[shehatezme]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Youtubers and influencers need to rely on manufacturers lending them cars and inviting them to events to be able to publish content on which they make money. Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Automotive journalism used to be more objective and critical before the days of internet. For sure, particular publications had particular preferences, but I remember reading pretty harsh reviews. Some magazines such as Auto Motor und Sport pride themeselves on remaining fully objective, and it shows in their articles. Some manufacturers actually avoid lending them test cars for that exact reason. Comparision tests are the most interesting to me because they talk directly to the advantages and disadvantages of each car being compared.

This!!!!!! In some cases magazines have to find their own cars to use for shootouts since the manufacturer don't have a vehicle or won't lend. The old school publications like R&T and C&D still has some integrity with them because they still carry the name that people respect so still hold some water. Youtubers and influences are less objective, they are like crackheads, they will tell you anything and do anything for that next hit. I have never heard Shmee150 give a bad review on anything.

[vetteflier]

Back in the day, I raced SCCA C and B Production at Road America. That track would be much more favorable to an M4 Comp. No one has complained about its power, and the long straights play to that. Even VIR would be a good track for it. The handling for a heavy, RWD/front engine is outstanding. Not, it's not a Porsche GT3, but then for the price difference, you can get an X3M. Would be a good venue to run against any Cayman--including the GT4. What it loses in the corners, it has plenty of room to make up on the straights.

[jkap27]

Originally Posted by Ed_P

Trying to hustle a 3,800 lb car around a track like LRP was not likely to produce an adjective like “fun” from auto journalists. I love LRP and have raced there many times but it’s a very short, tight track, and would not have played to this car’s biggest strength:being an enormously competent and quick everyday driver with a MT. So, I think the review kinda misses the point. And I think most track day drivers will find their G80/83s to be enormously fun, so long as they don’t expect it to turn laps like a Cayman GTS. In my book the F80 was better looking but since I can’t lease a new one, a G80 M3 is compelling, even with the less attractive packaging.

Idk how they'd ever have fun in any car in this class if that's the case so someone saying 'it's not two seater, no trunk, horribly impractical car fun' means absolutely nothing to me 🤣 seems like for some journalists the dual purpose of the M3 factors into the review and some reviewers just lump it in with 'fast cars'. how could you ever compete with a mid engine layout on driving experience alone

[///AVM]

Just about 1,000 miles of real-world seat time in my G80 M3C . . . probably about 950 miles more than most journalists or other ‘reviewers’ will ever sniff.

I am still getting to know the car, and the car itself is still coming into its own. . . I hesitate to draw conclusion or comparison.

What I can state with certainty is that I am always looking for an excuse to get behind the wheel of my M3C . . . and quite often find myself behind the wheel with no destination at all.

Dare I say driving the M3C is a lot of FUN?!

Then again, what do I know, as I also thought my M2C was a lot of fun . . . and I have no idea which is faster or more capable???

///AVM

[Wamion117]

Originally Posted by barryc365

No troll intended. Lol

If you wanted/needed a fast 4 door car, what Porsche do you suggest comparing it to?

in the price range? you wouldn't go Porsche... they don't offer a product to fill that use-case in that price range.

Thats the point of this car...its a sports sedan for a modest (in comparison to the next step up) that also can keep up with some of the best performance cars on the market in track conditions

the m3/4 isn't trying to be a Porsche

[r3dbimmer89]

Originally Posted by dialogical

The G80 will obliterate a base 911. Hell, a corvette will obliterate a base 911. The true competitor is the 911 S.

Then you're in a fun world where you're comparing a dual-purpose 4 door sedan to a "pure" sports car worth twice its price. Just makes no sense.

I wonder if people ever do these things to a 911 S.

"A fully optioned 911 S costs $180k, and that's only $50k away from a McLaren, so we're stacking them up against each other."

I wouldn't sleep on a base Carrera. The base Carrera does a good job holding its own against the Vette. Nonetheless, the G8X will definitely walk on a Base Carrera. More in line with a C2S.

Many of you guys have brought up a good point. No one is really cross shopping a 911 and a M3/4 TBH. 992 price increase over the 991 was significant in itself to the point where the base 991 and base 992 aren't even on the same playing field because of the 992's dramatic price increase counting inflation. However, plenty 992 drivers are former F8X owners. I see an M3/4 as a stepping stone a 911. Like a GTI is a stepping stone to a M340i, etc.

[barryc365]

Originally Posted by Wamion117

in the price range? you wouldn't go Porsche... they don't offer a product to fill that use-case in that price range.

Thats the point of this car...its a sports sedan for a modest (in comparison to the next step up) that also can keep up with some of the best performance cars on the market in track conditions

the m3/4 isn't trying to be a Porsche

You kind of proved my point. If you can't compare a Panamera to an M3, I don't know how we can compare a 911 to M3. Different style car in a different category

[Wamion117]

Originally Posted by barryc365

You kind of proved my point. If you can't compare a Panamera to an M3, I don't know how we can compare a 911 to M3. Different style car in a different category

the m3/4 is much closer to a 911 than it is a panamera you realize that right? the panamera is designed to be a luxury sedan

In a track setting the m3/4 performs much closer to a 911 than it does a panamera, people who are choosing the m3 are those who cant afford a 911+a daily

[buckybadger]

If you want fun then get the M2.

