BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > M3 vs....
 
GTB Performance
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-23-2007, 11:14 AM   #199
InJapan
Private
 
Drives: E46 M3 Cab, imola/imola
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Japan

Posts: 56
iTrader: (0)

So...
The GT-R 's power is most likely underrated. The dyno numbers maybe fudged. I really don't care. All I care about is the performance.
Horsepower number bragging is for Supra owners.
The GT-R is much faster in both a straight line and the twisties and will be priced similarly to an M3.
I can't believe that people think that it is not a competitor to the M3 market. Eurocentric thinking and styling be d@mned. I personally think that the GT-R name allure and the menasing looks overcomes those things.
The only drawback is a slightly smaller backseat and the possible stealer markup vs the M3. The markup tells you something.
One final thing.... I will bet that Nissan will make more money per GT-R sold than BMW will make seling the M3 in the US. Don't discount the Yen vs Euro changes over the last five years or the salary DEPRECIATION of the Japanese workers.
With the current economic status, the Japanese could build an M3 at 60% of what it costs a German company to do it.

The wife told me I could buy the GT-R as a third car after the M3 sedan.. I just don't have the cash flow to afford both.
InJapan is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 01:23 PM   #200
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Who says the lap times are absolutely dominated by power to weight? There appears to be some correlation, but until you have say, five hundred passes using the data you've been using, or a fewer number (but still large) using data from strictly controlled passes (weather and driver, mostly), you have at best a loose correlation. There are bunches of flyers (some greater than others), and most don't fall on a statistical line.
Some clarifications here. The correlation for the Ring times is by no means "loose". If you look at the R^2 and P values, you'll see that it is very well established. That is pretty much as good as a regression will ever get with real-world numbers. (If you haven't seen that thread, you might want to check out the specifics.)

That said, yes, that doesn't establish cause and effect. One could argue that any manufacturer who invests into raising the hp/lb ratio will also invest in the handling and traction of the car, so it might very well be that the real cause might be something else such as handling and traction rather than hp/lb. And the inverse argument would hold water, too.

One way to explore that further would be to add more variables to the regression that would be representative of handling and traction. I believe several people have tried that, and if I remember correctly, they didn't seem to make a major difference? (Someone correct me if I am misremembering here).

But that doesn't mean that you can design an extremely powerful lightweight car, and screw up the suspension, and still post great times. The same goes for designing a car that has amazing handling performance, but no power. Again, the point is that cars are pretty well packaged as a whole in general, that there are intrinsic associations between power, weight, and handling. But the question that is being asked is "which one of those variables has the strongest impact on the outcome?"

As to the variations due to uncontrolled variables, that is why regressions are done to begin with; to see if such variations can overpower any underlying trends. In this case, the regression outcomes suggest that they don't (there will always be outliers, but that doesn't mean the trend is off base). The ideal way to approach this problem would be to list all of the variables that might be associated with the outcome, construct a multiple variable regression model, drop the variables that don't seem to make a contribution to the model, and see if the regression gets stronger and tighter.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 03:00 PM   #201
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdiver68 View Post
6) Your criticisms, already discussed and shot down ad naseum much as your pistonheads article was already shot down.

It's obvious you are a newbie to the 911TT v GT-R discussions that have been flying around the internet for quite awhile now, so until you have something new or enlightening to add, engaging in this discussion with you is like hitting my head with a hammer.


the facts remain the same...

500 lbs lighter
16% more torque over a 50% wider band
same HP
lower drivetrain loss

it can't be much faster on street tires in the wet...no way...
especially since the 997TT had semislicks, dry road and one of the best drivers in the world...who actually helped develop the car, and the 7:49 time is his BEST out of 1000's of laps...no way...

you must be a 'newbie' to basic automobile dynamics/engineering
there is no magic bullet...one gearboxes loss is the same as the next...
gears have been developed for the last 100 years...no breakthroughs...

Porsche is not new to this game...just because nissan picked the 997TT as their target, does not mean they will acheive it...

instead of trying to demean me, perhaps you should try to refute the facts:

the link is from edmunds...

