What a bunch of baloney!!

 

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

 

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

Hey Blasian,

 

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

 

+1.

 

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

 

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.