As the ultimate expression of the ultimate sport sedan, the BMW M3 is among the most inconic of automobiles. Now entering its third decade, the 2008 M3 has twice the cylinders and over twice as much horsepower (420 versus 192) compared to the original. It also, in retractable hardtop form, carries about 50 percent more weight, ringing in at approximately 4,000 pounds (the original M3 weighed 2,800 pounds).
BMW has done a commendable job of hiding the car's weight. It still accelerates like an M3 (zero-to-60 in less than 5 seconds) and it still provides plenty of information through the steering wheel. But handling excercises bear witness to the two-ton weight, with slalom testing and real-world driving showing the convertible M3 to be noticeably less responsive than its sedan and coupe siblings (both of which are a few hundred pounds lighter).
We have a full test that contains all the performance specs in detail, but I can assure you the M3 drop-top provides plenty of speed and confidence along my favorite sections of Mulholland. It wasn't until I spoke with our test team that I learned of the convertible's two-ton curb weight and less-than-thrilling handling assessment during track testing.
In fact, after excercising the M3 my biggest complaints centered on throttle and transmission responsiveness. In the case of throttle response, it proved difficult to modulate when using the all-out "Sport Plus" throttle mapping. The mid-level "Sport" throttle mapping was about right, though still borderline jumpy when powering out of corners.
In contrast, the dual-clutch transmission in our test car disappointed me with delayed and violent shifts. Tap the steering wheel paddle for an upshift and a noticeable beat passes before anything happens. Worse still, put the transmission in its most aggressive of six settings and a loud -- but unproductive -- "BANG" is felt and heard during redline upshifts. As with the throttle, using a mid-level settings (three-to-four) felt far more refined while still swapping gears quickly. It's possible these traits were unique to our test car, but at this point I'd probably save the $2,700 and go with a traditional manual transmission in my 2008 M3.
Looking past the M3's pure performance you'll find all the wonderful benefits of a retractable hardtop convertible. Excellent sound isolation and flex resistance with the top up. Effective wind protection with the top down but side windows up (75 mph is still relatively placid) and only moderate wind ruffling with the side windows down.
Do these drop-top traits, along with the M3's potential performance (when picking the right tranny and throttle settings) justify its $65,000 starting price tag?
Possibly, but I'd rather save the money and the curb weight with a lighter, cheaper (and higher performing) sedan or coupe version.
By gmg66
on July 16, 2008
06:43 AM
While recently waiting at a BMW dealership to have my car serviced, I checked out an M3 convertible on the lot. The price was $77,000. I find that shockingly expensive. The weight just confirms that the M3 has become a super complex, very fast, luxury car vs. the 4-seater sports car that it used to be.
By ahightower
on July 16, 2008
06:55 AM
I love the line, "It wasn't until I spoke with our test team that I learned of the convertible's two-ton curb weight and less-than-thrilling handling assessment during track testing."
In other words, "I loved it until some expert told me I wasn't supposed to. Then I changed my mind." And that's why I try not to take any professional review too seriously. I enjoy them, but I always take my own thorough test drives and determine my own criteria. If I happen to zero in on a car that doesn't get no respect from the me-too's, that's fine. I thoroughly enjoyed my Saturn SC2, Mitsubishi Outlander and Lancer, and V6 Mustang. None of those were winning comparison tests in magazines, but I considered them all to be fun to drive and excellent values, and I never ended up lost in the sea of best-selling Toyotas and Hondas.
By ahightower
on July 16, 2008
06:59 AM
If you like convertibles, and you like going fast, hell yes, the M3 convertible is worth $65-70K. No it's not as razor sharp as the coupe or sedan. But consider the competition. There really isn't much. RS4 convertible (do they even make that at this time?), more expensive, far less attractive, IMHO. My personal favorite convertible today would have to be Jag XKR, but that's gonna be way more expensive. Ditto for Carrera S convertible. Boxster S, or Corvette convertible? Probably more than enough performance for any public road, and a bit cheaper too, but not quite as prestigious, and really ought to be compared to the Z4, not 3-series. And so far, all I've mentioned have ragtops. SLK55 (or is it 63 now?) - chick car (sorry), automatic only. As far as I can tell, the M3 convertible is one of a kind, perhaps even a real bargain.
So that deals with how the M3 is better than any other convertible. Now let's consider whether it's preferable to its coupe or sedan siblings.
It's not as track-ready as the M3 coupe, but it's clearly hot enough for public roads, and it'll get a lot more attention with the top down than the coupe or sedan. My lifestyle today would have me leaning towards the M3 sedan. I think it looks better than the coupe, and I'd need 5 seats every now and then. And there's just something I like about bad-ass sedans and wagons. But if it was just me, I think the versatility of a retractable hard top is great. Definitely worth a little more money and the weight penalty. As I said, you didn't even know it wasn't good enough until someone told you that the fun you had was an illusion. I say perception is reality, and if it feels like enough performance, then it is.
By blueguydotcom
on July 16, 2008
07:07 AM
Look it's an M - well but its handling isn't that sharp and acceleration is down but it's an M! Get a 335i coupe, save 30k and get better performance with a few dinan mods.
By guy1974
on July 16, 2008
08:16 AM
$65K is cheap. In the UK the car is over GBP50K which equates to $100K so Americans complain about expense but you get cars cheapily. It is a well engineered thoroughbred - you get what you apy for.
By brocklanders
on July 16, 2008
08:22 AM
"in other words, 'I loved it until some expert told me I wasn't supposed to. Then I changed my mind.'"
amen to that!
