For three decades, the BMW M3 has reigned supreme as the quintessential performance sedan. Its reputation, built on a legacy of driving dynamics and track prowess, was almost untouchable. However, the landscape began to shift in 2015 with the introduction of the fifth-generation M3 at the Detroit Auto Show. While the return to an inline-six engine, now twin-turbocharged, was welcomed, discussions soon centered around BMW’s choices in enhanced sound and electrically-assisted steering, raising questions about whether the M3 had lost some of its raw, driver-focused edge. Into this perceived vulnerability stepped the Cadillac ATS-V, a formidable contender from Cadillac ready to challenge the German dominance. Boasting its own twin-turbo 6-cylinder engine and the cutting-edge Magnetic Ride Control suspension from General Motors, the ATS-V presented a compelling American alternative in the fiercely competitive sports car market. Not one to be complacent, BMW responded in 2016 with the M3 Competition Package, a further refined iteration aimed at reclaiming its throne. The question then became: could Cadillac’s ATS-V, the new kid on the block, truly challenge the established might of Munich’s M division? This comparison dives deep into the heart of this rivalry, exploring whether the Cadillac ATS-V has what it takes to dethrone the long-reigning BMW M3.
Our objective was clear: to determine which of these performance sedans is the more desirable car in the real world. This wasn’t a track-focused test, but rather an assessment of their street manners, daily usability, and overall driving enjoyment on public roads. We wanted to know which car we’d genuinely prefer to live with day in and day out, navigating the daily grind and savoring weekend backroad blasts.
Design and Styling: American Angularity vs. German Aggression
Parked side-by-side, the BMW M3 and Cadillac ATS-V command attention, each in their distinct way. Individually, they remain head-turners, proving that both manufacturers have mastered the art of crafting visually striking performance sedans. While subjective, certain design elements stand out. The Cadillac ATS-V debuts in an eye-catching “Velocity Red,” a hue more typically associated with Corvettes, lending a bold and unexpected flair to the Cadillac.
Further enhancing its visual aggression, the ATS-V featured a $5,000 Carbon Fiber Package. This option adds carbon fiber accents to the front splitter, hood vent, and rear diffuser, along with gloss black side sill extensions, amplifying its sporty intent. The ATS-V design language is characterized by sharp angles and defined lines. Its raised hood, enlarged grilles, and widened front quarter panels contribute to a more assertive and imposing presence compared to the standard Cadillac ATS. While the ATS-V is available in both sedan and coupe forms, the coupe version, featured here, shaves off 10 pounds, widens the stance by an inch, and increases the rear track by an inch, resulting in a lower center of gravity and enhanced grip for optimized performance. The coupe’s low-slung profile is most impactful when viewed head-on, though the prominent rear spoiler can appear somewhat tacked-on from certain angles.
In contrast, the BMW M3 is exclusively offered as a sedan in this generation, with coupe duties delegated to the M4. While the M3 sedan carries a similar 10-pound weight penalty compared to its coupe counterpart (M4), both M3 and M4 share identical front and rear tracks, minimizing the dimensional compromise for choosing four doors. Our test M3 was finished in Yas Marina Blue, a polarizing yet distinctive color. The M3’s carbon fiber roof and aggressively flared rear wheel arches immediately set it apart from a standard 3 Series, signaling its performance intentions.
The $5,500 Competition Package, a key upgrade for the 2016 M3, replaces all chrome trim and exhaust tips with gloss black elements, creating a more menacing aesthetic. New, lightweight forged 20-inch wheels are also standard with this package. The M3’s most flattering angle is arguably the rear, emphasizing its muscular rear fenders and the functional front quarter panel ducts.
Interior and Comfort: Where German Refinement Meets American Ambition (and Shortcomings)
Stepping inside reveals a clearer distinction between the two contenders. The BMW M3 interior presents a well-executed blend of sport and luxury, leaving little room for complaint. Building upon the already solid foundation of the 3 Series interior, the M3 adds supportive sport seats with adjustable side bolsters upholstered in supple leather, carbon fiber trim accents, a thicker sport steering wheel, and a unique M-specific instrument cluster. The intuitive iDrive infotainment system received a software update, enhancing its user interface and connectivity. The Competition Package further elevates the interior with new “lightweight” seats featuring M-striped seatbelts. These seats, while sacrificing adjustable lumbar support and featuring cutouts in the backrest (a weight-saving measure reminiscent of Porsche’s approach), provide excellent support and comfort without feeling overly restrictive. Overall, the BMW M3’s interior feels commensurate with its $74,345 price tag, offering a premium and driver-focused environment.
