Nissan GT-R Nurburgring time - 7:38

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I stand by what I previously said that the new GTR HAS a more advanced awd system, suspension and gearbox than the EVO X.

Again it would be great if you could list the specific reasons why you claim this to be true. The statement caused me the exact same suspicions for the exact same reasons I have already just posted about.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by InJapan

You forgot the $1400 for the 19" wheels, the GT-R has leather extending over the dash on the drivers side.. so it's equal to the extended leather on the M3 which should be $2100. Also you would need the full Premium package at $2500 because of the Bluetooth and all the other electronic bells.

I will give you the 19's but the extended leather is pushing it a bit. It one car really all that different than another when you leave off $2k worth of having a little bit more area covered by leather? Also a big part of the cost of Premium is the extended leather so you can't count that twice. Another reason Premium should not be in the comparison is becuase it comes with a bunch of trim choices which are not available in the GT-R.

So my revised list would be:

ZTP: ~$3.5k (Technology package, mostly for the Nav)
Leather: ~$1.5k (not extended leather)
DCT: ~$3k
19s: ~1.5k
Total: $67.5

In the end it will likely be possible to spec an M3 out at an equal or greater price than the GT-R.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

I have to completely disagree with that statement that you don't have to drive a car to know how it "feels". When people are talking about how a car "feels" when driving it, they're not neccessarily talking about it in technical terms or literally, it's deeper than that. It's about the emotion that is involved while driving a car. The emotion part that you're going through is what makes a car feel special. That's something you can't analyze just by doing the math or science. It's like saying you don't have to taste the food to know how it taste. Or even worse, it's like saying you don't need to have sex to know how it feels to have sex. Okay, maybe that's going too far, LOL. You get my point. I do appreciate the fact that you are very passionate about the engineering and science part about cars. I think most people don't have that intricate knowledge about cars unlike you and some of the other members here does. And it's quite entertaining.

Originally Posted by gbb357

If you can speculate on something that has never been on the road before and you've never driven at all and make bold praises about it, why can't anybody else do it. You said it yourself that you don't have to drive it to know how it "feels". I'll agree that calling it the most advance car ever is a bit of a stretch. But it is and will be one of the most advance car available on the market soon.

I have spoken in the past about predicting the performance and feeling the performance of a car through math and science for FEATURES, not for the whole car. I stand by this argument that there are certain aspects of a car that you can "feel" or know, not in full but in quite some detail, through the use of science, math and maybe some past experience (say DCT vs. SMG - not a huge stretch). Furthermore you absoutely do need to drive any car to fully know it and feel it, no arguments then nor now about this. I never said anything different. However, predicting how some particular featrure may feel is vastly different that speculating about some grand claim such as footie did (and has since stepped away from). That is simply apples to orangnes and is comparing pure speculation to a theory informed by science and past experience.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Again it would be great if you could list the specific reasons why you claim this to be true. The statement caused me the exact same suspicions for the exact same reasons I have already just posted about.

Can you explain why it isn't the case. Because based on previous versions the GTR has more advance everything and this time round everything is new unlike the EVO which is only a remake of an old model.....oh yes and with a DSG gearbox.

[footie]

Swamp,

A direct question to you.

Do you believe for one single moment that the M3 is anywhere close to the capabilities of the GTR and remotely a true rival to the car?

I can understand brand loyalty but if you do you will be taking it to the extreme.

[gbb357]

....What kind of proof do you exactly have that the GTR is not more advanced than the Evo X. I'm talking about the 4wd system of course in comparison to the Evo X and the M3 as well in other aspects. Let's not bring in the Bugatti's and Ferrari's into this. I'm basically saying that we are all speculating base on the data that we have and that's provided to us by the media and the manufacturers. And also, i base it on educated guess and logical reasoning and common sense, not that it will prove anything factual, but it's enough to have a reasonable speculation. Basically what i'm saying is there is little doubt in my mind that the $70k GTR is more or should be more advanced than the $30k Evo X. I have no data to prove this whatsoever and i can be completely wrong, but logic would suggest that this might be true. Compare to the M3 is entirely a different story because now you're comparing a prestige brand that holds more value in it's name alone than any of the technology that is in the GTR.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Swamp,

A direct question to you.

