I don't necessarily disagree with your point that some reviewers may be biased, but you have to be careful not to fall into the same trap. For example, if you want to compare the Model 3 to the BMW 3 series, it seems to me the 340i is the one to compare to, since it has a very similar base price as the first production Model 3. Then suddenly the Beemer "trounces" the Model 3 on 0-60 acceleration (haven't looked up the other numbers). It also arguably has a much more substantial interior, better noise insulation (including an acoustic windshield), a smoother ride, probably better build quality, and a lot of the options available that people are missing on the Model 3 (such as Carplay/Android Auto, top-down camera view, much cheaper ACC, more color/wheel choices etc.). Be honest with yourself: If the 340i had a Tesla logo and Tesla drive train, would you really prefer the current Model 3 over it? I know I wouldn't. I don't think it helps anyone (least of all Tesla) if we ignore and/or downplay some of the not-so-stellar aspects of the car.
I used the 330i because C&D directly referenced it. The better comparison is the 330e which the Model 3 thoroughly trounces especially with price factored in - the C&D as tested 330e was $62,345. Remember, we are comparing without any tax incentives too.
Comparing against the 340i... the sound levels as tested by C&D is almost identical. The Model 3 is slightly quieter than the 340i. The 340i is quicker with 0-60 at 4.8 versus 5.1 and it is definitely faster at the 1/4 mile. But again, the Tesla was tested at substantially lower temperatures. Also note the passing times... and we really don't even talk about energy efficiency. The C&D as tested price on the 340i was $58,420, but it doesn't have anything like EAP on it.
Compared to the 330e, the Model 3 is substantially quicker, less expensive, lighter, more energy efficient, far higher all electric range, far higher performance on electric, and about the same on skidpad, noise levels and braking. Again, the Model 3 was tested at substantially lower temperatures.
The Model 3 goes head to head against the best ICE vehicles, no apology needed. The Bolt does not. But Car and Driver somehow says the Bolt is the Model 3's closest competitor. It isn't even close. The Bolt is tested against a curve with much lower expectations. The Model 3 doesn't get that benefit. And we should note just how close the Model 3 comes, without tax incentives, against the best small and mid-sized luxury sport sedans available, winning some categories, losing some, but well within reach across the board.
Furthermore, there we haven't really gotten to some of the most important aspects of BEVs. Most important is the battery pack, including cell degradation, charging capability, and charging network as well as production capability and cost. Here is where the Tesla shines the most against the competition. It has historically the best battery packs, the best charging capability in both AC and DC options, and the best charging network in both AC and DC options. Compare against the BMW 330e PHEV's performance as an EV. Or the Bolt or upcoming Kona EV's slow DCFC capability. Or DCFC network, of which some of the up front price pays a part.
Therefore, you can't just say a BMW 3 series with a Tesla drivetrain. Part of the whole issue is the logistical and technological advances necessary to make the Model 3 happen at all. And BMW doesn't have what it takes currently to make a Model 3 and launch it.