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....
 
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-31-2008, 10:04 PM   #89
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by e36jakeo View Post
I own a 335i. It has an excellent chassis. Take that chassis and make it even better and give it better suspension, wider track, bigger and better wheels and tires and you get the M3.
Perhaps this was not the main part of your point but please don't start this again. Just about the only parts the cars (335i and M3) share is the unibody, glass, trunk lid, doors and lighting and some interior trim. Other than that the cars are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE GROUND UP - NEARLY EVERYTHING (at least all of the major components that contribute to performance). Ugh.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 12:05 PM   #90
MysticBlue
Major
 
Drives: '09 M3 DCT Coupe, ---'15 x50i
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Eastern Oregon... They call 'em rigs here

Posts: 1,276
iTrader: (0)

These comparisons may seem arbitrary to some who are expecting a comparison to be completely about numbers, but they are just putting down on paper exactly what every consumer does when they do a comparison test in their head, based on their own priorities. At the end of that comparison test they purchase the winner. This particular comparison test just didn't have the same criteria as some of you might. Everybody has different priorities. Too all of you who think this C&D test was not legitimate, then according to you, everyone who might have, however briefly, considered a Porsche or Nissan on their path to the M3 made the wrong decision. It is a legitimate comparison because real world considerations like back seats and price do actually affect our buying decisions. And besides, don't take it too seriously... they have to fill their pages with something. It's just an excuse to get more information out there about these cars, which ultimately is what we want.
MysticBlue is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 12:55 PM   #91
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
you sound angry...did C&D burst you bubble? the gtr still ran 7:29
2700/650/semi-slicks/dry/pro race driver
3900/480/run flats/damp/????

sure it did


this is a FACT, not speculation...or rationalization...BMW builds them as fast as they deem necessary to sell...
Kia, they build inexpensive, economical cars...what's your point?
do you really think kia has any intention of competing with BMW, Audi, Porsche, MB? speedwise?

BMW is more interested in having a balanced car they can sell...
and that's exactly what this article concluded...

btw: they said the ride in the gtr was horrid, even in comfort with 29 psi all around...that would be tiring in about 2 weeks...

these are STREET cars...99% driven in traffic at low speeds...
not racing stop light to stop light...

a quartz seiko is more accurate than a Rolex, which is a 'better' watch?
Art,

Good to talk to you. My point is your rationalization for BMW in your statement that BMW could make faster cars if they wanted to is simply a poor excuse at best for a lack of out right performance from the M division in comparison to the GT-R. If BMW could of extracted GT-R performance from the M3 for 70 k they surely would of done it and it would of sold like hot cakes for years and years to come. And you and I along with every auto journalist would have deemed it heads and tails above it's competition, no excuses needed. However, the fact is they didn't build such a performing car because they weren't able to.

Your rationale for BMW not using DFI because they really didn't want to is also an excuse for BMW that doesn't live up to the test of a good argument. BMW wanted to use DFI, they are already using it with the 3.0 litre. You know as well as I that that the real reason you don't see it in the 4.0 litre is they were not willing to invest the R&D necessary to get it done in a engine boasting a 8400 red line. With the price of crude skyrocketing, lack of DFI is now going to really cost them in long term sales, much more than the investment costs for DFI would of been.
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 12:59 PM   #92
KINGLEH
Major
 
KINGLEH's Avatar
 
Drives: 00 GTR - 09 E92 M
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charleston, SC

Posts: 1,043
iTrader: (1)

the GTR is just as daily drivable then the M3... the sus is a little stiffer... but other then that.. its basically the same....

the GTR has more room inside...