7.38* -- 161.628 km/h -- Nissan R34 GT-R, *company test driver Suzuki, slick cut tyres, track partially wet http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...opanel..1.*#40

note they edited it to remove the 'cut slick' reference...edmunds was not their...pistonheads was
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 03:08 PM   #202
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Swamp, let's not make another conclusion without facts and figures. Not just yet.

Quote:
And, as long as this keeps going I will continue to claim that among its close competitors the M3 offers the best price to performance ratio you can find. It also equals or bests the performance of cars costing $25-$40k more. My list of these competitors roughly includes the following (RS4, C63 AMG, IS-F, Vantage V8, CTS-V, Jaguar XKR, 997S, R8). Again some are closer competitors with the E90 than the E92 and some are a bit more of a stretch than others (R8 based on size, seat count for example). This is my view of "close" competitors based on a combination of class, price, performance, size, etc. I suppose a reasonable argument based on price and performance could put the GT-R and Z06 in any list containing the 997S and R8 but those are cars are on the periphery anyway so sure, some subjectivity in involved. Everyone must have their own "lists".
So we're still waiting for the price of the e90 and e92 M3, that being said we can all speculate till we turn blue, and make our own educated opinions and call it just that, OPINIONS. Let's start with the M3's true competitors.
ISF:
The ISF so far has better performance figures whether you compare the best numbers that it has gotten or just the total average of data compare to the M3. It's base price is i believe $58k. Even though we have'nt seen a direct comparison between the two, it's safe to assume that the M3 will win even if it's not faster of the two on straighline performance. But if the M3 is priced well above the $55k ISF MSRP, and i'm guessing $65K MSRP for the M3, my opinion as far as which one has the "better price to ratio" value would have to go to the ISF.
RS4:
We all know what it can do, i've seen it compared to the e92 M3, advantage e92 M3, and we all know how much it is and how much it is actually selling for. I've seen as much as $80k in the begining of 2007 and i saw it for over $70k recently. The problem is, it's old and outdated compare to all of the new competitors. Although the RS4 did set the standard, it's on it's way out. So even if the e90 M3 is priced exactly as much as the RS4, the M3 will win this one just for being the newer car alone.
C63 AMG:
History says that this car will be the most expensive out of all them. But it will also be the fastest, quickest and brutal accelaration. I'm guessing this car will have an MSRP around $75k. No chance of winning this one, but AMG was and never will be about that.

Now for the rest of the other cars that you've mentioned:
First of all, i would never compare the M3 to the likes of AMV8, R8, XKR and 997S. Just like i would never compare the Evo X to the 335i let alone the M3. I'd never compare the Z06 to a Murcielago either or even the F430. The M3 will outperform most of those exotics that you mentioned but so will a Mustang GT500, that does'nt mean you can compare them. Those cars are in a completely different level. The bottom line is we still don't have any clue how much the e90 & e92 M3 is going to be. So let's speculate, guess and have our own opinion or have our own "list". But just remember that it is only an OPINION, let's not draw any conclusion. Again, JMHO.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 04:08 PM   #203
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,871
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
Some clarifications here. The correlation for the Ring times is by no means "loose". If you look at the R^2 and P values, you'll see that it is very well established. That is pretty much as good as a regression will ever get with real-world numbers. (If you haven't seen that thread, you might want to check out the specifics.)

That said, yes, that doesn't establish cause and effect. One could argue that any manufacturer who invests into raising the hp/lb ratio will also invest in the handling and traction of the car, so it might very well be that the real cause might be something else such as handling and traction rather than hp/lb. And the inverse argument would hold water, too.

One way to explore that further would be to add more variables to the regression that would be representative of handling and traction. I believe several people have tried that, and if I remember correctly, they didn't seem to make a major difference? (Someone correct me if I am misremembering here).

But that doesn't mean that you can design an extremely powerful lightweight car, and screw up the suspension, and still post great times. The same goes for designing a car that has amazing handling performance, but no power. Again, the point is that cars are pretty well packaged as a whole in general, that there are intrinsic associations between power, weight, and handling. But the question that is being asked is "which one of those variables has the strongest impact on the outcome?"

