Second I probably would buy the M3 over it… as if that we’re a choice I’d actually have to make!

And third TAC has in my opinion shown the tendency to rank BMWs higher that other manufactures as well, so maybe you guys are just bitter.

There are iconic sports cars in our world. Cars legendary for being the objects of desire, the benchmark of performance, the disruptors in many respects.

These cars — and there are very few of them — include the Porsche 911 Turbo, the BMW M3, and the Corvette.

With a new, iconic-before-it-even-got-here sports car on the landscape, C&D set out to see “where it fits” on this landscape. Thus the invitation to the Porsche 911 Turbo and BMW M3 (the article explains why the Corvette wasn’t there).

That’s a very specific and, to the involved enthusiast, a very fascinating and interesting project.

And that’s what the comparo laid out: where each car stands in legendary-sports-car-dom. The Turbo is blindingly fast, gloriously luxurious and expensive; the GT-R is supercar-fast, easiest to go fast in and rough around the edges. The M3 is connected to the driver, telepathic in its responses, still pretty darn fast, and livable everyday; a whole greater than its parts.

Et voilà. In calmer, more lucide moments, I humbly believe that most of use here would agree with the strenghts and positioning of each.

Swervin, you make a very valid point about the cover headline, and indeed, that point is granted. But that is simply a function of the necessities of the marketplace, where the cover has to have something that draws — witness the scantily-clad girls on the covers of lesser car rags.

But where it counts, inside the magazine, in the article, C&D did — and does — a good job.

I don’t see any indication that the praise is undeserved, given the basis for their position. Here’s their summation of it:

The M3 offers an unparalleled mix of hassle-free livability and performance at a price that undercuts those of the ­Nissan and the Porsche. For that, it wins in our book. We say its performance deficit is made up by the near perfection and sophistication of the rest of the package.

Again, you can agree with that or not, but their argument is that it was the one car of the three that raised no complaints, and the lack of negatives offset the slightly slower but still quick performance times. That doesn’t look like bias, but a judgment call based upon their staff.

If you look back at prior comparison tests for other cars, the 7-series placed 3rd out of 5, and the 6-series convertible placed 4th out of 4, so it’s not always ranking at the top. But even if it did, if the standards are consistent and fairly applied, it’s a matter of preference, not bias.

All of the car mags can be fairly accused of being weak in the knees with negative commentary, but that isn’t limited to one brand. It’s rare when they really pull out all the stops to be critical, but I suppose that they don’t want to offend any of their advertisers too much.

Pch101: “That may or may not be, but this is confusing one argument with another.”

No, because the argument is that C&D has lost their objectivity and is now no better than any of the other major corporate shill enthusiast rags.

IOW, if it’s got the spinning propeller badge on the hood, the likelihood is quite high that C&D is going to trip all over themselves heaping praise on it (the same as everyone else), regardless of whether it’s deserved or not.

The point I was making is not that they shoud change the scoring system. To use my anology they should have used a 2 or 3 soccer balls instead of two soccer balls and a field hockey ball. That would have made more sense.

I am not accusing C&D of bias. There is a problem with the vehicles they chose though. The BMW does not belong with these cars. It gets very easy for people to start throwing out comparisons that make little sense to highlight how different these cars are.

It is their magazine and they can do whatever they like.

I am just pointing out that the cover is misleading and that the conclusion is so obvious that there was little point in running the test. The GTR is less livable that a BMW M3? Agreed. the GTR is less expensive than the 911 Turbo? Agreed. So what have we learned? Nothing of merit. The point of the article was to put the GTR in context. Maybe if they did not have a first second and third place, just an article about the cars it would have been better. But they did not and this has left them open to accusatios of bias unfounded as those may be.

Cheers!
Swervin

The funny thing is that if they changed the scoring system to favor the GT-R, then they would have been accused of bias for doing that. (I can hear it now: “Why did you guys change the scale from what you usually use?!?!?! Are you in bed with Nissan?!?!?!”)

Since the GTR reason for being is to go fast it implies that the M3 is faster, which it isn’t.

Did you read the article? That isn’t what it says at all.