the main purpose for both cars is speed... so the GTR wins.... its MUCH faster...
KINGLEH is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 01:01 PM   #93
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticBlue View Post
These comparisons may seem arbitrary to some who are expecting a comparison to be completely about numbers, but they are just putting down on paper exactly what every consumer does when they do a comparison test in their head, based on their own priorities. At the end of that comparison test they purchase the winner. This particular comparison test just didn't have the same criteria as some of you might. Everybody has different priorities. Too all of you who think this C&D test was not legitimate, then according to you, everyone who might have, however briefly, considered a Porsche or Nissan on their path to the M3 made the wrong decision. It is a legitimate comparison because real world considerations like back seats and price do actually affect our buying decisions. And besides, don't take it too seriously... they have to fill their pages with something. It's just an excuse to get more information out there about these cars, which ultimately is what we want.
How can you say this test is legitimate when the better performance car is at $135k and they penalized it for being too expensive while comparing it to the M3 at $63k. The bottom line is, the M3 is not in the same league as the Porsche, not even remotely close. Not in prestige and certainly not in performance. BTW, the "gotta have it" factor, are they really serious about this. They'll rather have the M3 than the 997tt, please. This alone makes this test quite eligitimate and really discredits C&D.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 01:05 PM   #94
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
How can you say this test is legitimate when the better performance car is at $130k and they penalized it for being too expensive while comparing it to the M3 at $55k. The bottom line is, the M3 is not in the same league as the Porsche, not even remotely close. Not in prestige and certainly not in performance.
Prestige, what do you mean?
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 01:20 PM   #95
SteelTorque
Captain
 
Drives: 08 E92 335xi
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 849
iTrader: (0)

I understand your insecurities, after all....your old M3 can't even keep up with a 335 anymore.

But it's ok...IT'S AN M3!...even if it's slow, ugly and outdated .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keto View Post
The eternal modded 335 fanboy (not necessarily anyone here) paradox:

The modded 335 fanboy cherishes that his car is either competitive (in warranty with Dinan) or perhaps a touch faster (out of warranty) in a straight line than an M3.

The modded 335 fanboy feels M3 drivers are badge posers that wasted money on an overpriced car.

Yet, the mere existence of cars such as the Evo, modded Civics and the like for far less suggest that 335 fanboys are badge posers (for BMW's in general) that wasted money on an overpriced car (as equivalent or better performance is available for cheaper).
__________________
08 E92 335xi Space Gray 6AT - PROcede V2 12.8 @ 111 mph
SteelTorque is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 01:23 PM   #96
luckistryke
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: Very very fast
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pleasanton, SF Bay Area, CA

Posts: 311
iTrader: (0)

it wins because its the ultimate driving machine or the ultimate DD machine
__________________
luckistryke is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 01:38 PM   #97
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Prestige, what do you mean?
Meaning that the Porsche is more prestigous. Not that BMW isn't, but it's not in the same league as the Porsche. Just like most people here won't compare the M3 to a Nissan, because it's a Nissan. And to be fair, i would'nt compare the GTR with the 997tt either. If it's just purely performance base comparison only, then it's fine, once you put in the price factor and the "gotta have it" factor, then the comparison is over, JMHO. Again, because of the huge price difference, i'd rather have the M3.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 01:52 PM   #98
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

What they should've done is compare the M3 with the 997S Carrera and the GTR.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 02:42 PM   #99
dechoong
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: E60 530 Sport
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: KL

Posts: 359
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGLEH View Post
the GTR is just as daily drivable then the M3... the sus is a little stiffer... but other then that.. its basically the same....

the GTR has more room inside...



the main purpose for both cars is speed... so the GTR wins.... its MUCH faster...
Have you actually sat behind the wheel or in the rear seats?

What makes you think the 2 are basically the same... and why do you think the main purpose of the M3 is speed?

Last edited by dechoong; 06-01-2008 at 03:03 PM.
dechoong is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 03:18 PM   #100
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Art,

Good to talk to you. My point is your rationalization for BMW in your statement that BMW could make faster cars if they wanted to is simply a poor excuse at best for a lack of out right performance from the M division in comparison to the GT-R. If BMW could of extracted GT-R performance from the M3 for 70 k they surely would of done it and it would of sold like hot cakes for years and years to come. And you and I along with every auto journalist would have deemed it heads and tails above it's competition, no excuses needed. However, the fact is they didn't build such a performing car because they weren't able to.

