2009 m3 Convertible purchase questions

I was browsing at the BMW dealership this weekend and saw a 2009 m3 convertible (space gray, DCT, tech pkg and premium pkg) It has 51,000 miles and is listed for $49,000. Car is a CPO and comes with extended warranty until 9/2015 or 100k miles.

I'm contemplating making the switch from my 2010 328i sedan, but want to know what you guys think of the car...is it a good deal? I priced the car on KBB and it shows it at around $53k.
You guys think I can negotiate price further or is it priced accurately?

Now I've done a little research online and have read that the verts weigh an additional 450lbs.
I will not be tracking the car so I'm not too worried about the marginal performance loss compared to the coupe, but I would like to hear about any long term issues with having the hardtop.....how long do hardtops typically last before they give out or need service?
What kind of maintenance (oiling hinges, gaskets, etc) would I need to perform for the hardtop to insure it doesn't leak with time? I personally prefer the look of the vert (with hard top on, not lowered) over the coupe but am nervous about potential future costly issues with a hardtop going out. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks in advance guys!

I drove an E93 335i 6MT 32K+ miles. During my time with my car, the top performed flawlessly. I understand that others have had issues with the folding top, and repairs out of warranty can be expensive. I do not know how widespread this problem is, but you might want to check out pertinent threads on the E90 Forum. In general, my E93 was a very solid, rattle free platform that provided an engaging, fun driving experience.

The E93 has been a problem free car for me and the folding hardtop, although adding weight, is better overall than my E46 soft top. I have not heard of any chronic issues with the roof, aside from infrequent posters who have had minor issues normally corrected through minor tweaks. The technology in the roof is sound and I would not worry about it or its longevity.

There is a rather well done sticky post on one of the other boards that have a very detailed guide to maintaining the top mechanism with pictures and chem product details.

As to the price, just to give you an idea, in september 2011, I bought a a fully loaded 2009 E93 with 15K miles CPO'd for 56K. I'd imagine your car is a better deal at 46-47K. FWIW

I just wanted to comment on your comment that the performance loss from the coup and sedan to the convertible is slight. The convertible performs and handles like a completely different car than the other 2 M3 models. That extra 450 lbs represents an additional 15% of weight, which cuts a full second off the 0-60 time ( from a bit over 4 seconds to over 5 seconds (a 25% increase). That makes the convertible M3 actually slower than a 335. In addition the handling takes a noticeable hit, both from the weight and the raised C/G.

The performance gap between coupe and convertible is there, but I think you are a tad exaggerated in your numbers. The E93 has about a half a second difference in virtually every 0-60 test shown shown and getting beat by a 335 does not diminish the positives of am M3 convertible. The convertible is for those who want a top down experience - that has a cost, but like everything, it is always trade offs when finding what you want.

Originally Posted by ksoze

The performance gap between coupe and convertible is there, but I think you are a tad exaggerated in your numbers. The E93 has about a half a second difference in virtually every 0-60 test shown shown and getting beat by a 335 does not diminish the positives of am M3 convertible. The convertible is for those who want a top down experience - that has a cost, but like everything, it is always trade offs when finding what you want.

I am not suggesting that there is no reason why someone wouldn't want a "top down experience", in fact I have owned a convertable for over 30 years, I'm just saying that the performance difference isn't marginal. The 0-60 times I have seen for the m3 coupe and sedan run from just under 4 seconds (DCT) to a bit over 4 seconds with a 6 speed. The times I have seen for the convertable are right around 5 seconds. I would call a 25% increase to be much more than marginal. In fact most car manufacturers would consider that much of a difference in performance to be huge in a car in the M3 performance class.

Originally Posted by captbilly

I am not suggesting that there is no reason why someone wouldn't want a "top down experience", in fact I have owned a convertable for over 30 years, I'm just saying that the performance difference isn't marginal.

Let me just add that as a convertible owner who admittedly has NOT driven the current version of the coupe, I'm far less concerned about the effect that the additional weight has on acceleration (after all, the car has plenty of power for the street) than I am about its effect on handling. Pretty much every review of the convertible said it felt like a different animal (i.e., MUCH less sharp) than the coupe, so let's not pretend otherwise. For me it's just a weekend (non-track) car and I REALLY wanted a convertible, so that was a sacrifice I was willing to make. That said, when my lease is up in three years, I'll take a very hard look at the almost 900-pound lighter Carrera S cab (assuming that my checking account doesn't slap me in the face and order me to stop looking, lol); I'm sure that by then the new electric steering system will be well-sorted.

Summary: The coupe is faster and handles better than the convertible, as expected considering the weight and balance differences.

Those differences can be perceived differently depending on your expectations - the M3 will be a poor track car and will lose more stoplight drag runs. It will however provide an open air experience at will that changes the car in a way possibly more profound than it's difference in performance or tracking ability. If those things are not of importance, than the convertible will provide less of an experience than the coupe to those who want the height of M car performance and edge of the knife feel. For me, the weight and lack of track suitability were overshadowed by the desire to trade some level of performance I may may not fully use for the open air opportunity. If I am beat by a 335 or a Mustang at a stoplight, I will get over it. Can't go wrong with either version if you know what you want.

If you love 'verts you will always have to have one, regardless of the slight performance penalty. If you don't, why bother with the extra cost and weight. N4S

We have both E92 & E93 cars, OK they are 335 not M3. The E93 is an amazing car for a drive on a nice day. They do feel slightly different the coupe does have a stiffer structure, you do feel some twisting in the E93 driving on normal roads. the M3 is an excellent car and on an open road on a nice day there is nothing like going "topless"
David

Originally Posted by logicalthought

.....That said, when my lease is up in three years, I'll take a very hard look at the almost 900-pound lighter Carrera S cab .....