As to the variations due to uncontrolled variables, that is why regressions are done to begin with; to see if such variations can overpower any underlying trends. In this case, the regression outcomes suggest that they don't (there will always be outliers, but that doesn't mean the trend is off base). The ideal way to approach this problem would be to list all of the variables that might be associated with the outcome, construct a multiple variable regression model, drop the variables that don't seem to make a contribution to the model, and see if the regression gets stronger and tighter.
I read your initial post and followups by you and Swamp with both interest and admiration.

What I am pushing back on is the tendency for Swamp to view this information as somehow important in terms of determining whether Nissan has under-rated the GT-R or not. Previous to this string, he was fairly definitive about it. However, my feeling is that unless you have a significant number of extremely powerful cars in a general weight range, each with very good balance and state of the art awd technology that can separately and specifically apply power to each wheel, you don't have as complete a data base as you need.

The closest thing we have is the Porsche Turbo, which is a sophisticated machine, but has lousy balance as a street car on track. The GT-R narrowly outperforms the Porsche at the 'Ring (458 seconds instead of 460) in spite of having around an eight percent poorer showing in the power to weight department. This is almost certainly due to its superior handling (according to early tests) and superior transmission.

Your numbers show it to be an extreme flyer, but you pretty much don't have enough data in the data base that's comparable enough to actually come to a good conclusion. Capische?

Having said all that, I believe you (and Swamp) have done terrific work.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 05:36 PM   #204
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
However, my feeling is that unless you have a significant number of extremely powerful cars in a general weight range, each with very good balance and state of the art awd technology that can separately and specifically apply power to each wheel, you don't have as complete a data base as you need.
I see what you are saying now. That's a good point.

What I would like to do is to do some analysis on non-production cars on various curcuits. For instance, it would be cool to do it on pole times for touring cars in different curcuits. But the car specs are usually not available for that category.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Your numbers show it to be an extreme flyer, but you pretty much don't have enough data in the data base that's comparable enough to actually come to a good conclusion. Capische?
Sure. It's not possible to know why it posted what it posted. My "guess" is that it is most likely under-rated, but that's just a guess. I am sure it is possible to safely extract more than 480hp from that engine with turbos, and given how motivated Nissan is to beat the 911T, I don't see why they wouldn't have gone for it.

It is also possible that Nissan has done excellent work on all subsystems of the car without cost-induced compromises (BMW seems to have done some of that in the M3 with the brakes), optimized the interfaces to perfection, stuck an ace driver in there, and there you go! However, it is not all possible that Nissan has made some huge leap in any given subsystem unless they have used some exotic technology, which to the best of my knowledge, they haven't. Potential gains in the current subsystems are fairly incremental given the associated technologies have been in development for a long time.

I can't recall who recorded the 911T time, but if it isn't Porsche, that makes even more sense, since it can be argued that the 911T could have done better as well if Porsche took it on as a mission to record the best possible time, which Nissan seems to have done. But then, watching the GT-R video, there is at least one pass where the driver lost time and parts of the track were wet, so they could have done better, too.

Anyway, just rambling. The rating issue with the GT-R engine will be cleared up once multiple more accurate test results are published.

Happy holidays Bruce.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 08:28 PM   #205
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
I read your initial post and followups by you and Swamp with both interest and admiration.

What I am pushing back on is the tendency for Swamp to view this information as somehow important in terms of determining whether Nissan has under-rated the GT-R or not. Previous to this string, he was fairly definitive about it. However, my feeling is that unless you have a significant number of extremely powerful cars in a general weight range, each with very good balance and state of the art awd technology that can separately and specifically apply power to each wheel, you don't have as complete a data base as you need.

The closest thing we have is the Porsche Turbo, which is a sophisticated machine, but has lousy balance as a street car on track. The GT-R narrowly outperforms the Porsche at the 'Ring (458 seconds instead of 460) in spite of having around an eight percent poorer showing in the power to weight department. This is almost certainly due to its superior handling (according to early tests) and superior transmission.

Your numbers show it to be an extreme flyer, but you pretty much don't have enough data in the data base that's comparable enough to actually come to a good conclusion. Capische?