Do you believe for one single moment that the M3 is anywhere close to the capabilities of the GTR and remotely a true rival to the car?

I can understand brand loyalty but if you do you will be taking it to the extreme.

Come on guys footie and gbb357. Time for a reality check.

I did not make the bloody claim in the first place nor did I claim that the M3 nor Evo is more technically advanced than the GT-R. The M3 and how much I like it are 100% irrelevant here. In fact, I absolutely do not believe the M3 is as technically advanced as the GT-R nor will it be a close competitor in most performance contests. My opinion here is simply not the key issue though. How many times do I have to say it YOU (footie) MADE A CLAIM, I AM CALLING YOU ON IT AND SIMPLY ASKING FOR A SHRED OF PROOF (make that two claims now, and counting...). If you have no proof then your claim is hot air. Simple.

[footie]

swamp,

Clearly you have a much different opinion on the EVO's abilities than myself. I take it you have owned one and so know more about what it can and cannot do.

As for what should make the GTR more advanced, some things we know already are as follows

This car has gearbox/diff etc all housed in a transaxle at the back of the car which is something the EVO doesn't have. Secondly it is using electronic dampers developed in association with Bilstein which again the EVO doesn't have. This car also has a V6 Twin-turbo engine while the EVO has basically the same engine it has used for the last God knows how many versions.

I seriously don't know where to start with the differences between the two, if you are under the impression that the EVO is as advanced then who am I to tell you that you are wrong, I only have my opinions based on what I have read and my experiences based on previous versions of both cars.

I believe as some others might that you argue for arguments sake and on almost every subject looking at the amount of threads you are currently active on. I don't doubt your knowledge on lots of things mechanical but that don't not mean that everyone has to agree with you just because you say it's so.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

swamp,

Clearly you have a much different opinion on the EVO's abilities than myself. I take it you have owned one and so know more about what it can and cannot do.

As for what should make the GTR more advanced, some things we know already are as follows

This car has gearbox/diff etc all housed in a transaxle at the back of the car which is something the EVO doesn't have. Secondly it is using electronic dampers developed in association with Bilstein which again the EVO doesn't have. This car also has a V6 Twin-turbo engine while the EVO has basically the same engine it has used for the last God knows how many versions.

I seriously don't know where to start with the differences between the two, if you are under the impression that the EVO is as advanced then who am I to tell you that you are wrong, I only have my opinions based on what I have read and my experiences based on previous versions of both cars.

I believe as some others might that you argue for arguments sake and on almost every subject looking at the amount of threads you are currently active on. I don't doubt your knowledge on lots of things mechanical but that don't not mean that everyone has to agree with you just because you say it's so.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE EVO (new Evo X by the way) NOR ABOUT MY OPINIONS OF THE EVO (nor the M3)! My only point about the Evo X is that its S-AWC, ACD, AYC and DCT drivetrain systems very much rival/compete against the GT-R in many ways. I NEVER CLAIMED THE EVO WAS MORE TECHNICALLY ADVANCED THAN THE GT-R. My god, sometimes communicating with you is such an enormous challenge.

The rear transaxle is an innovation but simply more of a placement/weight balance innovation than a technical break through or technical innovation. Active dampers are something the GT-R has that the Evo X doesn't but is not really something you can use to claim the GT-R is so technically advanced. Other cars have had these features for years, probably a decade plus actually.

I have said it time and time again and it is simply this: You made a bold, brash and unsubtantiated claim and I called you on it. Now you can not provide the evidence to back up your claim. Case closed. Let someone else step in and present what may subtantiate your claim, just because you can not substantiate it does not indeed mean the claim is not true. I just can not figure why you keep changing the topic, making this about me, the M3 or the Evo. Hmmm on further examination I guess it is simple: you got called and can not support your claim and it sucks for you.

Call it what you will but pointing out bold unsubstantiated claims and searching for the justification and evidence for such claims is a service to any board governed by the common rules of presentation, discussion and debate and for those truly interested in knowledge. I know many others here like epacy, lucid and southlight will agree 100% with this. Sorry it is not the particular way you like to debate or discuss. Have fun in your world of false beliefs without EVIDENCE to back them up.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

My god, sometimes communicating with you is such an enormous challenge.

