See, this is the "Car and Driver" approach to car ownership. Who cares what the car is like so long as it's fast and drives nice. I much prefer the Top Gear approach. Drives nice, looks nice, built like junk, here's a better choice.
C/D's brand-new 3-series suffered a catastrophic ABS failure (not bad for the "ultimate" driving machine) at 70 mph and almost sent them flying off the highway, and it repeatedly refused to start. It won the comparison anyway. When Top Gear tested the new M5, they said warning lights started to flash as soon as they began pushing the car a bit. Their conclusion was: fast, fun, but fragile. I forget what they recommended instead but it cost about half the money.
Better options than a 3-series? Easy. Avalon Touring will blow the doors off all but the M cars. So will the Lexus IS350 (and IS300 will keep the pace with more options at $5000-$10000 less money; in fact a V-6 Accord with a stick will keep up with a 330i as well). All of these will be absolutely reliable for the next 20 years and will likely hold their value better.
Solide, after 5 years of leasing at $300/mo you will have spent $18,000. After 5 years of financing I will have spent $18000 and will own an $8000 car, so I effectively only pay $10000 or 55% of what you pay. Sure, your car will be fancier. Which means worse gas milage (adds up a $3/gal), higher registration/taxes, expensive tires, etc., so the gap grows even bigger.