Having said all that, I believe you (and Swamp) have done terrific work.

Bruce
the 997TT never ran a 7:40...ever...that was a factory estimate reported by Motortrend...

7:49 Walter
7:54 Horst
both documented and on PSC's

the actual wt of the 997TT (6 speed) when weighed by Excellence was 3377 lbs...almost 500 lbs lighter...and less driveline loss...
it has 16% more torque and the band is 50% wider...

the GTR is not under-rated, nissan claims 473 sae/428 lb ft...
they have said it will need tweeked to get 480 sae...
the dyno numbers are bogus...
to get 480 with 20% loss you'ld need 600 HP...no way

there is no way the GTR will outrun the 997TT...

I can't wait for some cars to be sold and independently tested...

7:54 --- 156.456 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/1620 kg (sport auto 06/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=2&tID=126501
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPvBu...e=user&search=

24. Porsche 997 Turbo 7:49.0 Walter Rohrl using Michelin Pilot Sport Cups http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php...=458d68820555a
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 09:29 PM   #206
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
to get 480 with 20% loss you'ld need 600 HP...no way
I don't see any point in arguing about the GTR engine being under-rated or not without seeing more data--not that it really matters if it is or not--but why do you say no way to 600hp from that engine. It is definitely possible. I don't think Nissan has done that or anything, but it is possible. TechArt has been getting that out of the 911 turbo engine without messing with displacement.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 09:36 PM   #207
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
I don't see any point in arguing about the GTR engine being under-rated or not without seeing more data--not that it really matters if it is or not--but why do you say no way to 600hp from that engine. It is definitely possible. I don't think Nissan has done that or anything, but it is possible. TechArt has been getting that out of the 911 turbo engine.
I think he means no way they'll put out that car with 600hp and sell for only $70k. It only matters because of this thread says it is massively under-rated without any valid proof, yet.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 09:39 PM   #208
sdiver68
Expert Road Racer
 
Drives: 07 335i e90, 09 335i e93
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO

Posts: 1,330
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
How about these quotes?
I said that a week or more ago after reading that review, the GT-R may not be as good a street car as other choices. Time will tell, but there is a lot of new, unproven technology in that car.
sdiver68 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 09:45 PM   #209
sdiver68
Expert Road Racer
 
Drives: 07 335i e90, 09 335i e93
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO

Posts: 1,330
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
7.38* -- 161.628 km/h -- Nissan R34 GT-R, *company test driver Suzuki, slick cut tyres, track partially wet http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...opanel..1.*#40

note they edited it to remove the 'cut slick' reference...edmunds was not their...pistonheads was


You have completely ignored the evidence. All the published track times are lies and conspiracies according to you.

You do not even know the genesis of the pistonheads article you so love to quote. It was a mistranslation from Japanese to English that caused the uproar, pistonheads has since retracted it, but YOU claim it must be due to some Nissan "conspiracy". Even reading the original quote it was obvious there was a mistranslation, something I pointed out the DAY they published their mistranslation on the web.

Last edited by sdiver68; 12-23-2007 at 10:03 PM.
sdiver68 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 09:58 PM   #210
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,072
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
I'd also question the power lost to a sophisticated awd system, The normally aspirated 911S vs the 4S shows very little difference in both quarter mile times and speeds, and since the Turbo uses the same system, it's likely to be very efficient as well. Note that very little power is transferred forward in these cars, and essentially none if traction isn't an issue - which it won't be for most of a quarter mile. If power isn't being transmitted, there's no loss
Bruce, you got a decent sized chunk of this problem here. I was using less than accurate inputs and getting less than accurate outputs for my GT-R simulations. I should as well revisit the 997TT work for the same reason, but will stick to the GT-R here.

