M3 beats GT-R and Porsche turbo in C&D comparison test
 

What a bunch of baloney!!


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...el350/a1-1.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/Diesel350/A2.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/Diesel350/a3.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/Diesel350/a4.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/Diesel350/a5.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/Diesel350/a6.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/Diesel350/a7.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/Diesel350/a8.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/Diesel350/a9.jpg

LMAO!

Violin plays in background for GTR nuthuggers...

BTW-even funnier is the 12.1 @ 115mph 1/4 time. I believe most preproduction crazy #'s were obviously massaged to impress. I have yet to see a production GTR trap over 120mph.

I agree with the poster on that thread who said BMW probably contributes too much money to C&D. There is no way the GT-R could possibly lose that comparison. Sorry C&D = FAIL.

I don't buy it.

Isn't C&D the same magazine that ran an 11.6 in another article. Hell, if it runs that, who cares so much about trap speed.

As much as I hate the nuthugging, you're only doing the opposite :dunno:

The scan of the article is sideways and I can't read it.

Hey Blasian, http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/a...ies/cliffs.gif

Basically the M3 had the worst performance overall but won overall. It seems to be one of those "let's compare high performance cars but we chose this because it has more room" type of articles :icon14:

+1. :icon22:

C&D, as I recall in a comparison btwn 350Z RX-8 & Mustang the RX-8 won while the Z was deducted points for not having back seats/roomy trunk and interior.

Plus everyone @ C&D worshiped BMW.

Thank God I have a tilting monitor.

Anyways, that comparison was utter ********. The M3 should've been dead last. How are things like storage/trunk space and back seat the least bit relevant when comparing sports cars? Christ. That BS is the same reason why C&D has bashed the Z time and time again, by proclaiming the RX8 is a better car, when it failed in nearly every other comparison to the Z.

C&D makes their biases clear by openly stating that there was something wrong with their GT-R, they said another one they had tested afterward wasn't giving them the same problems. So they continued to conduct the test with a problematic car?! Journalistic horsesh*t at its best.

Considering the love-fest they gave the GT-R in a recent road test, I find this VERY surprising. Looking forward to getting this in issue in the mail very soon to read it. I have no problem with who they pick, as long as they clearly state why.

STOCK GTR Runs 11.1 @ 124mph

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU_EUvR4RW4

That GT-R isn't stock.

One more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uscFb01uCOQ

Reminds me of when they tested a 3-series (before the 335 was available) against a '07 G35 sedan back in late 2006. The G35 sedan won the majority of the performance tests but the 3-series won overall.

True, it did have a Haltech ECU.

Quote:"This is our 100% stock R35 GTR in full trim and a full tank of pump fuel - the only modification made was the addition of the Haltech ECU, the full stock exhaust is still in place
Not a bad effort for the first time this car has been driven at the track. Next up - a 10 second pass"

I have a thread with the dyno sheet :)

Werd :icon17:

Even if it that 11.1 time was stock (and it isn't), Car and Driver can't be expected to take that time... they have to compare the times THEY get for all the cars, on the same day, same track, same conditions.

Apples to apples, people.

its not like the m3 is chopped liver. Its getting to the point where all of these cars do what they do SO WELL thats its hard to chose which is better unless clearly defining what that better is.

I canceled my C&D subscription some time ago. Their magazine sucks.

I have that issue of C&D, and I remember saying out loud, "WHAT THE FUUUUCK?!?!?!?!"

This is no shock really. It seems like most mags have a love affair with BMW. If you guys remember apporximately 20 years ago, they use to bash mainly American cars for poor performance specs. Then, when the Japanese & American cars started matching or exceeding the performance euro specs of cars like BMW, they claimed it was driving feel that made them superior. Now, even with much better performance specs, the BMW's still win these comparisions.

I think every magazine should have to post what cars the testers personally own and it would be nice if they posted the amount each car magazine spent in advertisement. My bet is more testers own G35's then 3 series BMW's etc. because they got to buy the car that is the best value for the dollar. The truth be known, many most likely own neither and are more likely to own a 2000 Civic and their wife drives a 2006 dodge minivan.

People that advertise in those magazines are not happy when a magazine slams their product. It appears to me that it is a win-win situation for the writers of C& D to show the Nissan out perform the BMW by specs while stating how nice the BMW feels to drive. In that way, the magazine saves face with both Nissan & BMW thus making both advertisers happy.

I could be wrong about this, just my 2 cents....

I would have no problem owning either one of them.

LOL! Since when has a turbo'd car with an ECU modification been anywhere near stock.

The "only" modification is a huge understatement for a turbo'd car, as that can give any boosted car massive power upgrades.

.

If I remember right, that's what was the winning factor for the 3-series vs. the 07 G35 sedan.

You are probably not too far off. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

:icon14:

And you obviously don't have a clue why.

C&D sucks BMW's d*** on a regular basis. I could have told you the result long before reading the article.

It's getting pretty silly these days.

Bottom line: Those three cars are different enough that a magazine wouldn't sway my opinion. The M3 isn't even in the same league...at some point either you want AWD or you don't.

