Car and Driver says M3 > GT-R & 911 Turbo

[wraith]

Originally Posted by JasonY

I dont think anyone with a brain between their ears would argue that the M3 performs on a track better than the GTR.

Being faster on a track means NOTHING to me, and i wouldnt drive either of my 80k cars in the rain and snow so i dont give a damn about the "crazy wet slalom" driving people do on their way into work. Id be afraid to be near anyone in a car that exceeds the limits of traction of wet roads in packed traffic.

If all anyone here cared about was running a track, i think the Vette pretty much owns all of these cars when properly and relatively lightly modified. But i forgot, the interior sucks Might as well completely discount the Vette then.

I cant grasp how all these people on here are so GD stuck on raw performance when you own a car that doesnt excell at ANYTHING but being a great all around car. Much like the M3 is a better all around car than the other two cars. I just dont see why whenever 2 or more cars are compared it has to be its 1/4 mile time, its lap time, wtf ever it runs the ring in. Something 1 of ever 500(likey far more) people will even do with these cars.

Jason

I dont know about you, but on my way into NYC every day, people daily drive $80k cars like they are Camrys so yah, I want my $80k car to do back flips, not sit in the garage and depreciate so some other guy can buy it for half price in two years from me and get a car I never drove for my $40k loss. I agree about the track performance, but as much as I hate the hype Top Gear magazine already reviewed these cars and said the GTR was just as great on the street as the track. However, the reason I even mentioned the AWD because IMO that trumps the bigger back seat of the BMW and I might add, that most people drive alone or with one other person, so the back seat is more of a big car convenience then a necessity in any of these vehicles. Also, my VR-4 has 130k miles on it simply because I can use the car all year around when it was my daily driver and it still gets me to work in the snow when the Pontiac cant go anywhere.
Maybe its just my opinion, but you garage cars like Ferraris, Porsches, and Lambos. My VR-4 was almost $50k back in the day (kind of like these $70k cars today) and I would be lucky to get 10k for it low mileage or high, spotless or rusted. These cars will be nothing different in 10 years, so I would rather drive the shit out of it.

Sam

[Kibwe Walker]

Originally Posted by JasonY

I dont think anyone with a brain between their ears would argue that the M3 performs on a track better than the GTR.

Being faster on a track means NOTHING to me, and i wouldnt drive either of my 80k cars in the rain and snow so i dont give a damn about the "crazy wet slalom" driving people do on their way into work. Id be afraid to be near anyone in a car that exceeds the limits of traction of wet roads in packed traffic.

If all anyone here cared about was running a track, i think the Vette pretty much owns all of these cars when properly and relatively lightly modified. But i forgot, the interior sucks Might as well completely discount the Vette then.

I cant grasp how all these people on here are so GD stuck on raw performance when you own a car that doesnt excell at ANYTHING but being a great all around car. Much like the M3 is a better all around car than the other two cars. I just dont see why whenever 2 or more cars are compared it has to be its 1/4 mile time, its lap time, wtf ever it runs the ring in. Something 1 of ever 500(likey far more) people will even do with these cars.

Jason

You got and missed it all at the same time.

Our cars show their biased just the same. Just like how our cars have great all round performance and feel, I don't think the 3s ever won a comparison, solely because its competitors edged it out in performance, flip the script and now that the BMW is involved forget performance its all about the subjective stuff. If they were the same in all comparison no one could say anything but they aren't. They pick and choose based on who is involved.

I remember the RSX type S winning the sub compact shootout a couple of years back and the srt4 crushed it in every single performance category. I for one don't really care about the subjective stuff because I can do that for myself. I don't care how you or anyone else feels about a car that I am going to purchase and drive, that I can decide for myself.

What takes no decision is how it stacks up performance wise and if all I cared about was performance I wouldn't be driving a 3s. Thats what I am looking for. I don't know about you but I usually skip all the mumbo jump and go straight to the charts with numbers, then I go back for the laughs at how they came to that conclusion. Nothing against the BMW as I like them but how it can come 1st in a comparison against 2 other cars that can out perform it is down right laughable and the justification is subjective rather than objective.

[JasonY]

Oh and for the record, i dont even like the new M3, i dislike the GTR more and the new 911 Turbo is disapointing.

I drive my cars, but i also take care of them obcessivly. Maybe i value how much work went into aquiring my cars and dont want to ruin it by just running it into the ground.

I guess its really preference, so im not gonna ramble on about all of this anymore, since i dont want either of the 3 cars anyway, i guess its of no concern to me anyway I just with the GTR fanboi'ism would die down on this forum though, its mind numbing.