Your rationale for BMW not using DFI because they really didn't want to is also an excuse for BMW that doesn't live up to the test of a good argument. BMW wanted to use DFI, they are already using it with the 3.0 litre. You know as well as I that that the real reason you don't see it in the 4.0 litre is they were not willing to invest the R&D necessary to get it done in a engine boasting a 8400 red line. With the price of crude skyrocketing, lack of DFI is now going to really cost them in long term sales, much more than the investment costs for DFI would of been.
if you think they couldn't, you're mistaken...
think M5 V10 in an e9x...this would drive the cost up a maximum of 5k...

they do not want to build the fastest car, but the BEST car...
they do not market to folk who predicate everything on speed...
honestly, the overlap of those who think that way, and have the money to buy these cars, is very small...

the M3's were NEVER the fastest straight line cars...they were always STREET PASSENGER cars, with comfort, ride, value and performance all equally balanced...did you read the comments about the gtr's ride?
horrible...unbearable...on 29 psi to boot...like a wooden wheeled wagon

these cars are a novelty...speed? a turbo'ed civic will waste them...so what?
btw, did I mention it's a STREET car, used 99% of normal things, groceries, work, etc.
and they would not 'race' in the same class...a 4 liter vs a 6.5 (effective) liter car, w/awd?

why do you think they did not use DFI...because they couldn't?
they did on the 335i...
you don't think it was a engineering and business driven decision?
it was technical inablity to execute? riiiight

DFI does not decrease mpg much, if any, only in lean burn cruise mode...
I say let others play...it could be a liability, after the first 1700 PSI underhood fire...can you say flash explosion...

it does not yeild power, it may allow you raise Cr, which will...but 12:1 is pretty high, and limited by octane...
R&D...they have the largest budget of all manufacturers, iirc, it's one reason there profit margin has been low, reinvestment...
but they choose to put it into VIABLE and SELLABLE reasearch:
deisels
H2
smaller cars, 1 series
etc.

not some low return (if any) marketing driven tripe...just so they can stick another badge on saying DI

the gtr is trash...
it's a loss leader
new platform
new drivetrain
new tranny
new engine
a new whizbang video game electronics
small production numbers

2 scenarios:
1 they are doing it to raise profile, PR, which would leave one to believe they will put out 'spin' and 'hype' to achieve their goal...they will lose money on each...smart business, perhaps that's why they are the Japanese = of dodge

2 they are making a profit on it...doubt it, but if so the car must be junk, and time will tell it's true 'value', the C&D car had <4k miles and was purportedly malfuntioning...this a car vetted by the factory, just for the purpose of generating positive reviews...
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 03:42 PM   #101
dechoong
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: E60 530 Sport
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: KL

Posts: 359
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
if you think they couldn't, you're mistaken...
think M5 V10 in an e9x...this would drive the cost up a maximum of 5k...

they do not want to build the fastest car, but the BEST car...
they do not market to folk who predicate everything on speed...
honestly, the overlap of those who think that way, and have the money to buy these cars, is very small...

the M3's were NEVER the fastest straight line cars...they were always STREET PASSENGER cars, with comfort, ride, value and performance all equally balanced...did you read the comments about the gtr's ride?
horrible...unbearable...on 29 psi to boot...like a wooden wheeled wagon

these cars are a novelty...speed? a turbo'ed civic will waste them...so what?
btw, did I mention it's a STREET car, used 99% of normal things, groceries, work, etc.
and they would not 'race' in the same class...a 4 liter vs a 6.5 (effective) liter car, w/awd?

why do you think they did not use DFI...because they couldn't?
they did on the 335i...
you don't think it was a engineering and business driven decision?
it was technical inablity to execute? riiiight

DFI does not decrease mpg much, if any, only in lean burn cruise mode...
I say let others play...it could be a liability, after the first 1700 PSI underhood fire...can you say flash explosion...

it does not yeild power, it may allow you raise Cr, which will...but 12:1 is pretty high, and limited by octane...
R&D...they have the largest budget of all manufacturers, iirc, it's one reason there profit margin has been low, reinvestment...
but they choose to put it into VIABLE and SELLABLE reasearch:
deisels
H2
smaller cars, 1 series
etc.

not some low return (if any) marketing driven tripe...just so they can stick another badge on saying DI

the gtr is trash...
it's a loss leader
new platform
new drivetrain
new tranny
new engine
a new whizbang video game electronics
small production numbers

