Repair-It

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/201 ... est-review

It's a tick slower than a 2009 CTS-V. Anyway, the M3 has great brake feel, great handling and numb steering.

Back in the 90s, I would have been obsessed with the engine specs. 425 hp @ 7300 rpm and 406 lb-ft @ 1850 rpm. In the real world, I know better than to translate those numbers into how an N/A engine would feel with them. And I also know this engine/car is not something you'd want to own out of warranty, which makes it uninteresting from that aspect alone, because that's how I own cars.

3,580 lbs makes it about where I expect the ATS-V will be.

My favorite comment so far (max snark):

So lets see, they cranked the boost up on the turbos (wow that was hard) removed feedback from the steering (just what I wanted!) and are charging an outrageous amount of money (BMW - Break My Wallet)...lots of used cars to choose from these days thank goodness.

More snarkage:

I don't see why they didn't go through with the 3 turbo motor instead of this twin turbo. Why not like something that hasn't been done before? if you're going to buy a twin turbo six M3/M4, why not just get a used 911 turbo? Insurance would be horrible, but even then it would still be so much of a better value than this thing with its has-been electric steering and fake engine noise in the speakers.

Meanwhile, if anybody is wondering, I have seen the E46 M3s go for as little as $15,000 nowadays, sometimes a little less.

I will say the observed fuel economy is impressive given the performance level of the car. Also, I wonder if acceleration would be faster with the auto.

Other publications have apparently not been as thrilled with the handling. Lots of sentiment in the comments about how Cadillac is out BMW-ing BMW. And how if GM keeps it up, future generations will think of Cadillac as the driver's car choice and BMW as the old person's car. Naturally this is hilarious.