the truth is revealed "Nissan is Lying"

[ruff]

Originally Posted by T Bone

What would you pick saftey + weight or a lighter car for the street?

Lighter car for the street.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ruff

The GT-R is obviously the E92 M3's direct competition.

I would say it is totally a matter of opinion. There are certainly similarities and the cars are certainly closer than a Porsche and a Honda but IMO they are not close enough to be real competitors. Why do I feel that way? Insecurity? Nope, not a bit, there will always be something faster and something better even if you drive an F car or L car. I don't think they are for a variety of reasons. As well, don't make me remind you of how much praise I have for the performance and innovation of the GT-R. This is not about the car I own "having" to be the "best". Just consider:

1. Comfort: M3 sits 4 comfortable, GT-R 2 only for sure, rear seats are not for full size adults. As well the M3 is the comfort king on ride quality compared to the GT-R even when the GT-R is in granny mode.
2. Proposed competitors by Nissan marketing. #1 is the 997TT. Perhaps though not stated explicitly #2 is the Z06. Are either of those M3 competitors.
3. Exclusivity. M3 is a reasonably high volume car for any enthusiast who can afford one. Unless Nissan is lying the GT-R numbers will be an order of magnitude less.
4. Targeted markets: I won't dive to heavily into stereo types or value judgements, but to me it is crystal clear that the cars target a different
demographic and different market. Cross over between them - surely - but different enough to be distinct.
5. Raw performance level. GT-R is so clearly >> M3.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by T Bone

What would you pick saftey + weight or a lighter car for the street?

Not what anyones loved ones would prefer and not what they themselves would prefer when/if the time comes for that big/serious accident. I came within a few inches of losing my life (escaped almost uninjured) in a near head on collision in my 1967 VW Beetle. Sure I'd love for my M3 to be much lighter but not at the expense of safety.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by gbb357

Why don't you read your own post you moron, FYI, my buddies and I in the IS forum talk and post about M3's plenty of times.

Maybe if you had any sort of comprehension skills, you would have understood what he wrote.





What exactly are you doing on bimmerpost anyways, your little IS forum too boring?

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by smmmurf

Quote:
Originally Posted by smmmurf
Underpromise and overdeliver.

The GT-R has always been underrated. Would you seriously complain if you got more power than you paid for?

Originally Posted by KINGLEH

GTR always underrated? whats your experience? u must know ALOT


the M3 has always had less then stellar performance for the money.....

WTF are you talking about? Do you know what underrated means? I think I know which side you're on and I think I'm on it too--but you clearly misinterpret what I said.

The R34 GT-R made way more power than the 276 hp that Nissan claimed due to the HP agreement in Japan. That's what I mean by underrated. The GT-R blows away the M3 in performance.

When I say underpromise and overdeliver, I'm talking about the GT-R only promising 480 horsepower but delivering over 550 in actual testing.

[footie]

Originally Posted by smmmurf

When I say underpromise and overdeliver, I'm talking about the GT-R only promising 480 horsepower but delivering over 550 in actual testing.

I think the true transmission lose is closer to 15% and not 25%, that would place it's true figure closer to 507hp, well that's if you believe dyno results anyway.

[Ramphaus]

I went to the jewelry store to buy my wife some 0.5 carat diamond earrings and the jewelor gave me 2 carats for the same price. I punched him right in the nose.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Not what anyones loved ones would prefer and not what they themselves would prefer when/if the time comes for that big/serious accident. I came within a few inches of losing my life (escaped almost uninjured) in a near head on collision in my 1967 VW Beetle. Sure I'd love for my M3 to be much lighter but not at the expense of safety.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. It is all about reward vs risk. Most people don't drive 55 either, even though it is much safer than 65 mph. I sure hope Warner doesn't get the double nickel reinstated, how about you? I also love motorcycles which could be considered a funeral waiting to happen. We all die but what price do we pay to not really live?

[Dascamel]

Originally Posted by Ramphaus

I went to the jewelry store to buy my wife some 0.5 carat diamond earrings and the jewelor gave me 2 carats for the same price. I punched him right in the nose.