Back seat comfort? I mean, really? There's points for that ****? I guess that means the M3 4 door would score even HIGHER!

BMW does it again. Could we expect anything less from such a superior car company?

m3's are f*ckin nice.. without a doubt.. i love bmw.. and lets not compare the GTR just for us nissan biased people...

but M3 > 911 Turbo????! :thinking: :ugh2:

Scoring shouldve been reversed if anything..
1- 911
2- GTR
3- M3

Fail...

+10000000000

Actually it should be GT-R, Turbo, M3. The GT-R is by far a better performing car than the 911 Turbo.

The GTR is a great car but speed isn't everything. Fact is, C&D just found the M3 to be a better all-around car than the GTR. Even if you take away the whole portion that scores the interior, comfort, and fit-and-finish, the BMW still wins on ride quality and being funner to drive. I was honestly surprised that the 911 was that far behind in the scoring more than the fact that the M3 beat the GTR. I suppose being nearly double the price and having a tiny interior doesn't win comparison tests.

One stat that really popped out at me was the 30-50 acceleration. The M3 was 2 seconds faster than the GTR with a 7.7 second time. The 911 had a 9.0 second time. The M3 was also 0.1 seconds faster from 50-70. Granted all of this is top gear acceleration, and who's in 6th when trying to accelerate from 30 or 50?

I don't doubt that these magazines have their bias, but BMW has proven to be consistent at putting great cars on the road. Nissan is still catching up in that regard and if the GTR is any indication, they're catching up fast.

which is why I like Topgear :)

(terrible post)

but other than that comment I felt the need to make, if you squint hard you can see that the M3 is gear limited to 160 while the Porsche and GTR are both electronically limited to 189 and 190 (or thereabouts). the NA instant hit and much higher gearing obviously gave it the advantage there.

I wonder what cruising speeds are in those cars @ 60mph.

and honestly, from everything I have seen on the M3, BMW lost it with this model (and it's ugly as sin).

Here you go again. It's not all about performance. I love the GTR, but I'd take the 911 Turbo over the GTR.

.

serious? i don't care much about the gtr but i thought there was a vid of a stock running 11.5 or something like that. the halthech ran 11.1 i believe.

If you didn't have to squint, which I don't since I have the magazine in front of me, you'd see that the M3 is limited to 160 by a governor, while the GTR and 911 are redline limited to 191 and 185 respectively. The M3 should redline at about 187 mph in 6th.

The top gear acceleration times are likely due to the fact that turbo cars aren't making great power when in 6th gear at 30 mph.

RPMs @ 60mph for each car are probably around 2650 for the M3, 2200 for the GTR, and 2150 for the 911, based on the MPH/1000rpm chart on page 62.

I agree the the M3 has been going in the wrong direction for most of us, but it's probably working out for BMW. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they sold more E36s than E30s, more E46s than E36s, and that they'll sell more E92s than E46s.

All three cars pretty much have their own strengths and weaknesses, not to mention different personalities entirely to me, so IMO it would be a matter of personal preference. Given the choice I'd take the GTR or the M3.

+1

stock gt-r runs 11.7 with launch control. 12.6 without.

funny how top gear and everyone else that did this comparison gave it to the gt-r.

Well let me ask you this: What does the Turbo have over the GT-R that justifies its 50k higher pricetag?

Looks, to be honest, though that's a very subjective answer. I'm not entirely sold on the shape of the GTR while I'm absolutely in love with how the 911 looks. We'll have to see what the aftermarket brings out for the GTR because the difference in price leaves a lot of room for goodies on the GTR.

You are bring up a point I have suggested before that a lot of die-hard Nissan people dont want to hear which is the GT-R is not good looking to many people, especially not people that favor Nissan and hope they build a car that will compete with exotics.

I know the GT-R is tyying to take in the heritiage of previous GT-R models but in my opinion, there is not much about any of the GT-R's that are exceptional regarding body style.

If it was me, I would simply design the best looking car I could knowing the Nissan type owners would most likely buy it regardless and that it would open up the door to others that have never owned a Nissan in their life.

Not that I don't like M3's...but lets look at something here:

M3 is last in: (Objective)

Top Speed
MPG
1/4 mile time
Rolling start time
braking
the Road course
skid pad G's

M3 mostly wins in subjective (It did do best in the lane change)....in other words, stuff that is based on OPINIONS. So take it for what it's worth.

Personally, I'd take the 911 if cost wasn't an issue. I'd take the GTR if it was my money...and I'd take the M3 if it was on sale or I couldn't get a GTR.

50k for just looks? Let's be realistic now...

http://bc.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/BL...82005_1666.jpg

The GT-R getting bad press makes baby Jesus cry...

It's not entirely looks, but it plays a big part. Both cars offer exceptional performance. It's not like the GTR is leaps and bounds faster than the 911. If it were my money, which it won't be for a long time, I'd actually get the 911 GT3 over any of the above.

If I had to choose between the GTR and the M3, I truly might end up choosing the M3, in four-door trim. As of right now, I don't go to the track so everyday comfort is more important to me than all-out performance. You also can't deny the intoxicating sound of that BMW V8.

Looks
Prestige
Panache
Cache


The list goes on and on....