Why does one get a coupe instead of the convertible?

[M4Now!]

Originally Posted by Legion5

2. Performance & weight, the weight difference is significant enough that the M3 convertible is actually slower in the quarter mile than the 335i.

Just curious, where do you get this? C&D tested the 2012 335 Sedan, 2011 335 Coupe, and 2008 M3 vert.

1. 335 Sedan: 0-60 5.3 sec, 1/4 mi. 13.8 sec
2. 335 Coupe: 0-60 5.0 sec, 1/4 mi 13.7 sec
3. M3 vert: 0-60 4.6 sec, 1/4 mi 13.1 sec

That's not even close?

Cheers

[fuddman]

Originally Posted by cpdp

Hi,

today I was wondering why most of you M3 owners decide for a coupe instead of a convertible?

I already had (and will keep) a convertible(e46). Love the look and feel of the Ragtop.

One thing about the convertible, beside the fun factor, is that, when you sell it, you likely will recover, percentage wise, more of your money - particularly true if it's white.

You seem to be on the fence about it so, three things I think you should consider in helping to determine if you're a convertible type:

1. You like to drive with your window open to the point where your passenger tells you to "put your damn window up!"

2. You find seat belts too confining and have been ticketed at least three times for not wearing them.

3. You've ridden a motorcycle and enjoyed it.

Nice thing about it, though, you'll win with either choice.

[understeer]

The rear seat of the convertible folds down but there is no pass through to the trunk. With the top up there is a reasonable amount of trunk space but with the top down there is some usable space but it is minimal.
I view mine as a large two seater with the ability to occasionally carry passengers in the rear seats. If you fold down the rear seat there is plenty of luggage space available for two people to use the car to go on a trip and still be able to drop the top.

There is a big difference (and I mean a big difference) between taking a car to the track and racing. The M3 in any body style is a road car that is an excellent track day car, but in stock form it is not a race car.

Trackiing was not an issue for me since I have no intention of taking it on a track.

[understeer]

Originally Posted by dom_cmh

because vert=girls car

Kidding but in all seriousness it seems like guys driving verts are much more "accepted" in SoCal than here in Ohio. I know a ton of car guys here in Ohio that would agree that a convertibles are for girls. Just the same way that a VW Beetle or a Mini Cooper is. Stereotype yes but it's there.

I am trying to figure what would carry the worst stigma, driving a convertible or living in Ohio?

[lorinzo]

I was tempted by vert.... I have never owned one.

I did not like the chrome trim (I know it can be wrapped, plasti-dipped, etc) and did not love the look with top up. I think it looks great top down.

I went with sedan.

[Poleposition]

Originally Posted by understeer

Apparently the main requirement for being a "serious" driver is going on an internet forum and claiming to be a serious driver.

[rtobin]

Originally Posted by cpdp

Hi,

today I was wondering why most of you M3 owners decide for a coupe instead of a convertible? I see that the coupe has a CF roof, but on sunny days the convertible sure is more fun...and in winter it should not be a problem because the E93 has a hardtop...
So what are the advantages of the coupe?

I am asking because my next whip is most likely a M3...

In the UK it f*cking rains a lot.... and I prefer the look of the coupe... each to their own!

[understeer]

Originally Posted by Poleposition

Mazda Miata?

Serious drivers don't drive Miatas.

[VMcV3y]

Originally Posted by ///M3AN

+1

I am not a fan of any convertible that did not start it's life as a convertible. The convertible M3 seems like an afterthought to me... "Huy guys, we built us a sweet machine here. Now chop the top so we can sell more." You lose many aspects of the M3 when you go convertible.

Oh, jeeez. There you go again.

There is no way any convertible model of a car-line is an afterthought. They didn't spend millions of Euros on something they just figured out to do, especially when other generations preceded it.

In fact, I suspect that there are design elements of the E90 and E92 that were sacrificed so that they could make a convertible body style.

And, when the engineers began the entire E9x series, they probably had the specifications for all three models in-mind -- so how could you argue it did not start its life as a convertible when it was on the design board at the same time as the other two?

No concerns of mine if you prefer whatever brand and model of car you like -- happy for you. But the logic does not fit.


.

[highyo]

maybe because only a coupe is a true m3?

[understeer]

BMW intended to make the E9x 3 Series in Sedan, Coupe and Convertible versions from the time they started design.

At one point there were a number of convertibles on the market that were aftermarket conversions of coupes. ASC (founded as American Sunroof Corporation and later renamed American Specialty Cars) did a lot of these conversions and in some cases they were sub-contracted by the manufacturers. The Toyota Camry Solara is an example of such a car. In spite of the fact that ASC would add bracing to stiffen the chassis many of these "chopped top" convertibles were subject to cowl shake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Specialty_Cars

ASC is frequently contracted by manyfacturers to engineer tops for convertible versions of cars but in more recent years they have been involved from he beginning of the design stage rather than being hired to convert coupes to convertibles.