+1

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by swamp2

[...]
5. Raw performance level. GT-R is so clearly >> M3.

One more data point to consider: In their August 2008 issue, C/D tests a U.S. Spec GT-R against a Z06, Viper ACR, and 911 GT2. This particular GT-R coughed up a 12.6 @ 111mph 1/4 mile pass.

So, were the early test cars supplied by Nissan "ringers", or is there some other explanation?

[E(@M#]

Originally Posted by milk242

I think everyone will keep doubting the GTR performance until a lot of owners dyno their car. This argument for the GTR will go on forever, I for one believe the GTR speeds and times at factory settings are plausible and not at all impossible.

at close to 4000lbs and trapping 120+.......?????????rofl...physics must seize to exist in front of the gt-r

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

One more data point to consider: In their August 2008 issue, C/D tests a U.S. Spec GT-R against a Z06, Viper ACR, and 911 GT2. This particular GT-R coughed up a 12.6 @ 111mph 1/4 mile pass.

So, were the early test cars supplied by Nissan "ringers", or is there some other explanation?

At least some of the early cars really had to be ringers. C & D tested another one several months back that trapped at over 124 mph, equating to something around 600 HP, barring drivetrain magic. This most recent test was a dog - the slowest test so far, by a wide margin, and the results compute to it being down about 10% from its rating. Clearly a sick specimen. Other U.S. spec samples generally show up at over 480 HP at the flywheel. Of course, nobody knows how much power is lost through the driveline on the car, so it's only an estimate.

Bruce

[leonelm3]

My 2cents


GTR
E92 M3 - I wish she had 100ft lbs more torque and was AWD
997TT - - so expensive and looks so similar 10 years ago
GT3 - - un justyfied for the price
Z06 - - competitive for the performance/price
DB9 - - beauty
VEYRON - - undeniable

[BMW-videos.com]

We'll see.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by leonelm3

E92 M3 - I wish she had 100ft lbs more torque and was AWD

Are you kidding? An AWD M3

The "lack" of torque being a significant factor at least in terms of the cars performance is an ametuerish statement at best. The "lack" of torque sure does not kill the cars 0-100 time does it? I have seen many sub 10 second test results.

[footie]

From a purely practical point of view an AWD M3 would be great, but the system would have to be close in design to that of the GTR, i.e. mostly rear wheel drive and only shifting power forward to help control excessive oversteer.

The question needed to be asked is whether anyone would have brought the GTR if it looked like an M3 and was made by BMW. My guess is quite a lot.

To the question of more toque, giving the M3 more torque would only increase the weight even more as the entire drivetrain would need beefed up to cope.

The best thing BMW could do it to mount the gearbox and diff together at the rear, this would allow the for better weight distribution and allow for a bigger engine or an engine with turbos to be used without having the concern of excessive weight at the nose. The only problem with such an idea is the lose of boot space.

[BMW335icDDS]

If I had a M3, I'd definately want Nissan to be lying because you can't justify spending 70k on a M3. Especially when the GT-R flat out destroys it. Any of you see the GT-R laptime around Top Gear's Track? Its way way beyond anything the M3 can dream of.

[KonigsTiger]

I like the Nissan lies!

[BMW-videos.com]

I do too, they're hilarious

[Krueger///M3]

Originally Posted by BMW335icDDS

If I had a M3, I'd definately want Nissan to be lying because you can't justify spending 70k on a M3. Especially when the GT-R flat out destroys it. Any of you see the GT-R laptime around Top Gear's Track? Its way way beyond anything the M3 can dream of.

What was the laptime? I can't seem to find it.

[BMW-videos.com]

Probably because it didn't happen yet :P

[jaiman]

Originally Posted by BMW-videos.com

Probably because it didn't happen yet :P

Actually, it has. The show hasn't aired, but people in the audience for the taping said the time was 1:18.9. Highlight after was to see the time in white text.

Autoblog has a story here: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/18/n...test-track-in/