Jason

[wraith]

Originally Posted by AlmosN8kd

With the GTR weighing nearly 3900lbs, I was waiting for a repeat of the infamous: "it feels like I'm driving a whale" comment. Aparently Nissan figured out what Mitsubishi could not.

Mitsubishi did what BMW did with the M3. It made a car which might not do any of the things as well as the leaders but did enough of the right things to make it a better street driver. However, when the VR-4 was tested, they never proclaimed it the winner because of its positives. They just dwelled on its performance numbers and called it an also ran. On the other hand, C&D and R&T are magazines that posers read to think they are car saavy, so what they did, was took a vehicle that they have always liked and made it the winner because of non-performance aspects that might be said of the Pontiac G8 if you threw that in this test...........but then they could say it would win bang for buck since its 1/2 the price. Maybe it would come out on top because it has two extra doors for easy access for passengers LOL. You know what, maybe they should have goten their hands on a 2009 CTS-V and threw that in there for comparison. Sure, it might not handle as well as the rest, but I am sure it would still come out as well as the M3 did against the other two and then they could say its the winner because it has more cup holders and has an awesome supercharger whine

[PumpGasVR4]

Originally Posted by JasonY

I dont think anyone with a brain between their ears would argue that the M3 performs on a track better than the GTR.

Being faster on a track means NOTHING to me, and i wouldnt drive either of my 80k cars in the rain and snow so i dont give a damn about the "crazy wet slalom" driving people do on their way into work. Id be afraid to be near anyone in a car that exceeds the limits of traction of wet roads in packed traffic.

If all anyone here cared about was running a track, i think the Vette pretty much owns all of these cars when properly and relatively lightly modified. But i forgot, the interior sucks Might as well completely discount the Vette then.

I cant grasp how all these people on here are so GD stuck on raw performance when you own a car that doesnt excell at ANYTHING but being a great all around car. Much like the M3 is a better all around car than the other two cars. I just dont see why whenever 2 or more cars are compared it has to be its 1/4 mile time, its lap time, wtf ever it runs the ring in. Something 1 of ever 500(likey far more) people will even do with these cars.

Jason

Discussing modified versions isn't really fair. If you want to talk about that, then let's discuss modding the GT-R as well. Several tuning companies in Japan are already reporting that GT-Rs are capable of over 600hp BPU. Now strip out the interior and several hundred pounds of useless crap, and the GT-R would be even faster, same as a modified Z06 would be faster than stock. But that's dumb. Let's stick to stock vs. stock for comparisons sake.

In the Road & Track comparo the GT-R lapped over 5 seconds per lap faster than either the 911 Turbo or the Z06 it was compared against. And the Z06 is arguably a more track-focused car than the GT-R. In the real world on back roads, especially in less-than-ideal conditions, the gap is even larger. Not to mention the fact that the GT-R laps the Ring considerably faster than even the ZR1, let alone the Z06. I know it might hurt your feelings, but the GT-R is brutally fast and has lived up to it's pre-release hype as a performance car. Period.

As far as tactile feel, why do you think the GT-R is just going to be an uninspiring tool for going fast and nothing more? I've read every GT-R article I can and this C&D comparo is the first so far to say that it was anything less than a delight to drive. Here's a quote from EVO magazine issue 116:

"...Is the GT-R fun and involving though? There's a definite sense that it has been engineered and honed to make it's spectacular performance and ground-covering pace exploitable. The car's precision ride control, immense grip and incisive steering response help maintain it's composure and instill confidence in it's driver, yet they also connect you with what's going on. You can feel the GT-R dealing with the road, the subtle shifts in it's balance under power, the moment when the front has lost grip(quickly learning that keeping your foot in when that happens in the wet will bring a snap of oversteer requiring a stab of opposite lock). You can appreciate the steering's response, but also how un-nervous the car feels when it snaps to an input. So while the GT-R doesn't feel as dynamically malleable as, say, a 911(and doesn't need to be), or as deliciously tactile, it's far from numb, far from inert. You can enjoy it's effortless precision at a lazy lope or at full speed."

And:

"...If it's speed you crave, this car delivers it by the skipload. But of course sheer pace isn't all we look for in a car; sometimes you might want to enjoy other sensations - like craftsmanship, engineering and soul, to name just three. This, for me, is what makes the new GT-R truly special. The first time I sat in a GT-R back in September last year, it wasn't the extraordinary performance claims that impressed me most, it was the sheer quality of the thing, from the leather in the cabin to the bespoke engineering. It was obvious no money had been spared in it's development. Now we've driven it, we know this integrity runs right through it. This Nissan GT-R really is a Veyron-sized upset for the current performance car market."

