arguments. These magazines are the grandfather of bench stat racing.
When a person becomes old enough to purchase the car they want, the last thing they should do is let a magazine review be a guiding light.
Simply put, we as consumers have the luxury of going out and trying each of the given cars and making a personal subjective choice.
Am I happy to read that the CS is considered a better sports car than an m3? Sure.
Do I care? .................................. nope.
When I was an early teenager getting into cars, these magazines and their "comparisons" were like car bibles to me,
But nowadays, these magazine comparisons are just as useless as the people who use them as support in e-thug arguments. These magazines are the grandfather of bench stat racing.
When a person becomes old enough to purchase the car they want, the last thing they should do is let a magazine review be a guiding light.
Simply put, we as consumers have the luxury of going out and trying each of the given cars and making a personal subjective choice.
Am I happy to read that the CS is considered a better sports car than an m3? Sure.
Do I care? .................................. nope.
also, if you didnt notice the link also has the evo car of the year 2007 article excerpts there as well.
#25
11-29-2007, 07:33 PM
thats very true, but the car isnt available here in the US to test. Im sure the car is quick and is very nice to drive, but the styling isnt for me, to say the least. anyway, i really wasnt trying to put down the m3 even though it prob seemed that way (i do have to admit i like doing it because it seems to get dj riled up a little bit, LOL!). i put the headline up like that so it would attract a crowd, nothing more. theyre all good car, just some better than others. obviously they all cater to slightly different needs, i for one wouldnt bash someone who bought any of the three as thats a personal choice. i HATE corvettes and american cars in general (save the srt8 jeep) but i dont go bashing my friends who have z06's or mustangs. cheers.
also, if you didnt notice the link also has the evo car of the year 2007 article excerpts there as well.
also, if you didnt notice the link also has the evo car of the year 2007 article excerpts there as well.
at times. For a car comparo, I walk into a dealer. Case in point: I read a review comparing a gallardo and a TT, everyone talking about how the gallardo was miles better in the magazine, and was doubting my TT order.
Went to closest exotic dealer, asked about a gallardo, and after a 30 minute test drive, on a personal level, everything I had was debunked and incorrect in my mind.
The only good that that magazine article was good for were the prices of the car (which I apparently forgot to read before checking out the gallardo, holy $hit those cars are expensive)
Last edited by Eddie; 11-29-2007 at 07:35 PM.
#26
11-29-2007, 07:44 PM
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 6,245
Rep Power: 287 No it's cool I know what you are saying, that wasn't directed at you, I think the best way to get these ****ty magazine writers in check is to stop spreading their material and force them to take a look at what they do. Wishful thinking I know, but I only pick up car magazines for a quick laugh. The level of typos and errors in these magazines are at times. For a car comparo, I walk into a dealer.
Case in point: I read a review comparing a gallardo and a TT, everyone talking about how the gallardo was miles better in the magazine, and was doubting my TT order.
Went to closest exotic dealer, asked about a gallardo, and after a 30 minute test drive, on a personal level, everything I had was debunked and incorrect in my mind.
The only good that that magazine article was good for were the prices of the car (which I apparently forgot to read before checking out the gallardo, holy $hit those cars are expensive)
at times. For a car comparo, I walk into a dealer. Case in point: I read a review comparing a gallardo and a TT, everyone talking about how the gallardo was miles better in the magazine, and was doubting my TT order.
Went to closest exotic dealer, asked about a gallardo, and after a 30 minute test drive, on a personal level, everything I had was debunked and incorrect in my mind.
The only good that that magazine article was good for were the prices of the car (which I apparently forgot to read before checking out the gallardo, holy $hit those cars are expensive)
#27
11-29-2007, 07:56 PM
How weird, everything else I have ever read about the new M3 is nothing but nearly 100% praise.
Guess someone really didn't like it.
But they said the Cayman S was faster in the strait? The M3 has 125 more horsepower than the Cayman S, who are they kidding? The old M3 was as fast as the Cayman S.
Guess someone really didn't like it.
But they said the Cayman S was faster in the strait? The M3 has 125 more horsepower than the Cayman S, who are they kidding? The old M3 was as fast as the Cayman S.
#28
11-29-2007, 10:02 PM
lol you bmw guys are rude to your own people.
face it, the new m3 will have a following
the c63 will be amazing
and the rs4 is very cool also, although i believe the real comparison will come with the rs5.
so who cares about a few 10ths of a second here or there, its not like people wont mod them anyway.
face it, the new m3 will have a following
the c63 will be amazing
and the rs4 is very cool also, although i believe the real comparison will come with the rs5.
so who cares about a few 10ths of a second here or there, its not like people wont mod them anyway.
#29
11-30-2007, 01:33 AM
Couple of things i liked:
Calling the 6 speed passe... funny
13.9 gallon fuel tank?! What?! Most drivers wont be able to break 200 miles on a full tank....
So now we know how bmw is saving weight on the M3... a 13.9 gallon fuel tank
still reading...
"everyone needs to dismiss the notion that this thing is practical (the M3)"
"the beemer is rubbish in comparison (to the cayman)"
Funny stuff - bmw f'ed up... and everyones gonna know it soon enough
and to all you that say - "the e36 guys didnt like the e46 when it came out and blah blah blah" when the e46 came out it was praised everywhere... not the same
Calling the 6 speed passe... funny
13.9 gallon fuel tank?! What?! Most drivers wont be able to break 200 miles on a full tank....
So now we know how bmw is saving weight on the M3... a 13.9 gallon fuel tank
still reading...
"everyone needs to dismiss the notion that this thing is practical (the M3)"
"the beemer is rubbish in comparison (to the cayman)"
Funny stuff - bmw f'ed up... and everyones gonna know it soon enough
and to all you that say - "the e36 guys didnt like the e46 when it came out and blah blah blah" when the e46 came out it was praised everywhere... not the same
#30
11-30-2007, 01:44 AM
^^+1 agree. e30 and e36 were the best of the bunch!!!! they were still light, nimble, and tossable sports cars that could be used daily!