Originally Posted by Cdnrockies
See name calling works both ways. Sorry I'm not a badge whore like yourself.
You stated to the other poster:
While your opinion
may be that it isn't...the truth is in fact
As I mentioned in my previous post....the M3, C63, RS4, IS F and CTS V....are all super sedans....and ALL
"wannabe" sports cars. There are far too many compromises in every one of them to be even remotely considered true sports cars.
Did the M3 set the benchmark for the segment? Yes...again...as I already stated. The benchmark in a class that is defined by luxury, practicality, technology with some "nice" performance....not as a "true" or "pure" sports car....like the GT R that you, yourself, admit is a true sports car.
Btw, I do feel "lucky" that you had your morning coffee (expresso???) and provided the drivel that shows you really know jack squat and can't get off your knees and stop felating all that is BMW.
How am I "felating" ?? you said benchmark, I didn't, you noobs need to read your own posts. I'm just using what you said, not what I said.
You used the word 'Fact' yet you have no facts in your post, again.
Going into an M3forum and calling any and all generation of M3s as a "wannabe" anything is trolling.
My entire point, which you are so naive to see was that I agree that the M3 is not the purist of sports cars, this is a given. The M3 was specifically engineered to be a GT car, hence the leather back seats in the coupe, and the mood lighting.
I would argue that, if you are going to use the term "True" you can't use the word benchmark, you are plain contradicting yourself.
You can post and pat yourself on the back when logically, you have made zero sense.
AND, I'm not going to let you walk into a Cayman R vs. M3 or a GT-R vs. M3 comparison, it's apples and oranges, we get it...
Oh and btw, I can just tell by the way you post, your ideas are elementary, not quite developed...maybe even borrowed. By your own definition, a GT-R is not a 'pure' 'true' sports car, is that not correct?