I certainly know (somewhere apparently quite deep on a dusty shelf somewhere in my noggin) that modern AWD systems split torque and use mostly an effective 2WD system during hard acceleration. When a sophisticated tranny controlled by an even more sophisticated computer can split torqe with such large biases you get the launch of a AWD and the low loss and higher acceleration of a RWD. Putting an AWD low loss car into CarTest was a bit tricky but I did it. What I did is simulated the GT-R as a RWD with mostly default parameters. I used CT to measure the initial launch g force. We all know the AWD will launch way harder but get this - the difference right at launch and mostly up to peak launch force in 1st gear is about .75g vs. only .48g (that is over 55% more thrust). That is what we feel when launching an good AWD. Next, I artificially lowered the differential and axle power losses to account for a heavy rear torque bias during hard acceleration. But I left the AWD setting on to get the launch g's. I did this by lowering these losses enough so that the power loss graphs of the AWD basically matched the power losses for the fake 2WD version. A small percentage loss change on a high hp engine makes a fairly large difference as well. My results for the GT-R with quoted hp/tq stand at:

0-60: 3.5
0-100: 8.5
1/4: 11.8
trap: 117
top: 199

Still a bit slower than the impressive Edmunds results but definitely in the range of quoted/estimated figures. FYI the fake RWD GT-R could only muster 60 in 4.0 and 1/4 in 12.2. Then bumping the hp and tq in unison to get to numbers like Edmunds reported I "only" need +25 hp/+25 tq (which is sizeable but only 5%) to get to:

0-60: 3.3
0-100: 8.0
1/4: 11.6
trap: 119
top: 202

I already know CarTest is not so fantastic at nailing the trap speeds and typically underpredicts by a couple mph. So now indeed even simulation confirms the "MASSIVE" statement was incorrect and premature. Thanks for your insight/reminder that has allowed some progress here towards consistency. My conclusion at this point is that an under-rating is still possible, esp. to get the numbers Edmunds has, but it is definitely not "MASSIVE". It is too bad Quarter Jr. does not have more inputs and controls for details like drivetrain loss, AWD, shift times, etc. It seems it is better at predicting more towards the best numbers achievable whereas CarTest gets more "middle of the pack" types of results.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 10:04 PM   #211
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,072
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaiman View Post
excellent, M3 pricing has been released for the US. Can you point me to a thread?

If it hasn't been released you're making comparisions based on estimates for the M3 price and any markup on the GTR. not really all that fact based is it?

perhaps we can leave the value question out until we have some confirmed numbers.
This reply is to gbb357 as well. No obviously we don't have pricing but most who follow the pricing discussions closely would probably say it is 90% likely that the price will fall at $60k USD +/- $2k. This is based on pricing of competitors, historical analysis, military pricing leaks, etc.

Also we do have Nissan GT-R US base price figures but I think the chances are just as high as those above that the actually selling price will be at least $10k more than the $69k.

Agree or disagree with both?
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 10:16 PM   #212
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,072
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by InJapan View Post
...
One final thing.... I will bet that Nissan will make more money per GT-R sold than BMW will make seling the M3 in the US.
...
I disagree with this completely. Did you see my post #114 in this thread?

BMWs margin on the M3 will certainly be less in the US than other countries but that will not affect the fact that their margin will be higher than their average margin becasue the M3 is a lower volume, higer end, speciality car. There average margin is quite respectable as well. BMW will make $1B or so PROFIT on the M3 over its life span whereas Nissan will likely LOSE $15M - $30M PER YEAR on the GT-R if sold at the quoted US price.

In the future these losses will be recouped through other sales based on reputation, prestige, etc. as well as reuse of GT-R like technology on other lines.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 10:44 PM   #213
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
This reply is to gbb357 as well. No obviously we don't have pricing but most who follow the pricing discussions closely would probably say it is 90% likely that the price will fall at $60k USD +/- $2k. This is based on pricing of competitors, historical analysis, military pricing leaks, etc.

Also we do have Nissan GT-R US base price figures but I think the chances are just as high as those above that the actually selling price will be at least $10k more than the $69k.

Agree or disagree with both?
If the RS4's MSRP was at $66k, i doubt that the new M3 will be cheaper than that, but we'll soon find out.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 10:46 PM   #214
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
If the RS4's MSRP was at $66k, i doubt that the new M3 will be cheaper than that, but we'll soon find out.
BMW will sell 50000 M3s in the US. I think the current RS4 run is ~3000? So, you can see what that means in terms of pricing.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 11:01 PM   #215
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,072
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
The ISF so far has better performance figures whether you compare the best numbers that it has gotten or just the total average of data compare to the M3. It's base price is i believe $58k. Even though we have'nt seen a direct comparison between the two, it's safe to assume that the M3 will win even if it's not faster of the two on straighline performance. But if the M3 is priced well above the $55k ISF MSRP, and i'm guessing $65K MSRP for the M3, my opinion as far as which one has the "better price to ratio" value would have to go to the ISF.