Jus' for fun….

a quick fire blast vid from the past made with my iPhone during an e93 v. 911 cab debate. Admittedly the 991 is a game changer today, but the E93 remains an engaging, fun, versatile vert. Loved my E93 335iMT, but always eyed the M3 Verts with a nod,,,

As I said in my post above; There are surely all sorts of reasons why someone might want a convertible, I have owned a convertible sports car since 1980 but, in the case of the M3 coupe or sedan vs. the M3 convertible, the performance difference isn't slight. There are some cars in which the difference in weight and performance of the convertible vs. non-convertible versions is slight, but the M3 isn't one of them. If you look at the Lamborghini Gallardo you see an example of a car where the weight increase (and therefore performance decrease) of the convertible over the hard top is very small. In fact the light weight version of the convertible is actually lighter than the standard Gallardo (though the lightweight hard top Gallardo is lighter still). It is unusual for a convertible to weigh almost 500 lbs more than the hard top version of the same car, but that is the difference between an M3 convertible and an M3 coupe or sedan.

On a slightly different topic, it is interesting to note that the coupe with the carbon fiber roof only weighs 22 lbs less than the 4 door sedan with a steel roof. One would think that with 2 fewer doors, one less seat, and a carbon fiber roof, that the coupe would weigh at least a couple of hundred pounds less. I wonder if a coupe with a steel roof would actually be heavier than a sedan, because I would have guessed that with all the cost and effort required to put that carbon fiber roof on the coupe it must save more than 22 pounds. Anyone know how much a coupe with a sunroof weighs? It would be interesting to see if a coupe with a sunroof (and therefore steel roof) is actually heavier than a sedan with a sunroof.

Originally Posted by need4speed

If you love 'verts you will always have to have one, regardless of the slight performance penalty. If you don't, why bother with the extra cost and weight. N4S

Originally Posted by captbilly

As I said in my post above; There are surely all sorts of reasons why someone might want a convertible, I have owned a convertible sports car since 1980 but, in the case of the M3 coupe or sedan vs. the M3 convertible, the performance difference isn't slight. ...

I have owned a few verts, my last one being my e93 335i MT. I used to think that the car was perhaps the perfect vert - fast, engaging handling, great exhaust, and a very fine 6MT. The car provided a very sensual driving experience characterized by a sense of connectivity that fused man, machine, and the sky above. In the real world – even on lightly frequented back country/mountain roads that I am known to haunt – I found that the car's limits were significantly above what one should wisely indulge. The thought of "testing" the roll over safety pop-up device would give me pause. Dying is one thing, but the idea that I might somehow decapitate myself, or find myself a quadriplegic instilled prudence. I learned that the joy of drop top driving was not to be found in the exploration of the car's or my personal limits, but in the more romantic dimension of sensuality. Indeed, there was a point when there was just too much of a good thing - wind and noise could become so intrusive that the experience would become an endurance contest.

Although I may harbor ambivalent feelings about verts in general, there is no denying the fun factor. I am seriously contemplating adding an e93 M3 to the stable before the end of year. Tactile steering, rigid structure, room for a German shepherd and or friends, and especially the sonorous music of the v8 makes for a unique vert experience, with very few serious rivals.

Originally Posted by captbilly

As I said in my post above; There are surely all sorts of reasons why someone might want a convertible, I have owned a convertible sports car since 1980 but, in the case of the M3 coupe or sedan vs. the M3 convertible, the performance difference isn't slight. There are some cars in which the difference in weight and performance of the convertible vs. non-convertible versions is slight, but the M3 isn't one of them. If you look at the Lamborghini Gallardo you see an example of a car where the weight increase (and therefore performance decrease) of the convertible over the hard top is very small. In fact the light weight version of the convertible is actually lighter than the standard Gallardo (though the lightweight hard top Gallardo is lighter still). It is unusual for a convertible to weigh almost 500 lbs more than the hard top version of the same car, but that is the difference between an M3 convertible and an M3 coupe or sedan.

On a slightly different topic, it is interesting to note that the coupe with the carbon fiber roof only weighs 22 lbs less than the 4 door sedan with a steel roof. One would think that with 2 fewer doors, one less seat, and a carbon fiber roof, that the coupe would weigh at least a couple of hundred pounds less. I wonder if a coupe with a steel roof would actually be heavier than a sedan, because I would have guessed that with all the cost and effort required to put that carbon fiber roof on the coupe it must save more than 22 pounds. Anyone know how much a coupe with a sunroof weighs? It would be interesting to see if a coupe with a sunroof (and therefore steel roof) is actually heavier than a sedan with a sunroof.

I'll be the first one to admit that the 'vert does lose a noticeable amount of performance in exchange for the fun factor. I personally would have preferred to see a soft-top that weighs less. However, I've grown to appreciate the benefits of having a hard-top (although I would still choose a soft-top in a heartbeat).

On your other point, I've extensively test-driven both the coupe with and without the sunroof. If you can feel any difference (sub 50lbs in weight), more power to you, but I couldn't tell them apart. I am not sure if I would have done any better on a racetrack either.

While I am all for lighter cars (even at the expense of sacrificing power), I wonder how many of the coupe owners with the CF roof can exploit the weight difference. I'd be willing to bet my imaginary farm that most CF roof buyers did so for the look. If it wasn't for the look, I would also bet that the next probable reason is to able to wear a helmet, not to save weight.