They go through an explanation of why they chose to compare the GT-R to these two cars. I’m guessing that part of it was motivated by what kind of press cars that they could round up, but they otherwise explain what their rationale was for choosing these three. They are up front about it, so where’s the bias?

Full disclosure: I am a salesperson at a Nissan dealership that will not be selling the GTR. I have not driven any of these cars.

It’s not that they moved the goal posts. It is the goal posts are on a soccer field and they’re using a field hockey ball. The vehicles don’t jive.

I don’t think anyone is taking anything away from the M3. They would be crazy to. It is the fact that the cars missions are different.

There would not be as much controversy if the GTR and 911 Turbo were the only two cars in the contest and the 911 won for being more livable. The controversy stems from the fact they pitted a very fast street car against two vehicles that make more compromises at 1-7/10 to excel at 8-10/10.

The cover doesn’t say “M3 MORE LIVABLE THAN THE GTR”. It says the M3 beats the GTR. Since the GTR reason for being is to go fast it implies that the M3 is faster, which it isn’t. They do explain in the article that the M3 does not beat the GTR at it’s own game. It states that the M3 beats the GTR at the M3 game as well it should.

It is a ploy to sell magazines though. And the free advertising they are getting is huge. I don’t think they anticipated the furor directed their way.

I understand the conclusion. I just don’t like the experiment.

That may or may not be, but this is confusing one argument with another.

The point of this editorial is not about whether Car and Driver has lost its edge, but to claim that there is a bias toward BMW. As far as I can tell, the only “proof” of this is that the author would prefer that they had chosen a different winner.

If you want to say that the writing isn’t as good as it used to be, that’s fine, but that’s a much different point from accusing them of being owned by a certain manufacturer.

I see on car forums a tendency for brand fanboys to get pissed off when confronted by somebody who doesn’t share their particular tastes. They get brand loyal to the point of absolute stupidity. They generally can’t prove their points, though, so they whip out the same old
mantra — anyone who doesn’t agree with them is biased.

If my experience counts for anything, I find that those who are quick to accuse others of bias are usually the most biased people in the room. They are so in love with their chosen brand that they can’t fathom that someone might not agree. But since it isn’t particularly rational to love any brand just for the sake of it, they are left with defending the indefensible, which leads to a lot of bogus arguments defending fallacious points.

A lot of car guys tend to like BMW’s, because they have nuanced suspension tuning and great steering feel. That’s a huge intangible plus that a lot of people who didn’t grow up in love with muscle cars or video games can relate to, so necessarily, BMW becomes the benchmark in many respects.

You don’t have to agree with that, but someone who doesn’t agree with your tastes isn’t inherently biased just because they disagree. Not everybody thinks that straight-line acceleration is the be-all, end-all of driving.

At the end of the day, a critic is giving his or her opinion. You can agree with the critic or not, it’s not the end of the world if you aren’t on the same page. The main questions are of transparency, whether you can judge how the opinion was derived and whether standards are applied fairly and evenhandedly.

I read the article, and while I see some hackneyed writing, I see no bias. I see a comparison that explains its basic premise and provides a detailed explanation of how it reached its position. It knocks the GT-R for being creaky and rough around the edges. If you like creaky and rough around the edges, then don’t allow it to influence your judgment, and all will be well.

netrun: “C/D used to sell itself as magazine outlaws. Good ole boys that beat on every car a manufacturer was stupid enough to lend them and then spit in their face and get away with it. They were irreverant, controversial, and funny as hell. Their writing was so good that they got away with anything and people loved them.

Now? Now they have no balls and with that, no reason to exist. They are a shell of what they once were. Worse yet, they’ve sold out so obviously as to be insulting.”

+1. To those defenders of today’s C&D, all they need do is pick up and read any comparison/article out of an old issue from, say, the seventies. They’ll quickly discover that TTAC is easily closer to the much higher objective editorial standards C&D used to have. Reading anything out of today’s C&D is like reading something out of an old Motor Trend or Road & Track. It really has gotten that bad. With C&D’s grammaticaly correct writing, a few clever phrases thrown in, and a reader that has no frame of reference, they’ll never know.