2 scenarios:
1 they are doing it to raise profile, PR, which would leave one to believe they will put out 'spin' and 'hype' to achieve their goal...they will lose money on each...smart business, perhaps that's why they are the Japanese = of dodge

2 they are making a profit on it...doubt it, but if so the car must be junk, and time will tell it's true 'value', the C&D car had <4k miles and was purportedly malfuntioning...this a car vetted by the factory, just for the purpose of generating positive reviews...
Well said Art

I wouldn't go as far saying the GT-R is junk yet... the car is new and jury is still out on its engineering and reliability. Test cars for the press do get thrashed pretty hard.

However, I'm just glad M division didn't simply plonk the M5 V10 into the M3. That's the AMG way of developing a new car whose main purpose is cost savings, and it is a big reason I'm not a fan of their products. You see the C63's engine in every other series... E63, S63, CLS63, SL63.
dechoong is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 07:42 PM   #102
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
if you think they couldn't, you're mistaken...
think M5 V10 in an e9x...this would drive the cost up a maximum of 5k...

they do not want to build the fastest car, but the BEST car...
they do not market to folk who predicate everything on speed...
honestly, the overlap of those who think that way, and have the money to buy these cars, is very small...

the M3's were NEVER the fastest straight line cars...they were always STREET PASSENGER cars, with comfort, ride, value and performance all equally balanced...did you read the comments about the gtr's ride?
horrible...unbearable...on 29 psi to boot...like a wooden wheeled wagon

these cars are a novelty...speed? a turbo'ed civic will waste them...so what?
btw, did I mention it's a STREET car, used 99% of normal things, groceries, work, etc.
and they would not 'race' in the same class...a 4 liter vs a 6.5 (effective) liter car, w/awd?

why do you think they did not use DFI...because they couldn't?
they did on the 335i...
you don't think it was a engineering and business driven decision?
it was technical inablity to execute? riiiight

DFI does not decrease mpg much, if any, only in lean burn cruise mode...
I say let others play...it could be a liability, after the first 1700 PSI underhood fire...can you say flash explosion...

it does not yeild power, it may allow you raise Cr, which will...but 12:1 is pretty high, and limited by octane...
R&D...they have the largest budget of all manufacturers, iirc, it's one reason there profit margin has been low, reinvestment...
but they choose to put it into VIABLE and SELLABLE reasearch:
deisels
H2
smaller cars, 1 series
etc.

not some low return (if any) marketing driven tripe...just so they can stick another badge on saying DI

the gtr is trash...
it's a loss leader
new platform
new drivetrain
new tranny
new engine
a new whizbang video game electronics
small production numbers

2 scenarios:
1 they are doing it to raise profile, PR, which would leave one to believe they will put out 'spin' and 'hype' to achieve their goal...they will lose money on each...smart business, perhaps that's why they are the Japanese = of dodge

2 they are making a profit on it...doubt it, but if so the car must be junk, and time will tell it's true 'value', the C&D car had <4k miles and was purportedly malfuntioning...this a car vetted by the factory, just for the purpose of generating positive reviews...
I understand that you are going to praise all the decisions that BMW and the M division made in regards to the M3 and point out any weakness you can about it's competitors, ie to inform others that the M3 is peerless and faultless. That is fine with me, maybe that is your job.

I respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning. If the M division and Mphiles are not willing to honestly critique the M's for their strengths as well as it's weaknesses, the Ms will surely fall further behind it's newest competitor the GT-R. IMO, one of the reasons the M division no longer dominates it's competition is because auto journalists have given the M division a free ride for to many years. And as you know, too many free rides is not conducive to critical self-evaluation ie, motivation and determination to stay on top. Maybe it is exactly as you said, BMW could build faster cars but they don't want to. That my friend probably sums up the current state of affairs at BMW.
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 07:55 PM   #103
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

you missed the point of the article...the gtr is not a competitor...it's a blunder

C&D M3/GTR/997TT test, summary quotation:
Every other manufacturer should give up on building their own cars and just make M3's instead.