In stark contrast, the Cadillac ATS-V interior is a mixed bag, combining GM corporate parts with unique V-Series components. The shortcomings of Cadillac’s CUE infotainment system are well-documented, and persist in the ATS-V. The glossy touchscreen and haptic feedback climate controls, prominent features on the dashboard, are prone to fingerprints and can be distracting to use. However, the biggest letdown is the ATS-V’s underwhelming gauge cluster, which lacks the visual sophistication expected in this performance segment. Even the carbon fiber trim appears to be of lesser quality. Cadillac earns points for incorporating Alcantara trim on the door panels, dashboard, and shift boot, as well as functionally on the steering wheel. However, the steering wheel’s overall shape and thick three-spoke design were criticized for hindering optimal grip in crucial driving moments. A significant redeeming feature of the ATS-V interior is the optional Recaro seats, a $2,300 upgrade that is highly recommended. These seats, upholstered in a combination of leather and suede, strike a balance between sporty support and everyday comfort. They effectively hold occupants in place without feeling overly confining and offer both adjustable lumbar support and thigh bolstering, features absent in the M3 Competition Package seats. Despite the excellent Recaro seats, the ATS-V interior ultimately falls short of expectations. The presence of low-grade plastics and generic GM parts-bin components betrays Cadillac’s struggle to fully differentiate itself from the broader General Motors portfolio and create a truly world-class cabin experience.
Performance and Numbers: A Tale of Two Turbos
The current generation BMW M3 has been described by some as a softened iteration of the M-division’s legacy. While the initial iteration might have been considered a misstep by purists, the Competition Package represents BMW’s course correction, injecting some of its old magic back into the M3 formula. Redesigned suspension components, a revised electronic rear differential program, and wider tires contribute to a more engaging and dynamic driving experience. Furthermore, the Competition Package includes an M Sport exhaust system and engine tuning, boosting output from the 3.0-liter twin-turbo inline-six by 19 horsepower, bringing the total to 444 horsepower, while torque remains at 406 lb-ft. This upgrade also gives the M3 a more refined and sportier exhaust note, replacing the somewhat coarse sound of the standard M3. With increased power and enhanced grip, the M3 delivers impressive acceleration, reaching 60 mph from a standstill in just under four seconds when equipped with the 7-speed M-DCT dual-clutch transmission, which executes rapid and precise shifts. A manual transmission is also offered for driving enthusiasts, now featuring rev-matching technology. Power delivery is characterized by minimal turbo lag and strong pull throughout the rev range, extending to the indicated 7,500 RPM redline, though peak power seems to taper off slightly around 7,000 RPM, suggesting that manual upshifts slightly before redline might keep the engine in its optimal power band.
The Cadillac ATS-V packs a 3.6-liter twin-turbo V6 engine that revs to 6,500 RPM. It outmuscles the M3 with 464 horsepower and 440 lb-ft of torque. At lower RPMs, the ATS-V engine note is somewhat subdued, but it delivers strong low-end torque, pulling with considerable force. As the revs climb, the V6’s sound becomes more pronounced within the cabin. The ATS-V’s engine exhibits a remarkably linear power delivery, feeling equally potent at 1,500 RPM and 6,000 RPM. The ATS-V employs an 8-speed automatic transmission, a conventional torque converter automatic rather than a dual-clutch system. While a manual transmission with rev-matching and no-lift-shift functionality is available, the automatic in our test car, while competent, lacks the outright aggression of the M3’s M-DCT. 0-60 mph acceleration is achieved in just over four seconds. Left in automatic mode, the transmission prioritizes smoothness over rapid gear changes. However, utilizing the magnesium paddle shifters provides more driver control, allowing for gear selection that aligns with driving style, even if shift speeds aren’t instantaneous.
Both cars are equipped with Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires, renowned for their performance capabilities. Cadillac utilizes 18-inch wheels compared to BMW’s larger 20-inch set. The M3’s tires are also 10 millimeters wider both front and rear. On the scales, the BMW M3 holds a significant 200-pound weight advantage over the ATS-V. While these numbers provide bragging rights, the true test lies in how these cars perform on the road.
