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

[Tom400CFI]

Originally Posted by wraith

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

You should go back and edit the above so it's in bold. That is the most true statement on this thread. In 15 years, some clean, 1 owner GT-R will make me a sweet little Park City, UT winter-beater...and no one will know what it is, or that it's AWD....just like my '92 Stealth TT now.

[AlmosN8kd]

Originally Posted by wraith

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

Yeah, I know what you're saying and I really do agree with you. I was just a bit suprised at how well the GT-R really handled and comparing it with the technology of the VR-4/TT which is almost 20 years older. Anyhow, if they threw the G8 and/or the CTS-V into the mix then I probably would have lost all interest in the article even if the GT-R was in the review.

[95teetee]

Originally Posted by JasonY

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

So?



so as you coast down to cruising speed, waiting for the Corvette to catch up to you after the race, he's going to roll down his window and yell "yeah, but your car's heavier than mine!" and you're going to feel bad about this somehow?

[Hammer]

How many of you guys have seen this video?

YouTube - Nissan GT-R: World´s 1st Full Test - Inside Line Exclusive

These guys can drive much better than the car and driver guys can boo yaa!
Check out Edmunds 1/4 mile times compared to Car and driver.
Also the 0-60 times.
Edmunds drivers post way better times than car and driver.
So that begs the question what are car and driver guys trying to prove?

Nissan claims 0-60 in 3.5 seconds

Edmunds test
0-60 3.3 seconds
1/4 mile 11.6@121MPH

Car and Driver test BOOO! Learn how to drive guys

0-60 3.6 seconds
1/4 mile 12.1@115MPH

Lawdog in your letter to Car and Driver you should have given them the Edmund drivers times
and ask them where they learned to drive? And then Car and Driver has the nerve to run a headline
on their cover "Shocker: GUESS WHAT BEATS THE GT-R?"
Do you think they would print a retraction and a statement that they do not know how to drive a
car with a lot of buttons? Or that nearly every other auto mag reviewer can outdrive the Car and Driver test drivers.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by AlmosN8kd

Yeah, I know what you're saying and I really do agree with you. I was just a bit suprised at how well the GT-R really handled and comparing it with the technology of the VR-4/TT which is almost 20 years older. Anyhow, if they threw the G8 and/or the CTS-V into the mix then I probably would have lost all interest in the article even if the GT-R was in the review.

That is really saying a lot. For example if Nissan can get that much road handling and braking and acceleration out of that heavy car then why can't
BMW and or Porsche do the same with their much lighter cars? Come on guys pound for pound the BMW and the Porsche should be able to beat the GT-R
but they can't. Not even the new ZR1 Vette built for racing is good enough but it is much lighter.
That is what this is about the engeneering is impressive in the GT-R. Now if only the rest of the car companies can catch up. Hear that guys you are being beat by what used to be Datsun!

[LVA3KGT]

Originally Posted by lawdogg

I wrote them some hate mail.

That

Was

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JasonY]

LOL! If the race is 0-60 anyway after that the GTR is at a disadvantage. I already know you hate the Vette sooooooo much so dont even go there.

I dont think ANYWHERE have i ever discredited the GTRs performance, it delivers, but the nutswinging is nauseating.

Jason

Originally Posted by 95teetee

So?



so as you coast down to cruising speed, waiting for the Corvette to catch up to you after the race, he's going to roll down his window and yell "yeah, but your car's heavier than mine!" and you're going to feel bad about this somehow?

[cbehnken]

Originally Posted by JasonY

LOL! If the race is 0-60 anyway after that the GTR is at a disadvantage. I already know you hate the Vette sooooooo much so dont even go there.

I dont think ANYWHERE have i ever discredited the GTRs performance, it delivers, but the nutswinging is nauseating.

Jason

the vette nutswinging is a lot more nauseating since it is not #1 performance wise anymore.

I swear the GTR could run 8's on street tires off the dealer lot and there'd still be a crowd here grabbing onto even the C5's nuts.

[Kibwe Walker]

I will definitely have the popcorn ready for when the vspec model is tested.

[cbehnken]

Originally Posted by Kibwe Walker

I will definitely have the popcorn ready for when the vspec model is tested.

what difference does it make? If it weighs 1 more pound than a vette its a piece of shit, right?