I use logic, you deflect the discussion and offer no solid answer...

as far as not building the fastest car? look where it got GM, and let's not forget in the gtr heyday, 2000, nissan was almost bankrupt...

you make it sound like a bad thing that BMW choses not to engage in stupid excercises like the gtr...it's why a BMW is a BMW, and a nissan is a nissan...

btw: almost every comparison test with the ISF, RS4, C63, the M3 has won, with glowing paise.... doesn't seem like M is 'on the rocks'

BMW Record Sales in the First Quarter 2008
The BMW Group increased its sales in the first quarter of 2008 by 5.7% to 351,787 automobiles (prev.yr.: 332,933). Deliveries of BMW brand cars to customers in the first three months rose by 2.7% to 293,550 vehicles (prev.yr.: 285,840). MINI recorded a significant increase of 23.6% to 58,054 units (prev.yr.: 46,980). Rolls-Royce Motor Cars handed 183 automobiles over to customers in the first quarter (prev.yr.: 113/ 61.9%).

In the first quarter, sales in Germany increased by 6.7% to 64,230 (prev.yr.: 60,199). In the USA, the BMW Group sold 68.529 vehicles (prev.yr.: 75.433/-9,2%). Despite the current market conditions there, the US market remained the largest for the BMW Group. The company is expecting the US launch of new models such as the BMW 1 Series Coupé and Cabrio, the BMW X6 and the diesel variants of the BMW 3 Series and X5 to boost sales further in the second half of the year.

Alongside Germany, the other European markets also consistently showed positive sales growth in the first quarter of 2008. In Portugal, for example, with 2,860 units delivered, 29.2% more automobiles were sold than in the same quarter last year (prev.yr.: 2,214). In France, deliveries to customers rose by 23.7% to 16,752 vehicles (prev.yr.: 13,544), in Italy by 9.8% to 27,112 (prev.yr.: 24,685) and in Great Britain/Ireland by 6.9% to 45,210 vehicles (prev.yr.: 42,301).
Further examples of countries with growth that was well above average in the first quarter include India, with a significant increase of more than 800% to 862 units (prev.yr.: 87), Russia with plus 40.0% (4,211/prev.yr.: 3,008), China with an increase of 43.2% (14,574/prev.yr.: 10,177) and South Korea with a rise of 37.1% (2,380/prev.yr.: 1,736).

btw: it IS exactly like I said, they COULD build faster cars...like a street car that gets to 150 in <25 sec isn't fast enough, but CHOOSE not too...

btw: after the gtr's initial awd/launch control advantage is over at 50, some tests have the M3 as fast in gears...faster in some segments...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
I understand that you are going to praise all the decisions that BMW and the M division made in regards to the M3 and point out any weakness you can about it's competitors, ie to inform others that the M3 is peerless and faultless. That is fine with me, maybe that is your job.

I respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning. If the M division and Mphiles are not willing to honestly critique the M's for their strengths as well as it's weaknesses, the Ms will surely fall further behind it's newest competitor the GT-R. IMO, one of the reasons the M division no longer dominates it's competition is because auto journalists have given the M division a free ride for to many years. And as you know, too many free rides is not conducive to critical self-evaluation ie, motivation and determination to stay on top. Maybe it is exactly as you said, BMW could build faster cars but they don't want to. That my friend probably sums up the current state of affairs at BMW.
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 08:16 PM   #104
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
you make it sound like a bad thing that BMW choses not to engage in stupid excercises like the gtr...it's why a BMW is a BMW, and a nissan is a nissan...
I will let your statment above speaks for itself. One question though, If the GT-R is a stupid exercise then lower performing and lower mileage "high performance cars" are...?
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 08:25 PM   #105
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
I will let your statment above speaks for itself. One question though, If the GT-R is a stupid exercise then lower performing and lower mileage "high performance cars" are...?
it will 'speak for itself' with or without you 'letting' it

QUALITY and BASED on NEEDS...it's a street car
and who says 'speed' is the only measure of 'performance'?
you and the kid in the hopped up civic?