That’s your position, but that isn’t Car and Driver’s viewpoint.

They use this very same measuring scale for all of their comparisons like this. Here’s an example of their comparison of the Evo, WRX STI and VW R32 — same exact scale: http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/92335/1185308/version/1/file/Rochambeau+%C3%80+Go-Go+-+Final+Results.pdf

If anything, this suggests that they aren’t biased, because if they were, they would have adjusted the scale to serve this particular test. Instead, they used the same scale that they use for their other performance car comparison tests, including tests that don’t involve BMW’s.

You raise a different question, namely whether they drastically change their standards when specifically evaluating the highest end performance models. But that isn’t an issue of bias toward BMW, but whether they should vary their standards for each situation.

The irony of that, of course, is that for them to do that would make them susceptible to accusations of bias. The proof of the bias would be their moving of the goalposts every time. Sounds like they can’t win for losing.

That’s not what I said. The weighting is all jacked up. Is the back seat as important as the handling in these cars? Is trunk space as important as steering or braking feel? Is the price (in this comparison) as important as the quarter mile? Is the quarter mile time twice as important as the handling in this comparison? Sure, the answer to these for some people is yes, but it just sounds like they had an M3, calibrated their scoring, and then said “Hey, let’s take a couple really, really fast cars and compare them to the M3.” I haven’t looked at those point totals on other reviews, but having overall 1/4 mile and price each accounting for 20 points on their own is absurd, no matter what cars are involved. Maybe in an econorocket or musclecar matchup do those parameters deserve that weight, but in this league, the 1/4 mile, as you noted, is rather close.

Just to be clear, they most certainly SHOULD care about all aspects of every car they review; the shittiest car today is good enough to be judged to an all-encompassing standard. Once you get to this league, though, the weighting has to be different than for family sedans, performance sedans, and econorockets.

And, fwiw, I’m much more drawn to the M3 than the other 2. I just think the comparo stinks of figuring out how to make the M3 come out ahead.

If caring about fit and finish, NVH, ride quality, fun factor and bang for the buck are what constitutes “bias” these days, then count me in.

I see no problem with judging these as multi-dimensional cars, instead of this everything-by-the-speed-numbers approach that tells you little about where you’d want to spend the most of your time.

What separates the quickest from the slowest in this trio is a mere 0.9 seconds to 60 mph. According to this, all of them get to that speed in less than 4.4 seconds. When you’re talking about differences like that, the numbers are really academic and don’t mean very much, especially if you’re writing the check.

Incidentally, I’d probably take the 911 myself, and that finished last. But it’s possible for the magazine to disagree with me and still not be biased.

Taking 2 purpose-built sports cars and putting them against what starts life as a mid-level “pedestrian” car, that’s what’s rigged. I can’t see them giving much weight to practicality if the Cayman S replaced the M3. The weighting is skewed to the strengths of the odd man out, which smells of bias. With performance being only 16% (including quarter mile), a 328i coupe would have fared nearly as well as the M3.

Out of a 250 point scale, “performance” had a maximum score of 20, meaning that only 8% of the evaluation was based on that. The subjective feel categories got 50. Quarter mile times and price were each given 20 points, so the sprint and the cost were alloted the same priority.

Looking at the whole thing, most of what gave BMW the edge in Car and Driver’s opinion was the package, not the performance. The interior space, fit and finish, price etc. was 40% of the score, and in those categories, they blew both of the other ones away. Take a look for yourselves: http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/107002/1449488/version/2/file/Vision+Quest+-+Results.pdf

Not that the author has to agree with those evaluation methods, but to prove bias, you’d have to show that the scoring system was rigged to give BMW a favorable showing. If there’s proof of that, I’d like to see it.

Kman :

The M3 deserved that C&D win. And as a C&D subscriber for 26 years, and a TTAC follower since the wee early days, I find C&D’s bashing underserved here. They’ve consistently been reasonable and nasty when needed. Now, had we been talking about Motor Trend…

I appreciate your long-standing dedication to the site, and your contribution to our Best & Brightest. I didn’t write this post, but I’m a former M3 and 911 owner (driven Turbo many a time). Both are fantastic cars. Awesome. Wonderful. Delightful. Fast, flickable, fun.