So there you go. No, it might not be quite as involving as a 911, however; it's still a tactile joy according to this and other articles in major magazines. So don't make the mistake of thinking it's just a soul-less tool for speed.

[JasonY]

Its easy to run a track fast when the car was practically built on it and was built to run it fast. The "ring" is being whored out as a marketers wet dream.

Strip several hundred lbs from the GTR? it would still be heavier than a base Vette.

If GM wanted to build teh ZR1 just to run the ring, they would make it anniholate(since we are talking mere seconds, interpret that how u will) teh GTR and the Evo one or w/e with relative ease. Its a better platform, period.

To say a Vette is more track focused than the GTR is LAUGHABLE. The Vette in all trims is too street oreinted really for what its capable of. Have you even driven a Vette? They are quite soft around the edges in stock form, even the Z06 where its somewhat harsh(smoother than my old VR4 on tiens) due to its steam rollers out back.

The GTR also misses one thing which i will never part from in a performance car, 3 pedals on the floor and 5/6 gears manually linked to the transmission.

Jason

[wraith]

Originally Posted by JasonY

The GTR also misses one thing which i will never part from in a performance car, 3 pedals on the floor and 5/6 gears manually linked to the transmission.

Jason

This is what turned me off to the car. I think Nissan should build one for $50k without the DSG so some of us middle class wage earners can own one. It might be a tad slower in the wrong hands, but I am thinking the handiling isn't going to suffer much from giving it a clutch pedal.

[PumpGasVR4]

Originally Posted by JasonY

Its easy to run a track fast when the car was practically built on it and was built to run it fast. The "ring" is being whored out as a marketers wet dream.

Strip several hundred lbs from the GTR? it would still be heavier than a base Vette.

If GM wanted to build teh ZR1 just to run the ring, they would make it anniholate(since we are talking mere seconds, interpret that how u will) teh GTR and the Evo one or w/e with relative ease. Its a better platform, period.

To say a Vette is more track focused than the GTR is LAUGHABLE. The Vette in all trims is too street oreinted really for what its capable of. Have you even driven a Vette? They are quite soft around the edges in stock form, even the Z06 where its somewhat harsh(smoother than my old VR4 on tiens) due to its steam rollers out back.

The GTR also misses one thing which i will never part from in a performance car, 3 pedals on the floor and 5/6 gears manually linked to the transmission.

Jason

LOL designed to run fast at the Ring? You are aware that GM uses the Nurburgring very extensively for testing and developing it's performance cars too right? Not to mention the fact that GM is the very company that started this whole automotive craze of using "developed at the Nurburgring" in it's marketing. You didn't really hear too much about this, at least not in the US, until a few years ago when Cadillac made a big deal about it's CTS-V being developed on the Ring. GM even built a private development racetrack in Michigan to replicate the Nurburgring conditions as much as possible for use with all their new vehicles. If any company has something to lose in terms of marketing with their Ring lap times, it's GM. So don't even try to say that Nissan is using this as a crutch because GM does exactly the same thing with their performance cars. It is an equal playing field because both manufacturers care about their Ring lap times and development, the GT-R just happens to do a better job in this instance.

And GM and Chevrolet themselves have said that the Z06 is the hardcore vette designed for people interested in track days. You might think it's not designed for the track, but GM disagrees with you. I wonder who's right? Some random guy on teh intarwebs or the people that designed and built the car? Hmm...

Also, how dare you have the gaul to say that the Vette is just unequivocally the better platform? The GT-R hasn't even been around long enough yet to have serious modifications performed, and already you're proclaiming it to be the inferior platform? Huh? I'm not saying it's superior though. If you look back through my post history you'll see I have a deep love for the Z06 and the GT-R, as well as, ironically, BMWs and Porsches. I really don't care one way or the other who "wins". I just call it as I see it. And right now it's too early to be proclaiming the GT-R platform as superior or inferior to the Vette or any other major modern day performance car.

One thing is absolutely clear and not up for debate though; stock-for-stock, the GT-R is the all-around faster vehicle, period.

[lawdogg]

Originally Posted by JasonY

You could build a Civic to run circles around all 3 of those cars for less money, in every single category.

Jason

I was actually going to mention this exactly in my letter but decided not to for fear of losing focus. But I agree.

[boy_genius94]

M3=295ft lb torque........