GTR vs M3. Any reasons to not get a GTR?

[devo]

[QUOTE=moosety2009;5501396]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

The GTR's engine is a 3.8, the BM's is a 4.0... So nearly the same size.


Yet you have TWIN TURBO's on the car and your only up 60hp? Ill take the better built, more advanced, higher revving, 4.0l V8. You put twin turbo's on the V8 and your up way more than 480hp.


By your argurment, if you give the GTR 2 More cylinders you up the HP from 485 to 640! The GTR produces 81HP per cylindar while the BMW produces a very good 52hp. Go ahead and twin turbo your v8 (you do in the x6M) your producing 500hp (only 20 more than the V6 3.8L GTR) But what's lost in all of this nonsense is not Peak horse power, but the Area under the curve.

There maybe 1 or 2 cars on the planet right now that do a better job of making use of that engine power through out the rev range and so efficiently to the wheels. That's why the GTR is in the Top 3 around the ring.

Some would claim that some of the reasons why the GT-R is a "claimed" top three around the Ring are because of creative timing and ringer engines. Nissan does do a great job of applying power to the ground, however, the GT-R engine isn't some kind of marvel. Its torgue band is nice but by no means as impressive as a three year old 997tt. With twin turbos, the GT-R should be making the power that it does, anything less would be disappointing, imo.

[ScotyH]

[QUOTE=devo;5503523]

Originally Posted by moosety2009

Some would claim that some of the reasons why the GT-R is a "claimed" top three around the Ring are because of creative timing and ringer engines. Nissan does do a great job of applying power to the ground, however, the GT-R engine isn't some kind of marvel. Its torgue band is nice but by no means as impressive as a three year old 997tt. With twin turbos, the GT-R should be making the power that it does, anything less would be disappointing, imo.

Dynos of completely stock GTR's have shown anywhere from 400- 430hp at the wheels. With a drive train loss of about 20-25%, that equates to about 550 flywheel horsepower. That's why their 1/4 times are so fast..... they have plenty of power, not a magical transmission with low loss.

[graider]

i think the gtr interior is better than the m3 interior. M3 interior is pretty much the same as a 3 series interior.

[1cleanm6]

Originally Posted by moosety2009

Climate controls along with audio controls are the same in the M3 as the 28k 128. I remember them feeling and looking very cheap.

yummmmyy....


these interiors are so much nicer

[Archon]

Let's be clear...the GTR out performs the E90/E92 M3

Ok with that out of the way.

Here are some reasons

1) If you don't need track ability...the M3 is a better all around DD...IMO
2) If you want a three pedal setup...nuff said
3) Price, it's way more expensive to buy and maintain. But if you have to ask...
4) If you think a sedan or vert suits you better.
5) If you do plan on tracking the car, make sure you're up to speed what needs to be upgraded ($$$) to keep the thing running instead of being in the shop.

[ersin]

Originally Posted by Archon

Let's be clear...the GTR out performs the E90/E92 M3

Ok with that out of the way.

Here are some reasons

1) If you don't need track ability...the M3 is a better all around DD...IMO
2) If you want a three pedal setup...nuff said
3) Price, it's way more expensive to buy and maintain. But if you have to ask...
4) If you think a sedan or vert suits you better.
5) If you do plan on tracking the car, make sure you're up to speed what needs to be upgraded ($$$) to keep the thing running instead of being in the shop.

6) Nissan dealers are worse than BMW dealers. The dishonoring of the warranty issues is no surprise to me given my experience with them. The GTR is a fantastic car. But the fact that it has to be serviced by Nissan dealers (and the great cost of doing so compared with BMW) kills it for me.

[991GT3]

Originally Posted by Archon

Let's be clear...the GTR out performs the E90/E92 M3

Ok with that out of the way.

Here are some reasons

1) If you don't need track ability...the M3 is a better all around DD...IMO
2) If you want a three pedal setup...nuff said
3) Price, it's way more expensive to buy and maintain. But if you have to ask...
4) If you think a sedan or vert suits you better.
5) If you do plan on tracking the car, make sure you're up to speed what needs to be upgraded ($$$) to keep the thing running instead of being in the shop.

I agree except on the DD part. The Nissan is a pretty good DD if you don't need a back seat.

[moosety2009]

Originally Posted by MrHarris

I lack of good deals and the fact they are strict w/ the warranty (launch control) make it a no go for me. It looks awesome though.

These are legitimate concerns of which I can support. I just can't support the interior arguments as reasons to shun the GTR.

[moosety2009]

[QUOTE=GatorBlue371;5504050]

Originally Posted by moosety2009

You forgot the two turbo chargers it took to get there. Dont play dumb.


Shit the Exige has a 1.8L making 250+hp. Sounds real impressive till we get to the Supercharger.

Lets just agree that comparing a N/A engine to a Force Induced one, is comparing apples to oranges.

[KonigsTiger]

GTR looks very much like a Nissan and drives like one too.