But to suggest that an M3 is in the same league as a Porsche Turbo or Nissan GT-R is nuts. Either of those cars will crucify an M3’s in-gear acceleration. And corner faster too. As well they should, at the price.

Look, you can make an excellent argument that a Boxster is more fun to drive everyday than a 911 Turbo. (Hence why I own the former rather than the later.) But when used in anger– as God intended– there is no comparison. Apples and oranges mate, apples and oranges.

The M3 simply isn’t in the same class as the Turbo or GT-R. Comparing them is fine, perhaps important and definitely educational. But it’s also patently ridiculous. Giving the BMW the win says more about C and D’s editorial priorities than the M3. You may salute their choice, but many, justifiably, don’t. 

It's funny how even TTAC's B&B can get caught up in group-think. We got so caught up in a (perceived) opportunity to bash C&D, that we lost what makes the B&B the, um, B&B. TTAC's B&B is precisely the kind of nuanced enthusiasts that would appreciate how a well-rounded, perfectly-engineered, telepathic driver's car like the E90 M3 can be preferred to other cars that have "faster 0-60" and other such measures.

I myself have just switched careers, leaving the software industry after 17 years to join… a BMW dealership. As part of my orientation, I've "had to" drive every model to get familiar with its intricacies. What stood out across models: a BMW "black magic" in the suspension, making pleasantly compliant over Montreal's pot-holed roads; at the same time, said suspension is confidence-inspiring at high-speed cruising, while at the same time (same suspension) having precise, balanced, telepathic handling.

No numbers could ever describe or appreciate that. The M3 deserved that C&D win. And as a C&D subscriber for 26 years, and a TTAC follower since the wee early days, I find C&D's bashing underserved here. They've consistently been reasonable and nasty when needed. Now, had we been talking about Motor Trend…

Good point. But of course, this is TTAC territory. You can criticize C&D at TTAC and you can also criticize TTAC at C&D (if they have a forum there).

I have never seen so many previews, reviews, first drives, full tests on one vehicle. They drove it in Japan, Nurburgring, California and Nevada before it even came out.

They even “drove” it in a video game for god’s sake!

And let’s not forget the long paeon of praise for the engine which was another whole article or the interviews with project designers and engineers.

Having said that my biggest objection is the fact that I can’t afford one>

For the record, BMW seems to be doing what most manufacturers would be proud to emulate: creating a remarkable balance of performance & luxury and a stellar brand identity/brand loyalty from it’s customer base.

I could do without iDrive and detest the new “Pontiac styling”. I also think that their cars are getting a bit too heavy for what I wish to do with them but that’s the “nature of humanity”: more is necessarily better. And, of course, the falling dollar has insured that working engineers are not likely to ever purchase a new model, either. But I depress myself…

I look at this article and I see a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

if they compared the M3 to the Honda Accord their brains would explode… CANT…HAVE… TWO… FIRST PLACE… FINISHERS… or can we?

Oh, naysayers, it’s not about BMW bias or even Honda Accord bias — it’s about going through the motions to conduct “road tests,” and then overriding actual, factual information in favor of their subjective scoring factors that allow them to choose whatever they want to “win.”

For instance, go look at their mid-size family sedan comparison, which was won, as always, by the Honda Accord. Nevermind that they got the highest-level Accord model, with the optional bigger engine. Nevermind that they found the most bottom-feeding, low-level Camry possible. Nevermind all of the factual-type stuff they reported that actually allowed you to judge whether the cars were competent for the usage most owners would put them through. No, just look at how they gave the Abominable Honda top marks in “styling.” Puh-leeeeze!!

I sure don’t recall them ever giving the similarly-hideously-styled Aztek such high marks for styling. In the end, what they print is utter, raging nonsense.

And I definitely thought that this editorial was not only howlingly funny, but ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON THE MARK. Great, great stuff, and the kind of thing that keeps me coming back here to see what’s new, every day.

Essentially, C&D took two awesome sports cars and decided that the M3 is better at being an M3 than the 911 turbo and GT-R. did we really need to waste time and money to figure that one out?