Trust me swamp, I reckon we all feel the same way about you.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Trust me swamp, I reckon we all feel the same way about you.

Yes you are right. All I am known here for are the following:

-false claims
-being motivated by brand over innovation
-lack of detail and clarity in my posts
-inability to back up my claims with facts
-inablity to see an agrument through to the end
-a poor technical understanding of performance cars
-no novel posts bringing any new/timely/useful/insightful news, opinion nor analysis to m3post.com

Absolutely LMFAO

I suggest you look in the mirror.

[footie]

Sorry to push this, but what hard facts do you bring to the table and don't say simulations because they are just that, something on a computer and not true real life examples.

Looking back at you.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Sorry to push this, but what hard facts do you bring to the table and don't say simulations because they are just that, something on a computer and not true real life examples.

Looking back at you.

Read my f$%^&*@ history of posts tough guy. I am talking about the body of all of my posts and their value to the board and community. I have brought first and novel photos and videos, first and novel articles and write ups on the M3, made great early predictions on price and many performance details, worked closely with lucid on the regression analysis (spawned the idea in fact), intelligently debated the M3 vs. many other cars, participated in price prediction methods, brought a bit of science/math/physics to discussions normally void of such useful ideas, etc., etc. Until you have read 5% of my posts you are really getting way off base.

What the h$** have you added? Not much IMHO.

By the way many have commented quite positively on my simulations and their accuracy. I seem to be the only one here doing this type of work.

You are simply a master of changing the subject aren't you? This was never about me on this GT-R is teh technology king thing. Always remember that.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I seem to be the only one here doing this.

It's lonely on your own.

[InJapan]

Originally Posted by swamp2

In the end it will likely be possible to spec an M3 out at an equal or greater price than the GT-R.

I agree that it is hard to compare the features for both cars directly, mainly because the features are slightly different.

But I'm sure that you will agree that the GT-R's come pretty well loaded... I think maybe a bit too loaded.

I hope that BMW keeps this price differential in mind, maybe they will sell the M3 at a razor thin profit margin.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by InJapan

I agree that it is hard to compare the features for both cars directly, mainly because the features are slightly different.

But I'm sure that you will agree that the GT-R's come pretty well loaded... I think maybe a bit too loaded.

I hope that BMW keeps this price differential in mind, maybe they will sell the M3 at a razor thin profit margin.

+1 exactly, the GT-R does come a bit too loaded IMO. Different strategy vs. BMW and Porsche for sure - both of whom probably make as much profit on options as on the cars. Advantages and disadvantages of each strategy for both the OEM and the consumer.

I expect the M3 to bring BMW about the same profit margin than the rest of their line, about 18%. Maybe even a bit more since typically companies shoot for more margin on lower volume lines. Think about this even though a relatively small volume car the new M3 will likely be a $1B profit car.

1x10^5 cars x $5x10^4 x 20% = $1 billion dollars

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

It's lonely on your own.

Not nearly as bad as having to live with oneself in a vast sea of mainstream opinions with no ability to argue, present and defend these opinons, especially in a domain they purport to be passioniate about.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Not nearly as bad as having to live with oneself in a vast sea of mainstream opinions with no ability to argue, present and defend these opinons, especially in a domain they purport to be passioniate about.

Swamp,

I propose the difference between yourself and me is cars while I enjoy them are still only a car, a mode of transport to get me from A to B. So I apologize for not being as technical as some and am not able to rise to your very high standards of argument.

But at the end of the day this is only a web site full of owners/enthusiasts and people like me who are new to the brand and at best the true intention of any such site is to air opinions, not to be knock down at each hurdle.

I am not a 'Tough Guy' trying to argue with the establishment (You) I am only defending myself against constant criticism about every comment I make that happens to offer a different opinion to yours.

I reckon a CHILL pill is in order swamp and then count to ten.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Swamp,

I propose the difference between yourself and me is cars while I enjoy them are still only a car, a mode of transport to get me from A to B. So I apologize for not being as technical as some and am not able to rise to your very high standards of argument.

But at the end of the day this is only a web site full of owners/enthusiasts and people like me who are new to the brand and at best the true intention of any such site is to air opinions, not to be knock down at each hurdle.

I am not a 'Tough Guy' trying to argue with the establishment (You) I am only defending myself against constant criticism about every comment I make that happens to offer a different opinion to yours.