btw test mileage from this test:
M3 18
GTR 18

hmmmm...last time I checked, 18 was not lower than 18, it was the same as 18, in math, that's called equal

who wants a car that knocks your fillings out...
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 08:49 PM   #106
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
btw test mileage from this test:
M3 18
GTR 18

hmmmm...last time I checked, 18 was not lower than 18, it was the same as 18, in math, that's called equal
And as you you know the quoted EPA mileage rating in the same article for the GT-R is 17/21. Of course we all know the EPA mileage rating for the M3 is 14/20. Now which is the more important figure to you, one magazine's figures for one test or the EPA's tested ratings?
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-01-2008, 10:42 PM   #107
Hans Delbruck
BMW &amp; MB - friends in my garage
 
Hans Delbruck's Avatar
 
Drives: C63, 135i, 1959 BUICK
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Posts: 1,285
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
you missed the point of the article...the gtr is not a competitor...it's a blunder
Ummmm........... come on now..... put down the booze...
__________________
2009 135i 6MT Euro Delivery 9/5/09
BMW Performance Power Kit - Exhaust - Short Shifter
Hans Delbruck is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-02-2008, 12:26 AM   #108
KINGLEH
Major
 
KINGLEH's Avatar
 
Drives: 00 GTR - 09 E92 M
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charleston, SC

Posts: 1,043
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dechoong View Post
Have you actually sat behind the wheel or in the rear seats?

What makes you think the 2 are basically the same... and why do you think the main purpose of the M3 is speed?
ive drivin both the new GTR and M3....... both were very comfortable and very daily drivable... easy to negotiate and live with.....


its a sports car... if we weren't buying a car for speed in mind FIRST..... we would be driving X5 or a 7 series....


I orderd a M3 because of the feel i will have driving it.. IE. the quickness and sportiness....

Then chose it also because of its comfort and quality.....




and i was talking about the front seats....... Cmon.. neither of us will be sitting in the back of either... im 6'5 btw
KINGLEH is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-02-2008, 12:33 AM   #109
KINGLEH
Major
 
KINGLEH's Avatar
 
Drives: 00 GTR - 09 E92 M
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charleston, SC

Posts: 1,043
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
not some low return (if any) marketing driven tripe...just so they can stick another badge on saying DI

the gtr is trash...
it's a loss leader
new platform
new drivetrain
new tranny
new engine
a new whizbang video game electronics
small production numbers

2 scenarios:
1 they are doing it to raise profile, PR, which would leave one to believe they will put out 'spin' and 'hype' to achieve their goal...they will lose money on each...smart business, perhaps that's why they are the Japanese = of dodge

2 they are making a profit on it...doubt it, but if so the car must be junk, and time will tell it's true 'value', the C&D car had <4k miles and was purportedly malfuntioning...this a car vetted by the factory, just for the purpose of generating positive reviews...

i like how you act like this is something new for Nissan.... they have been doing the GTR thing in the same style since the 80s... and that car is still loved today... the R32......


nissan did it... cause they can..... and the new GTR is an amazing car.....


im sure one will hand you your ass one day...
KINGLEH is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-02-2008, 01:26 AM   #110
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
IMO, one of the reasons the M division no longer dominates it's competition is because auto journalists have given the M division a free ride for to many years. And as you know, too many free rides is not conducive to critical self-evaluation ie, motivation and determination to stay on top.
Good debate here, good points on both sides. Without wanting to get right in the middle I HAD to comment on this point above. Total fallacy, come on Ruff, you know better. Other than a couple early "comparisons" (which were based on barely driving the cars) the M3 has once again DOMINATED the comparison tests against not only against its closest true competitors (RS4, IS-F and C63 AMG) but has also beat out some cars like these as well as the GT3 in another test. Look we all know the M3 is not faster in a straight line than most of these cars but that is far from the single thing that needs to be judged to evaluate a car for the street, even if used frequently on the track. The competition is getting a lot closer indeed but the boys from Garching are hardly asleep at the wheel.

P.S. I do not praise every move made by BMW so don't even begin to go there.

Cheers

P.S.S. Any closer to a personal decision on a car yet? You can't put it off forever.
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 01:38 AM.




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