...

Now for the rest of the other cars that you've mentioned:
First of all, i would never compare the M3 to the likes of AMV8, R8, XKR and 997S. Just like i would never compare the Evo X to the 335i let alone the M3
Sure, there is some speculation going on here but not a far reach by any strech. I'd say, from the reviews I have read and watched the M3 as an all arounder and especially on the track (see the Top Gear reveiw today??) is definitely the winner over the RS4 and C63. Despite the IS-F showing some better straight line numbers over the M3 do you think there is any chance it will best it in most other areas? It is a great car but it takes some years to learn to build a car that can best the M3. The C63 is damn fast and it couldn't.

Like I said we will each have to have our own lists. Many will agree on what constitutes a close competitor but almost none will agree completely on an exhuastive list of close and near/loose competitors. Much of the reason for many of the looser competitors in my particular list is simply that they are nice European Coupes with similar hp levels but that the M3 either bests or virtually matches in performance. I agree many do not think the R8 nor AM V V8 are close competitors with the M3.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 11:11 PM   #216
InJapan
Private
 
Drives: E46 M3 Cab, imola/imola
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Japan

Posts: 56
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I disagree with this completely. Did you see my post #114 in this thread?

BMWs margin on the M3 will certainly be less in the US than other countries but that will not affect the fact that their margin will be higher than their average margin becasue the M3 is a lower volume, higer end, speciality car. There average margin is quite respectable as well. BMW will make $1B or so PROFIT on the M3 over its life span whereas Nissan will likely LOSE $15M - $30M PER YEAR on the GT-R if sold at the quoted US price.

In the future these losses will be recouped through other sales based on reputation, prestige, etc. as well as reuse of GT-R like technology on other lines.
I don't understand where you get the margin numbers for the GT-R. I understand that the development costs have to be spread out to all the cars produced but other than that disadvantage I think that you are guessing at everything else.
I tend to feel that just based on the pricing...
The GT-R is being sold at essentially the same price in all the markets... ignoring taxes that is. While the M3 will likely be sold at a significant discount in the US versus the rest of the world. That tells me that BMW's profit margin in the US will be slim to none and that Nissan feels that they can sell the car at the same price everywhere and still make money. Eventhough they COULD sell it $10K higher and still sell all that they can make.

The prior Skyline GT-R were not sold at a loss, why should this one be?

Also, I still think you are off handedly disregarding the 40% depreciation of the Yen versus the Euro and the 5-10% depreciation of the Nissan worker's salaries in Yen. That is a significant drop in production costs.

There is a reason the Japanese automakers made such a huge profit this year. The cost of production has been dropping due to the above factors and the price they are selling the cars have stayed the same.

But who knows what will happen with the currency market? I keep waiting for the Euro to drop / crash so that I can pick up another Benz on the cheap. (MB Japan gives military discounts off of the Euro MSRP)
InJapan is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 11:36 PM   #217
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Sure, there is some speculation going on here but not a far reach by any strech. I'd say, from the reviews I have read and watched the M3 as an all arounder and especially on the track (see the Top Gear reveiw today??) is definitely the winner over the RS4 and C63. Despite the IS-F showing some better straight line numbers over the M3 do you think there is any chance it will best it in most other areas? It is a great car but it takes some years to learn to build a car that can best the M3. The C63 is damn fast and it couldn't.

Like I said we will each have to have our own lists. Many will agree on what constitutes a close competitor but almost none will agree completely on an exhuastive list of close and near/loose competitors. Much of the reason for many of the looser competitors in my particular list is simply that they are nice European Coupes with similar hp levels but that the M3 either bests or virtually matches in performance. I agree many do not think the R8 nor AM V V8 are close competitors with the M3.
That's why i said the ISF will lose even if it's faster in straightline performance. But in terms of performance to price ratio, if it's a lot cheaper, it would have the advantage.