I believe that BMW sub-contacted the design of the E93 retractable top but I don't know the name of the sub-contractor.

[understeer]

Originally Posted by Poleposition

Curious, What are some examples of convertibles that started their life as convertibles?

Cobra?

A lot of the cars that are being listed here a technically roadsters not convertibles.

The Cobra was not designed to be a Cobra. The Cobra started its life as an AC Bristol and Carroll Shelby got the idea to install Ford V8s into them.
Early Cobras were called AC Cobras.

The AC was available as a coupe but the Cobra (other than a handfull of Pete Brock designed Shelby Daytona Coupes) was never offered in the coupe version.



Below are an AC Bristol roaster, an AC Bristol Coupe.





Interestingly the original Bristol engine that was used in what later became the Cobra was BMW inspired:

The roots of the AC Ace-Bristol design go back to the Thirties, when BMW engine design chief Fritz Feider produced a series of six-cylinder engines that culminated in the 1971-cc unit of the fabled 328. After World War II, Bristol of England “acquired” the design by somewhat dubious means (see Bristol Sports Cars) and manufactured it in the UK. By the mid-1950s, Bristol was happy to supply this noble engine to other automakers.
Complete with three downdraft Solex carburetors, the Bristol engine was tall but fit comfortably under the AC Ace-Bristol and AC Aceca-Bristol hood. It had pushrod overhead valve actuation (via complex linkages), part-spherical combustion chambers, and a very long stroke. Despite all this, it was amazingly flexible and high-revving.

[DeleteAccountPlease]

Because people are more interested when they see a carbonfiber roof

[DiavelM3]

Originally Posted by Autobahn335i

Weight!! For a sports car, the Coupe is already quite heavy. Getting a convertible M3 doesn't make sense if you're looking for performance.

I wouldn't consider the M3 a sports car but that's my opinion. I think cars(depending on the model) like Ferrari's, Porsche's, Lamborghini's etc. are considered sports cars.
The M3 is still one of the best cars in it's class, even after almost 5 yrs in production. No other car like Audi or Merc. have CF roof

The main reason I bought the coupe is because I love the CF roof! To the best of my knowledge, there isn't another car in it's class that has a cf roof like the M3. You'll have to get into the higher end sports car category to find another car with a cf roof. That makes it very unique!
Plus, it lowers the center of gravity and is about 400 lbs lighter than the Vert.
If I want a top down type of experience (open air), I just hop on my motorcycle and go for a ride

[808@702]

Originally Posted by cpdp

Hi,

today I was wondering why most of you M3 owners decide for a coupe instead of a convertible? I see that the coupe has a CF roof, but on sunny days the convertible sure is more fun...and in winter it should not be a problem because the E93 has a hardtop...
So what are the advantages of the coupe?

I am asking because my next whip is most likely a M3...

Because we want one.

[zzade46m3]

Originally Posted by dom_cmh

because vert=girls car

Kidding but in all seriousness it seems like guys driving verts are much more "accepted" in SoCal than here in Ohio. I know a ton of car guys here in Ohio that would agree that a convertibles are for girls. Just the same way that a VW Beetle or a Mini Cooper is. Stereotype yes but it's there.

+1

[eisenb11]

Originally Posted by understeer

I believe that BMW sub-contacted the design of the E93 retractable top but I don't know the name of the sub-contractor.

I had an E93 328i before my current car. I believe the top was outsourced to Volvo. It's the same system used in the C70. Not sure if Volvo, further outsourced the task to someone.

[Chris M4CS]

I often regret not getting an E93 instead of my E92. But at a significant cost difference, I just couldn't justify the cost vs. the amount of use I would get from it. I opted to go with the moonroof and therefore, I can get almost as much fresh air but I'm able to close up on the fly if it starts to rain or get too hot, and I saved several thousand dollars doing so.

[MRSSIIM3]

lol @ this thread. it should be titled: why does one get a vert instead of a coupe smh

[mjposner]

Some people just like to drive top down and if that is what they like the M3 Vert is a great car for that. I live in South Florida so I get many days of top down fun. Plus it will still stomp on most other coupes out there and looks good top up or down. I am glad it is an option:

[Legion5]

Originally Posted by M3Now!

Just curious, where do you get this? C&D tested the 2012 335 Sedan, 2011 335 Coupe, and 2008 M3 vert.

1. 335 Sedan: 0-60 5.3 sec, 1/4 mi. 13.8 sec
2. 335 Coupe: 0-60 5.0 sec, 1/4 mi 13.7 sec
3. M3 vert: 0-60 4.6 sec, 1/4 mi 13.1 sec

That's not even close?

Cheers

Actually if you use your numbers they're identical. I was getting 13.1 and 13.2 for the 335i and M3 respectively.

http://www.zeroto60times.com/BMW-Bim...mph-Times.html

2012 BMW 335i Sedan 0-60 mph 4.6 Quarter Mile 13.1

[Porschefile]

Weight and chassis stiffness. If I lived in FL or CA and didn't track my car I might have a E93.