[barryc365]

Originally Posted by Wamion117

the m3/4 is much closer to a 911 than it is a panamera you realize that right? the panamera is designed to be a luxury sedan

In a track setting the m3/4 performs much closer to a 911 than it does a panamera, people who are choosing the m3 are those who cant afford a 911+a daily

You do realise the 911 doesn't have four doors?

[Wamion117]

Originally Posted by barryc365

You do realise the 911 doesn't have four doors?

but the m4 doesnt either right?

[barryc365]

Originally Posted by Wamion117

but the m4 doesnt either right?

This was in reference to you saying the M3 was closer to a 911 than a Panamera. Yes it is in terms of performance, but not in terms of practicality which I think puts it in a slightly different category.

My point was I'm not in the market for a 911 (or an M4) as I need four doors and therefore don't compare one with the other when shopping, however I would compare the M3 with Mercedes AMG and Audi RS equivalent sedans

Anyway, we are going around in circles here.

[dialogical]

Originally Posted by r3dbimmer89

I wouldn't sleep on a base Carrera. The base Carrera does a good job holding its own against the Vette. Nonetheless, the G8X will definitely walk on a Base Carrera. More in line with a C2S.

Many of you guys have brought up a good point. No one is really cross shopping a 911 and a M3/4 TBH. 992 price increase over the 991 was significant in itself to the point where the base 991 and base 992 aren't even on the same playing field because of the 992's dramatic price increase counting inflation. However, plenty 992 drivers are former F8X owners. I see an M3/4 as a stepping stone a 911. Like a GTI is a stepping stone to a M340i, etc.

Maybe? I don't know how an M3 is a stepping stone to a car that holds half the passengers. The 911 S is a better sports car, for sure, the question is whether it's $50k better.

[Multimodal]

Originally Posted by buckybadger

If you want fun then get the M2.

This is what so many people miss about the equation. BMW is not solely focused on maintaining the purpose and heritage of the M3, not nearly as much as Porsche does with the 911. BMW is managing an M product portfolio. The M2 - which did not used to exist - is now the hooligan option which allows the M3 to move upmarket a bit. We should be happy we have more options than ever before!

[buckybadger]

Originally Posted by Mr. Maboomba

This is what so many people miss about the equation. BMW is not solely focused on maintaining the purpose and heritage of the M3, not nearly as much as Porsche does with the 911. BMW is managing an M product portfolio. The M2 - which did not used to exist - is now the hooligan option which allows the M3 to move upmarket a bit. We should be happy we have more options than ever before!

Exactly.
M3Cs are nice but M2C will always be a notch better for the enjoyment factor. Steering is the liveliest one I have seen in any modern BMW.
M3C steering is precise but boring, from what I take. It's a great car for a different purpose.

[bm323]

Persistent erroneous reference to "get the M2 if one wants a fun car". What about previous 4/5 seater M3s that were engaging to drive?

https://g80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...98&postcount=6

edit: previous M3s

[dialogical]

Originally Posted by bm323

Persistent erroneous reference to "get the M2 if one wants a fun car". What about previous 4/5 seater M3 that were engaging to drive?

https://g80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...38;postcount=6

It sounds like you have a car in mind when you say that past M cars were fun to drive?

[bm323]

Originally Posted by dialogical

It sounds like you have a car in mind when you say that past M cars were fun to drive?

Didn't you have any?

[dialogical]

Originally Posted by bm323

Didn't you have any?

Of course - my old man's E36 was a blast, and I've driven plenty others that were fun as well. I'm not denying for a second that the old cars were fun, I'm just curious if you had a specific car in mind?

[bm323]

Originally Posted by dialogical

Of course - my old man's E36 was a blast, and I've driven plenty others that were fun as well. I'm not denying for a second that the old cars were fun, I'm just curious if you had a specific car in mind?

Meaning you didn't own any M (that was engaging to drive)?

[dialogical]

Originally Posted by bm323

Meaning you didn't own any M (that was engaging to drive)?

Good lord friend, I'm not trying to score points off you. I've driven lots of fun and engaging M cars. I'm literally just curious about which car you were talking about?

[Multimodal]

Originally Posted by bm323

Persistent erroneous reference to "get the M2 if one wants a fun car". What about previous 4/5 seater M3 that were engaging to drive?

https://g80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...98&postcount=6

There’s no error. The M2 didn’t exist until 2016. The last M3 was designed in the early 2010s and introduced in 2015. This is the first M3 designed to sit alongside an M2. In the past the M3 had to satisfy both hooligans and weekend racer executives.

However I reject that the new M3 is not fun. Reviewers say it handles as well as the M2C and tests show it laps tracks just as fast. How is the M2C universally regarded as amazing, and the M3 handles as well, but the M3 isn’t fun at all? What a bunch of malarkey.