Last edited by gbb357; 12-24-2007 at 03:07 AM.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-24-2007, 12:28 AM   #218
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,072
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by InJapan View Post
I don't understand where you get the margin numbers for the GT-R. I understand that the development costs have to be spread out to all the cars produced but other than that disadvantage I think that you are guessing at everything else.
I tend to feel that just based on the pricing...
The GT-R is being sold at essentially the same price in all the markets... ignoring taxes that is. While the M3 will likely be sold at a significant discount in the US versus the rest of the world. That tells me that BMW's profit margin in the US will be slim to none and that Nissan feels that they can sell the car at the same price everywhere and still make money. Eventhough they COULD sell it $10K higher and still sell all that they can make.

The prior Skyline GT-R were not sold at a loss, why should this one be?

Also, I still think you are off handedly disregarding the 40% depreciation of the Yen versus the Euro and the 5-10% depreciation of the Nissan worker's salaries in Yen. That is a significant drop in production costs.

There is a reason the Japanese automakers made such a huge profit this year. The cost of production has been dropping due to the above factors and the price they are selling the cars have stayed the same.

But who knows what will happen with the currency market? I keep waiting for the Euro to drop / crash so that I can pick up another Benz on the cheap. (MB Japan gives military discounts off of the Euro MSRP)
These numbers are very rough and are estimates. It is more of an example through "order of magnitude" estimates than to predict something precisely. However, all of the Porsche and BMW prices and margins are known figures, you can simply look those up.

Margin numbers for the Nissan were estimated by assuming that since the car is equal to more technically advanced and built in much smaller numbers that both its cost of parts and cost of assembly will be HIGHER than the similarly powered and tech. rich 997TT. Since we know Porsche prices and margins we therefore know costs and we should be able to get reasonably close to the GT-Rs costs as well. Indeed my estimates do not account for local selling price variations nor local labor costs. Both good points that could be used to refine my numbers.

Let me also add that although BMWs margins will clearly be less in the US than in most other countries, there is simply no way that in the market expected to sell about 50% of the total production volume of the car, that they will let their margin slip anywhere close to 0. The M3 is a darn good money maker for BMW and the margin and total profit expectations will certainly be very high for the car. BMW makes cars essentially for one reason, money.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-24-2007, 03:25 AM   #219
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Swamp, how about ArtPE's evidence of the GTR not being under-rated?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE
the dyno is bogus...can't be real
HP does not = T at 5250

I know how they rigged it...
use the given speeds/rpm to calculate the ratio...I did...
3rd 1.595 x 3.7 = 5.9
4th 1.248 x 3.7 = 4.62 (they used 4.66, close)
tire OD = 2.33'
circ 7.33'

it's works out to 5.475...NOT the 4.66 that they used...
no such ratio unless the car has a 3.5th gear
they measure wheel T and divide by the ratio...I've conversed with dynapack...
by doing this they have fudged the numbers by 17.5%...hmmmm, that's a good driveline loss factor...


all times are proffered by Nissan, Japanese journalists with connections, on Japanese tracks, control, etc.
no...SAE has a very strict regime...it's why the Japanese mfgs have a hard time meeting them and have to re-rate their cars...
SAE HP is rated at the flywheel w/accesories...power steering, alternator, etc.

I'm sure it makes the 480HP/430 lb-ft, but at the CRANK, NOT at the wheels

Nissan themselves has said it only makes 473 SAE and will need to be tweeked to be rated 480 SAE in the states...
Don't you think his points and evidence are correct and that the dyno test where bogus?
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-24-2007, 04:00 AM   #220
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,072
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
Don't you think his points and evidence are correct and that the dyno test where bogus?
Sure, the weakening of the dyno results is clear and since I used that as evidence it weakens the case for under-rating as well. I'm not sure I am ready to set them aside 100%, but they have been dealt a great blow. Fairly obvious but since a few folks think I will never admit "anything" I wanted to pretty much concur with you explicitly.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST