They were both great cars, and I think they are both strikingly beautiful, but in different ways. The Vette is probably a bit “sexier”, but it is a little too garish / boy-racer looking, which can draw negative attention- particularly from the cops. The BMW is also sexy, but in a more elegant way. Think Christina Aguilara vs. Scarlett Johansen. That, combined with the four seats (I got the sedan, so had 4 doors, too), nicer interior, 2 more years of free maintenance, and 4 more years of warranty (CPO), while being a bit cheaper, and the fact that I see fewer of them around town, sold me on the bimmer. I just found this review and it seemed pretty accurate to me. With the less powerful 07 vette, up here at altitude, the difference is even bigger.

Well put….but to nitpick, the 97 C5 Corvette technically had the first LS1 engine. ;-)

First off, most Vette & BMW owners do not keep their cars longer than 4-5 years, tend to wash them regularly, and generally keep the miles low as this increases resale which they know is coming… The majority of owners will trade for the next new model changeover or major enhancement. That being said, BMW covers ALL costs of their vehicles for 4 years/50K miles. This includes all wear items like brake pads, rotors, and crap you just know the dealer would generally give you a hard time about- not to mention oil changes, etc. With BMW, you can even request new wiper blades during the service at N/C. This is a big plus for BMW and why this is my 4th car from them even though I really like the Vette too. It’s lame to say “only yuppies buy BMW’s” (whats a yuppie in ‘09 anyway?.) I feel for the 2-3 years I’ll own the car, I can drive a solid, quiet, extremely quick performance machine that glides past most Highway Patrol without a second glance.

Since this is the truth about cars, even that statement is an exaggeration. A 400hp car is just as dangerous at the track. At such high speeds, cars without downforce get light, and at the limit, that feels hairy in stock trim w/o rollcage, harness, etc. Which is why you only see such powerful cars at the high end of the totem of real racing.

My buddy, a county sheriff who lives in the California desert (thus giving him a free pass to drive 100+mph on the OPEN roads out there), purchased a 50th anniversary Vette a while back as a celebration of his 40th birthday. Now he wants to trade it in for a truck. Why:

FACT: Unless you are taking a Vette to the track, you will NEVER get anywhere near its limits. Off the track, it’s a penis-extender….admit it.

FACT: 90% of people who have driven a 3-series v. a Vette in daily driving for more than a week will tell you the Bimmer is a more satisfying vehicle…easier to load groceries/kids/life, easier to drive smoothly, etc. Doesn’t make you look like you are constantly trying to show off. And you can’t reach its limits on public roads, either. There’s a reason Bimmers keep flying off the dealerships. The only place the Vette will beat the BMW on public roads in daily driving is from 0-60/0-100 and back down.

Conclusion: the 40-something who can disconnect himself from his penis will choose the BMW. Unless he really does go the track.

From a long-term quality standpoint, I’d have to give the Corvette the nod.

The Corvette interior bits and trim may not be at Bavarian levels, but the basic engine and drivetrain are pretty robust.

The BMW six is indestructable, but BMW automatics have a checkered history. The old GM-based boxes, sans dipsticks, had a spotty reputation. The new ZF boxes, well, see http://www.noreverse.org on that.

Electronics and small annoying bits on modern BMWs are at a level of quality that GM surpassed ages ago. Door regulators in the X5 and E46 have a habit of snapping off a 95-cent attachment bracket (repeatedly) that requires an hour or two to replace. Then the regulator itself cracks. Don’t EVER slam the door on a BMW, you’ll pay for it! Pixels disppear from naviation displays, the odometer, radio, on-board computer, and more troubling the odometer.

Want to upgrade to a BMW V-8 or V-10? Some come equippted with a water-cooled alternator. I kid you not, and it’s a $1900 part, plus labor. There also is a neat water jacket gasket in the back of the V-8 which, if it fails, requires removing the engine to replace. Plus four VANOS actuators… you get the idea.

Simpler is better. Older BMWs held their resale value because they were simple and robust cars and easy to work on. So people wanted them as older cars. Newer BMWs can be a lot harder to service (BMW refuses to release tech data past 1999) and a nightmare of electronics.

Old BMW 7-series rapidly depreciate after a certain point, as the cost of maintaining all the systems (the electronic rear sunshade has five electric motors!) becomes prohibitive.

All that being said, it is a silly cross-shopping comparison. The Corvette coupe would be closter to the MZ4 coupe, which is a very nice looking ride (better looking than the roadster), by the way, and BMW is offering some real deals on that car.

Get it with a manual, though.

I also agree going 150+ on 95% of US highways is a recipe for disaster. I’m not recommending that, just that the ‘thrust’ factor is a big deal in ‘my’ purchase. Going from 0-100 in my 210HP Saab and 0-100 in my 500+HP Viper GTS is a ‘totally’ different experience ;). One that I enjoy and adds value to my overall driving experience.

I would think most enthusiasts seek out these roads to get their fun on. Even then, it’s not smart to drive a particularly fast car on them. Unless it’s extremely twisty, even rental cars can exceed 60mph; and it’s a poor idea going faster than that between trees or on the side of a mountain without a rollcage.

For highway driving, I find a v6 family car (~250hp these days) more than adequate for runs to >100mph, even going through sweepers (the initial physical exhilaration you mention tends to wear off quickly). Cars like newish corvettes or top end eurocars are designed for easy >150mph on relatively straight sections, which is just too much for me (I don’t think US highways are maintained for such, not to mention serious legal trouble).

I guess the general point is that passenger car capability in the last 10 years or so is exceeding what is marginally safe when pushed, even for pretty decent drivers.

My first question would be, “Where do you drive?” I suspect it may be lots a lower speed roads with many corners. If that is the case, then yes, 436HP can be overkill. But if this is true, why consider either of these cars? Just get a Mazda Miata and be done with it…

Like many people, 1/2 of my driving is on highways. The difference between a 436HP V8 and your typical 200HP car is astronomical. Think of it this way. Imagine taking a corner at .50 G’s, and then 1.0 G’s. Big difference, right? Well the G’s you feel going in a straight line can be thrilling as well. Whether it be from a stop or higher speeds. This is where a 200HP car can’t deliver. Therefore, 50% of my driving would be booooooring in such a car.

Regarding driving ease and around-town manners, both can be driven like the most tentative retiree. Yes, the C6’s instant and huge torque will make it difficult to resist the adrenaline rush. They are very different cars to drive in parking lots and smaller areas due to the C6’s very large turning radius. The BMW’s higher seating position makes for a completely different feel than the low-slung C6.

Speaking of low-slung, the C6, like all Corvettes, have notoriously difficult ingress/egress. Ingress is a drop and plop affair for most. It affords one little more grace in egress, as that is like a splayed leg climb from the depths, particularly for your female companion. This is just the price you pay for being so low to the ground, both car and seat frame.

The BMW, while a fairly small vehicle, is nowhere near as difficult for me to get in and out of. The only thing I remember from the otherwise superb seats from my 01 330i is that they were a bit snug in the thigh area. Not the same exact seats as the 335i, but close enough, as I’ve driven one briefly. This is why I’m surprised to hear William’s exact opposite conclusion.

At the end of the day, I would have preferred that William talk with a regional Corvette group and see if someone would have been willing to provide use of their car for a short eval. I bet on it. It would have been a more meaningful comparison. Kind of sad that you have to rely on CarMax inventory. It did appear to me that the review was affected by this. Your popping roof sample clearly did it no favors.

How about a Take Two that has new models from both that are free from popping defects and that have the same transmission type?

I respect your review, but do feel that ‘ultimate’ performance should have had more ‘weight’ in the final analysis. Unlike yourself, I find this performance advantage is ‘useable’ in real world driving.

I don’t really understand these sentiments.

I drive fast. Quite fast. And I find cars that would be considered fairly basic transportation adequate for such driving.

“Economy” cars these days (<200hp) can fairly easily reach around 2 to 2.5x the legal limit, and with with decent suspension, sustain that corners. This is more than enough to get into serious trouble.

I guess more is always better in a somewhat perverted sense, but it’s neigh impossible to push the boundaries, where the real fun is. Hell, 400hp is more than WRC cars have, and there’s a reason why GroupB was banned.

Agreed. If tickling the Corvette’s accelerator alerts the local gendarme….trust me, the 335 is only a few tenths behind. If that’s what worries you, you need to be in a lesser car.

If anything, the instant vertebrae relocating thrust of the LS3 is more entertaining at legal speeds….even from say 5-30 mph…. than the BMW, which needs a few ticks for the turbos to wake up and differentiate itself from a regular 3 series.

FYI – The top speed of the ‘base’ Corvette is 190 MPH. No governer.

For myself, the performance advantage of the Vette is significant. Actually, huge. And these are performance cars… I respect your review, but do feel that ‘ultimate’ performance should have had more ‘weight’ in the final analysis. Unlike yourself, I find this performance advantage is ‘useable’ in real world driving. Not the top speed specifically, but the extra thrust.

As for ‘arrest me looks’, I find that has little to do with tickets. IMHO, a police officer could care less what you are driving. If he clocks you exceeding the speed limit by a large enough amount, you’re getting pulled over. Period. So giving the BMW a ‘plus’ for looking more subdued seems kind’a silly. Matter of fact, most cars I see pulled over for speeding are usually junkers. And if you do get pulled over, at least in the USA, your odds of getting a warning are nearly ZERO with a BWM. The image is ‘rich yuppie’, which most policeman cannot identify with… On the other hand, the Vette has a blue collar (USA) image. Trust me, I know from experience… Never talked my way out of a ticked with the BMWs and Saabs I’ve owned. But did a majority of times with my 1969 Vette and Viper GTS. There’s a respect (in the USA) with the American iron vs. the Euro sedans.

Did the BMW win because it’s easier to drive in the “real world” and the Corvette is only good on the track?

No and no. I stated that the BMW was more fun to drive in the real world because it is more nimble. I never said that the Vette was ONLY good on a track.

Then why state, categorically, that the Corvetee is an easy day to day drive with a smooth ride?

It is a good daily driver because the ride is nice and it is easy to handle for a car of its potential. So is the BMW.

And if ease of day to day use was the priority, why not significantly ding the BMW for what are, to the reviewer at least, horrendous lapses of ergonomics that never ceased to annoy said reviewer?

I did ding the BMW for ergonomic lapses. However, from a livability standpoint I would rather spend a little more time working to get the right driving position than listen to the infernal and obnoxious popping that the sample Vette made.

The problem remains as I stated it. It’s not that the reviewer decided that X would count as an advantage, and Y would count as a disadvantage for both cars equally, and that I thought he should have had different priorities. Rather, the problem is that he counted X as an advantage for one ca, but a disadvantage for another. That’s the problem. The reviewer clearly and demonstrably refused (a) to credit the Corvette with its advantages, and (b) to have the BMW’s failings count against it.

