|
To the OP and others who agree the GT-R v. M is an "apples to apples" comparison...
Unless I've completely missed the boat here, aren't the M division's cars (except the original M1) based upon existing, non-M cars, i.e., 3 series, 5 series, 6 series? I thought the whole purpose of all the M's (again, except the M1) was to make a high performance version of a pre-existing, more "run of the mill" 3, 5 or 6 series...
Aren't the GT-R's (all generations) designed from the outset to be high-performance cars? I'm not aware of the GT-R being based upon a more mundane Nissan Altima coupe (or is it...) Is a 2+2 really the same as a four-seater, and if so, why the separate classifications? Why not do away with the separate category of "2+2" and just call the GT-R and 911 "four seaters...?"
I think you see my point here - just because two cars may in fact be competing for some of the same buyers, that does not automatically make them competitors "in the same class." Yes, I drive an M, yes I'm biased, yes I agree the GT-R clearly outperforms the M's... but to come out and say the GT-R spanks the M3... gee.. no kidding?!?!?!? If the economy was on the up-and-up, I would have been willing to bet BMW would have made a the rumored, dedicated M sports car (perhaps mid-engined) that wouldn't have been based upon a pre-existing passenger car platform to compete on an "apples to apples" basis with the R8 and GT-R....
What's truly nice is having a car and absolutely loving it for what it is... I know my E93 can get "spanked" by the E90 or E92 (and many other high-performance cars) on the track or in the quarter mile, but it's still fun as hell to drive, my wife and kids absolutely love it, and I'm still better than the overwhelming majority of the other cars out on the road (including many 2 seaters, 2+2's and cars that don't have the extra weight and decreased rigidity of a convertible...
And the "low torque" point - sure it's lower than many other cars, but again, so what? Look at the massive disparity in torque between the M3 and the C63, and yet both cars have virtually identical times in 0-60 and quarter mile. This just goes to show that looking torque at the crankshaft and disregarding torque multiplication through the gears is like failing to see the forest through the trees.
In conclusion - I agree with the OP and others that competition from the likes of Nissan and others is good for everyone, and I agree that M's would not be nearly as good (particularly future versions) but for the fantastic competition that is out there... But the suggestion that an M is not a tremenously rewarding and fun car to drive just because it's not the fastest car out there is simply untrue...
|