[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Just noticed this post. Sorry for the delay...

Originally Posted by Powerslide

...HOWEVER... I'm not by any means the only forum member who thinks you go out of your way to discredit the M3 every chance you get.

Speak for yourself about what you think - and let others speak for themselves, please.

That said, I do in fact go out of my way to discredit the M3 - but only when I think it's being unfairly credited. In point of fact, I believe that I have written more flowery praises about the M3 than you have (or almost everyone else in this venue, for that matter).

Originally Posted by Powerslide

...1. You would often agree with a lot of footie's comments that the rs5 would completely own the M3 once it finally came out... And lo and behold - every magazine that tested them head to head almost 2 years ago picked the m3 over the rs5 (objectively and subjectively) and since then neither you nor Footie have had anything to say about those two by way o comparison (btw - love how footie literally dropped off the face of the earth after those comparisons came out - lol)

This appears to be solid BS on your part. I did in fact take a position that the RS5 would likely outperform the M3, and near as I can tell, it does - on track at least. You have perhaps missed my subsequent comments, and footie was permanently banned from this venue not long after the RS5 was released in Europe.

Since the RS5 was released, I've watched (and referred to) a couple of extended videos in this forum wherein the RS5 was slightly quicker than the M3 on track - perhaps you have as well.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

2. Several months ago you posted several times about how a 2011 mustang GT and Boss 302 "soundly whipped" the M3 on the track... However, once I pointed out several track times from fastestlaps.com which placed the E9x M3 as faster than the GT and Boss 302 LS... There was no response from you...

First, I've not read your post for whatever reason, so I apologize. Second, I have never said that any Mustang GT "soundly whipped" an M3, and challenge you to show where I have. Third, I just now looked up Boss 302 LS vs M3 on fastestlaps.com per your reference, and the Ford was quicker than the bimmer on the five tracks mentioned, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Apparently, you don't know what the hell you're talking about either.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

3. You give lip service to the M3 in terms of its track and handling capabilities (as if to bolster your apparent objectivity) and then you immediately take it away by including a dig about how "the M3 is fast BUT "you have to wring its neck" or "PS - isn't the M3 a pig in the rain on Contis???"";

My belief is that I am in fact more objective about the M3 than most - obviously including you of course. "Lip service", "apparent objectivity" and "a dig" are all your interpretations in regard to my comments - which by the way are pretty damned accurate as to the car's performance. As for your very own quote of my note, I am actually asking if the M3 is a pig in the rain on Contis - not making an assumption. Read your own damned quote.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

4. You claim to have several hours of time in the M3 (6MT and DCT) and say that you're not impressed with the DCT in everyday driving - yet every magazine that has reviewed the DCT has heaped tons of praise on it in terms of its every-day smoothness and drivability (including my own 40k+ miles on it - which is a heck of a lot more than your 4-5 hours)...

My impressions of the M3 auto I drove were accurate - both the good and the bad. Note that Car & Driver also had some interesting observations about the DCT in their long term test, worsening as the miles piled up.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Bottom line - if you or anyone else likes the C63 better than the M3 that's fine... Also - there is no doubt that from a purely objective point of view - the c63 can outdo the M3 in certain areas (straight line acceleration, not having to use as high of rpm's to reach a given rate of acceleration, etc. etc.). What I'm tired I hearing (and I'm confident I speak on behalf of many other members of this forum) is you calling people out all the time as fanboys for the M3 (which admittedly there are many in this forum) when you're just as much of, let's say, an "anti-fanboy" for the M3, and where your obvious dislikes of the M3 cloud your own objectivity...

First (and again), speak for yourself, and let others speak for themselves.

Second, I am in fact an "anti-fanboy" on this and other forums specializing in various makes and models. Don't like it? Tough.

Third, what are my "obvious dislikes" of the M3? The only two that I am aware of are the gas mileage, and the general fact that BMW keeps making them bigger and heavier, thus making them less fun to drive. Our E36 was more fun to drive than our E46, and the only reason the E9X isn't less fun than the E46 is the terrific engine. One can feel the size and heft on any back road, but the engine is terrific compared to the E46.

Want to argue? Fine. Go ahead. Tell me that the fuel mileage is actually good for a car of this weight and power, and that bigger and heavier makes for more fun to drive.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

You're free, of course, to have your own opinions as to the strengths of the C63 over the M3, and even your reasons as to why you subjectively like the C63 over the M3 - but you constantly calling people out as "fanboys" for the M3 is a little ironic (and in my opinion, a tad bit hypocritical on your part).

I personally think the C63 is a better daily driver than the M3, but in my fairly complete and detailed analysis of these cars (see "The Snake, The Mongoose, and The Zookeeper"), I said they were pretty much even overall, but that I'd take a six-speed M3, given the choice.

Have to say I have admiration for both the M3 and C63 - but don't feel lust for either, however.

In short, you appear to be full of crap - and pretty damned sensitive about the love of your life, apparently.

Bruce