Let me attempt clarity and logic one last time:
1. Exterior: Draw. Both are muscular and handsome vehicles.
2. Interior: Advantage BMW. Both cars had ergonomic flaws which are mostly irritating but not deal killers. For example, the Corvette’s radio button placement and BMW’s ingress/egress, small cup holders, window control placement, and difficulty finding a good driving position. These minor niggles would have added up to a minor advantage for the Corvette except for the intolerable popping noise.
3. Handling: Advantage BMW. The Corvette might have more actual skidpad adhesion but it’s easier to put the BMW where you want it. It feels lighter even though it isn’t, which is an accomplishment. As such, the grip that it has, which is also outstanding, is much more useable by most drivers in real world conditions.
4. Power/performance: Advantage Corvette. The reason why Corvette’s advantage in this category was not so overwhelming, as one might conclude from the disparity in HP, is because I got a lot of satisfaction from gunning around in the BMW as well. In fact, because the BMW doesn’t have “arrest me” looks, I actually felt more liberated to drive it hard, which I in fact did. Furthermore Corvette’s power advantage puts it so far outside of the typical driver’s (even most enthusiasts) experience that the additional power, as another reader repeatedly pointed out, is largely in the realm of diminishing returns. For example, the335i (sans Sport package) is electronically governed to a top speed of 130 mph while the base C6 coupe is probably good for 150+. While this is in the decided favor of the Corvette, this factoid held little sway for me. I suppose it’s somewhat like owning a bigger nuclear bomb (what’s the point – they’re all devastating and you never get to use ‘em anyway?). It’s not that I dismiss Corvette’s advantage – I fully credited the Vette for such throughout both reviews. I’m just not prepared to give it the same game changing weight that would satisfy you.

I think that an honest evaluator can only speak for him or herself. I did not, and will not ever, conduct a review presuming to answer to someone else’s preferences. In the end I concluded that the BMW had a higher-fun-to-drive quotient than the Corvette on a day in, day out basis. I acknowledged that people that place a high premium on power alone (e.g. “you worship at the altar of Hippoi Athanatoi” [the horses that pulled the chariots of the Greek gods]) would make a different choice. I wouldn’t.

Then why state, categorically, that the Corvetee is an easy day to day drive with a smooth ride?

Look at my statements about context. It answers this. If you don’t know what it means, you should ask instead of repeating yourself.

–
Overall, I’m don’t think the conclusion is a surprise to anyone but devout vette fanbois. These same platforms and lineages have had more or less the same qualities for generations. The BMW is simply the more practical car. The corvette is more flamboyant, and that’s ok if that’s what the buyer desires. In fact, I suspect Johnnie Lieberman would swing that way.

I don’t understand the quotation marks around ignored, since that’s what the reviewer openly did.

I think what you’re refusing to acknowledge is that however we choose to optimize the rating system the reviewer used, we come up with gaping contradictions. Did the BMW win because it’s easier to drive in the “real world” and the Corvette is only good on the track? Then why state, categorically, that the Corvetee is an easy day to day drive with a smooth ride?

And if ease of day to day use was the priority, why not significantly ding the BMW for what are, to the reviewer at least, horrendous lapses of ergonomics that never ceased to annoy said reviewer?

The problem remains as I stated it. It’s not that the reviewer decided that X would count as an advantage, and Y would count as a disadvantage for both cars equally, and that I thought he should have had different priorities. Rather, the problem is that he counted X as an advantage for one ca, but a disadvantage for another. That’s the problem. The reviewer clearly and demonstrably refused (a) to credit the Corvette with its advantages, and (b) to have the BMW’s failings count against it.

As I pointed out, this is not a problem with ranking, or priorities, or preferring real world utility over fantasy track prowess. It’s a fundamental problem of honesty. Or the complete lack of a working logical faculty.

I’m not sure which is worse.

You were when you were complaining that the reviewer “ignored” the vette’s power advantage. The ranking system is to clarify that it’s very possibly not a significant enough priority.

On the other issue, my context point is relevant, but you dodged it. It’s also worth mentioning that in english prose, superlatives tend to be somewhat fluid, therefore my suggestion for subsequent quantification to reduce confusion.

Repeating a self-contradiction doesn’t make it magically not a self-contradiction. Anything that is “frustrating” to do is also “difficult” to do. The one idea is contained within the other.

As for the reviewer’s internal ranking system: Your example is irrelevant, because I’m not disagreeing with the reviewer’s internal ranking priorities. I’m pointing out that he reaches diametrically opposed conclusions about the same characteristic of exactly the same car in the same set of reviews.

This is a problem no amount of “ranking” can take care of.

Ciao bambini

Difficult = something that is hard to do.

Frustrating = something that annoys.

It is quite possible for something to be annoying (frustrating), yet easy enough to do (not difficult) simultaneously.