I reckon a CHILL pill is in order swamp and then count to ten.

-You can only expect folks with some passion on such boards, no?

-I am not "the establishment" here. I am a memeber who likes to post, discuss, debate and learn and one who feels like part of a little community of sorts.

-If you did not make such wildy overstated claims and pass them off non-chalantly as FACT you would not get such resistance from me. You can always use "IMO", "IMHO" or "JMHO".

-Take some of your own medicine - the "Chill Pill"

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Come on guys footie and gbb357. Time for a reality check.

I did not make the bloody claim in the first place nor did I claim that the M3 nor Evo is more technically advanced than the GT-R. The M3 and how much I like it are 100% irrelevant here. In fact, I absolutely do not believe the M3 is as technically advanced as the GT-R nor will it be a close competitor in most performance contests. My opinion here is simply not the key issue though. How many times do I have to say it YOU (footie) MADE A CLAIM, I AM CALLING YOU ON IT AND SIMPLY ASKING FOR A SHRED OF PROOF (make that two claims now, and counting...). If you have no proof then your claim is hot air. Simple.

First of all, I did not say you made any claim. You as you put it "called out" Footies claim and said that he does'nt have any proof to back it up. I'm simply returning the favor back on calling you out if you have any proof that he is wrong. I'm not saying he's right nor i'm saying he's wrong either. Same goes with you, i'm not saying you're wrong or right either. But if you are going to call anybody out just because you don't agree with the person, at least have something to back it up with. The way i see it is you're both making speculations and there's nothing wrong with that.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

First of all, I did not say you made any claim. You as you put it "called out" Footies claim and said that he does'nt have any proof to back it up. I'm simply returning the favor back on calling you out if you have any proof that he is wrong. I'm not saying he's right nor i'm saying he's wrong either. Same goes with you, i'm not saying you're wrong or right either. But if you are going to call anybody out just because you don't agree with the person, at least have something to back it up with. The way i see it is you're both making speculations and there's nothing wrong with that.

I have backed up my objections. I already brought up how the Evo has a very advanced drivetrain, IMO at least close to the GT-R, maybe even in some ways more advanced. I brought up the 599, FXX, LS 600h and Veyron as well as potential challengers. Multiple web sites and reviews have claimed this title (or at least being in a small group at the very top) for the Lexus, Autospectator.com wrote that the LS 600h, "may rank among the most technologically advanced automobiles in the industry."

My point was really to get footie to simply back up his claim. If you make a claim and are challenged, even if the challenge or challenger does not immedaitely disprove you, you should be able to back up your claim. Otherwise your words are mostly useless speculation. I think I have given plenty of counter examples that challenge his claim at least in principle, although I would never go so far as to say I have disproven it. I don't have a huge interest in such a claim as there is bound to be some subjectivity and it is unlikely that one can really choose a single winner. If I did, trust me I'd would have disproven him long ago .

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I have backed up my objections. I already brought up how the Evo has a very advanced drivetrain, IMO at least close to the GT-R, maybe even in some ways more advanced. I brought up the 599, FXX, LS 600h and Veyron as well as potential challengers. Multiple web sites and reviews have claimed this title (or at least being in a small group at the very top) for the Lexus, Autospectator.com wrote that the LS 600h, "may rank among the most technologically advanced automobiles in the industry."

My point was really to get footie to simply back up his claim. If you make a claim and are challenged, even if the challenge or challenger does not immedaitely disprove you, you should be able to back up your claim. Otherwise your words are mostly useless speculation. I think I have given plenty of counter examples that challenge his claim at least in principle, although I would never go so far as to say I have disproven it. I don't have a huge interest in such a claim as there is bound to be some subjectivity and it is unlikely that one can really choose a single winner. If I did, trust me I'd would have disproven him long ago .

Saying that the Evo X has a very advanced drivetrain is not backing anything up at all. You of all people, probably the most technical person that i have ever come accross with should no better than that. Show some technical data Swamp that would clearly show that the GTR and Evo X are equal or that one is more advanced than the other. I can say the same thing about the Subaru WRX, that does'nt mean anything. In regards to the LS600hl, i'll agree it is advanced but it has also been labeled as the most over hyped vehicle.