The Drive: Where Dynamics and Soul Take Center Stage
Our test route consisted of a varied 30-mile loop encompassing diverse road surfaces, significant elevation changes, and numerous off-camber corners, providing a comprehensive evaluation of both cars’ handling and dynamics. We employed a “follow the leader” approach, alternating lead cars and drivers across multiple runs to gather balanced impressions.
Almost immediately, the Cadillac ATS-V demonstrated its dynamic prowess, pulling away from the M3 in the corners. The M3’s steering, while improved with the Competition Package, still felt somewhat lacking in feedback, requiring more cautious corner entry speeds. Its slight torque deficit also meant it couldn’t accelerate out of corners quite as aggressively as the ATS-V. Despite the M3’s impressive on-paper specifications, the ATS-V proved to be demonstrably quicker in real-world driving conditions. No amount of adjustment to the M3’s steering, suspension, or transmission settings could close the gap. Both test drivers consistently found themselves pulling away in the ATS-V. For sheer speed and technical proficiency, the Cadillac ATS-V emerged as the superior performer. The ATS-V’s steering was lauded as sublime compared to the M3’s, offering quicker turn-in response and more communicative feedback. The ATS-V’s Brembo brakes exhibited stronger and more linear bite than the M3’s. Once drivers acclimated to the pedal feel, they could brake later and with greater confidence. Cadillac’s Magnetic Ride Control suspension also demonstrated broader adjustability and superior damping compared to BMW’s Adaptive M Suspension. The ATS-V offered a more compliant ride in Comfort mode and a firmer, more controlled setup in Track mode than the M3 could achieve in its respective Comfort and Sport Plus settings. Over rough road surfaces, the Cadillac felt more composed and settled, inspiring a level of confidence that the M3 couldn’t quite match. Pushing the ATS-V harder through corners became a natural progression, carrying more speed and braking later as the blue BMW M3 receded in the rearview mirror.
Switching back to the M3 required more effort to maintain pace, yet paradoxically, it didn’t feel like a struggle. While not as fast as the ATS-V, the M3 delivered a more engaging and enjoyable driving experience. The inline-six engine’s soundtrack provided a rewarding accompaniment to spirited driving. The dual-clutch transmission shifted seamlessly and instantaneously through the gears. Having just exited the ATS-V, where shifts felt slightly delayed, drivers initially found themselves upshifting too early in the M3. With more time behind the wheel, a rhythm developed with the M3, and its pace increased. The M3 exhibited more road surface feedback and slightly more body roll through corners, but these characteristics contributed to the overall driving experience, enhancing the sense of theater and excitement associated with driving a fast car. Even while being outpaced by the ATS-V, the chase in the M3 proved thoroughly enjoyable. The Cadillac ATS-V projected an aura of serious focus, almost bordering on German-like precision. Surprisingly, the BMW M3, in comparison, injected a dose of comedic relief and playful character into the equation. The more time spent driving both cars, the stronger the preference grew for the BMW M3.
The Verdict: Soul Over Sheer Speed
The Cadillac ATS-V entered this comparison not as an underdog, but as a serious contender with a clear mission to prove its world-class sports car credentials. And in many respects, it succeeded admirably. The ATS-V emerged as the technically superior car, boasting a better chassis, suspension, brakes, and steering. In contrast, the BMW M3 held advantages in transmission refinement and a more aurally engaging engine, albeit slightly less powerful. From a purely objective, technical standpoint, the ATS-V edged out the M3.
However, the ATS-V’s clinical and somewhat sterile driving experience, coupled with a less engaging transmission, introduced doubts about its overall dominance. These doubts were further amplified by the disappointing interior, which felt more akin to a $40,000 family sedan than an $80,000 sports car. The ATS-V’s interior simply lacked the world-class refinement expected at this price point.
Ultimately, the BMW M3 emerged as the more desirable car, offering a more enjoyable driving experience and a more pleasant cabin to spend time in. It was the unanimous choice as the preferred daily driver. The M3’s performance deficit to the ATS-V in real-world driving was minimal, achieving approximately 98% of the Cadillac’s pace in our backroad test. While Cadillac may have engineered a car that is technically “2% better to drive” in certain metrics, they seemingly prioritized numerical superiority over imbuing their creation with soul and character. The execution, while technically impressive, felt clinical. Therefore, despite the Cadillac ATS-V’s undeniable strengths and technical advantages, the BMW M3 retains its crown as the king of the performance sedan segment, offering a more complete and emotionally resonant driving experience.