By wasaabi92
on July 16, 2008
09:30 AM
If you're a real M3 afficiando, then only the coupe will do. If you've got some semblance of a brain and use it to think, you'd get the sedan, which I find infinatly better looking, IMHO. Of course, I'd wait for the facefited rear lights. Anywho, the M3 vert is a sexy car which I've seen rolling around Boston a few times. I like it, and if I were in the market for a fast, sexy, droptop, why not get the 335i? You save $15k! Also, I think it's better suited to the top-down cruiser state that most verts are constantly forced into.
I mean look at the competitors at this price: The Merc CLK550: quick but dated, the RS 4: you can't buy a new one anymore, Corvette: it's a Corvette and it has two seats, Boxster RS60: Nobody knows why it's special except you and me. I just cannot rationalize getting the M3 when the 335i is for sale.
By louiswei
on July 16, 2008
09:32 AM
$80k for this? You've gotta be kidding me...
I'll a Corvette Z06 or GT-R thank you very much.
By syke
on July 16, 2008
09:49 AM
Was 2800 pounds. Now 4000 pounds. That explained everything to me.
Between the wife and I, we had two E36 four door M3's. Loved them, but still loved my prior E30 325is coupe better. The E36's were as fat and bloated as I was willing to put up with. And my interest in BMW's gets less and less with every new generation.
They're not BMW's anymore. They're Lexi - with handling. And I refuse to drive a Lexus, even if it does have the roundel on the hood.
By redliner
on July 16, 2008
10:15 AM
guy1974
Yes, it's true that the euro version costs 50k, but remember, people over there also get paid in euros, so to them, the price is about the same as ours is to us.
By blackadder5639
on July 16, 2008
10:15 AM
Personally, I've never seen the big deal about convertibles so I would just buy the sedan.
And I know I'm gonna get killed here but why does an M3 have any sort of automated transmission?
By guy1974
on July 16, 2008
10:35 AM
Redliner you are dead wrong. I moved from the UK to the US and my salary stayed about the same when the exchange rate was taken into account. Cars in the US are substantially cheaper than Europe/the UK. US average salaries are if anything higher than European average salaries (in the same currency). A Saturn Astra is $15000, but is GBP12,000 (or $24K) salaries do not account for that huge shift, taxes account for some of it.
So bottom line Americans have it easy here with much cheaper prices on nearly every car including nice, fresh hot cars like the Audi R8.
By carlisimo
on July 16, 2008
12:10 PM
It's the same in Spain. The bottom rung of cars might be in the same price range as here, but as you go up the scale they get more expensive faster than in the US. It's often due to displacement/power taxes, so a WRX would cost a ton more than a 4-cylinder 3-series.
Maybe that's why expensive cars are more of a status symbol in Europe. You really do have to have a lot of money to buy an expensive one, and you're less likely to be using it as a daily driver to boot.
By ne1butu2
on July 16, 2008
03:14 PM
Wow, $80k. That seems like an awful lot for a car that's derivative of a common 3 series. Regardless of price, I find the 335 a whole lot more interesting and visually attractive than the M3. Something in between the economy car 1-series and the whale-like M3 would be just about perfect.
By altimadude00
on July 16, 2008
05:20 PM
You could buy three Miatas for $65 grand. A better investment for my money I would figure. Wouldn't even use the rear seats in the M3.
By Karl Brauer
on July 17, 2008
01:26 AM
I never said "I was told not to like it" AND I never said I didn't like it. I said the weight was pretty well masked from behind the wheel but the track testing confirmed it's there. Considerably heavier and pricier (and slower) than the coupe and sedan make it hard for me to justify. Capice?
By ahightower
on July 17, 2008
06:13 AM
Oh I know. Certainly I overstated things. I'm just saying, it took track testing to reveal that issue. And then I expanded on that to note how people get all hung up on official specs, 'Ring lap times, etc.
Anyway, is it the best M3? No. But is it the best convertible you can buy today? Definitely (IMO).
By 1487
on July 17, 2008
08:50 AM
The 335 is fast enough and nice enough to make this car pointless. Save tens of thousands and get the 335. it looks better too.
By 1487
on July 17, 2008
08:55 AM
The 335 is fast enough and nice enough to make this car pointless. Save tens of thousands and get the 335. it looks better too.
By 1487
on July 17, 2008
10:40 AM
one thing no one has touched in regards to the M3 is the mileage. Its terrible for a car with a 4L V8. Yes its fast, but 20mpg on the higway is Tahoe territory.
By blackadder5639
on July 17, 2008
12:16 PM
"The 335 is fast enough and nice enough to make this car pointless. Save tens of thousands and get the 335. it looks better too........one thing no one has touched in regards to the M3 is the mileage. Its terrible for a car with a 4L V8. Yes its fast, but 20mpg on the higway is Tahoe territory."
1487, personally I agree with you (although I think the M3 looks better than the 335i). I think spending money on any 3-series higher than the 335i is a complete waste of money.
But I guess the M3 is meant for people with Karl's driving skill.....for them I'm pretty sure what you and I would consider minute differences in performance/sportiness are actually a big deal. Karl, am I right?
Secondly, there are many people who buy the M3 just for the badge. Yes, it's silly, but why shouldn't BMW make money from them? I think they're the ones who would want an M3 convertible in the first place......serious enthusiasts would opt for the sedan or coupe with a manual transmission and save the extra $20k or so!