[Epik]

Performance > GTR

Pretty car > M3

Both > Scuderia

[graider]

in all honesty though. I would buy the m3 coupe or vert over the gtr even though the gtr is a beast and I really like thea aggressive rear end. But I don't really feel the front at all.

[991GT3]

I don't quite get this engine debate. Why is it absurd to compare an NA against a TT? Is it some kind of consolation that the engine is NA but produces less hp? Shouldn't the big picture (ie making the car faster) be the overriding concern?

[991GT3]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

no

So you buy a car with the best power to displacement ratio(with NA engines getting 25+% leaway)? Or what car performs best?

[mtla4]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

When the debate is based on the level of engineering of the engine it isnt the biggest concern.

I'd rather see people arguing over engines rather than interiors and quality of material . We should change the name of the forum to Living, home improvement or one of those girly show about fung shui homes.

[moosety2009]

Agreed! Lets talk about engines instead of fluffy crap about interiors.

I for one am a big fan of V8 and above engines. To me anything v8 and above sounds fantastic! You can surpercharge or turbo charge a v8 and I'm happy.

However, IMHO it's not always about Horse Power (maybe it is), but as a good example, American cars always get a bad wrap about how big our engines are, yet how little horse power per liter they produce. For example, a dodge viper SRT-10 has a V-10 8.4L engine producing 600hp. By the engineering and philosophy of european models i.e BMW this engine should be producing at least 100hp/L thus the engine should be producing at least 840HP.

What we tend the forget is the other performance factor; and that is Torque. Typically American engines tend to sacrafice HP/L to maximize Torque. Europeans on the other hand, don't really pay a lot of attention to torque and instead look to maximize HP.

Lets take a look at the 335i for example (great engine) V6 3.0L twin turbo 300hp and 300ft/lbs or torque. But looking at the M3, you've got a V8 4.0 Liters with 414hp and 295 ft/lbs of torque. An american spec of a V8 4.0 would be about 340 hp and 350 ft/lbs of torque.

Now, as far as debating force induction with respect to N/A engines: Up until recently, people didn't like turbo charging because of the "turbo lag" Well BMW changed the mainstream opinion about this as their v6, 3.0L twin turbo is so good that lag is not readily detected!

One way to force induce an engine and keep lag to a minimum is to supercharge the car. This is a prefered method of most, but believe the concept of Twin turbos is helping to change the direction of force induction.

This brings me to the GTR engine. The V6 3.8L produces a fantastic 485 HP and 434 ft/lbs of torque. Great numbers and the turbo Lag is virtually non-existant just like the engine in the 335i.

From an engineering standpoint, turbo charging or supercharging is a more economical way of getting power without having to have a bigger engine consuming more gas to give it to you. This is why I think comparing a force induced engine to a N/A engine is not really a good comparison to analyze from the optic of engineering.

Another advantage of turbo charging over a N/A engine is at altitudes. N/A engines tend to lose more power more rapidly as altitude increases. By contrast force induction engines lose significantly less power at altitude in comparison to their N/A counterparts.

The V8 in the M3, R8, Aston Martin, Maserati, Audi S5, Camaro ss, CTS-V, Mustang, and just about all V8 cars sounds soo much better than any V6 engine to include the GTR,

However from an efficiency, economics, and power perspective force induction is really the way to go, and as engineered in the GTR, it really is impressive for the time being.

[mtla4]

Originally Posted by moosety2009

Agreed! Lets talk about engines instead of fluffy crap about interiors.

I for one am a big fan of V8 and above engines. To me anything v8 and above sounds fantastic! You can surpercharge or turbo charge a v8 and I'm happy.

However, IMHO it's not always about Horse Power (maybe it is), but as a good example, American cars always get a bad wrap about how big our engines are, yet how little horse power per liter they produce. For example, a dodge viper SRT-10 has a V-10 8.4L engine producing 600hp. By the engineering and philosophy of european models i.e BMW this engine should be producing at least 100hp/L thus the engine should be producing at least 840HP.

What we tend the forget is the other performance factor; and that is Torque. Typically American engines tend to sacrafice HP/L to maximize Torque. Europeans on the other hand, don't really pay a lot of attention to torque and instead look to maximize HP.

Lets take a look at the 335i for example (great engine) V6 3.0L twin turbo 300hp and 300ft/lbs or torque. But looking at the M3, you've got a V8 4.0 Liters with 414hp and 295 ft/lbs of torque. An american spec of a V8 4.0 would be about 340 hp and 350 ft/lbs of torque.

Now, as far as debating force induction with respect to N/A engines: Up until recently, people didn't like turbo charging because of the "turbo lag" Well BMW changed the mainstream opinion about this as their v6, 3.0L twin turbo is so good that lag is not readily detected!

One way to force induce an engine and keep lag to a minimum is to supercharge the car. This is a prefered method of most, but believe the concept of Twin turbos is helping to change the direction of force induction.

This brings me to the GTR engine. The V6 3.8L produces a fantastic 485 HP and 434 ft/lbs of torque. Great numbers and the turbo Lag is virtually non-existant just like the engine in the 335i.

From an engineering standpoint, turbo charging or supercharging is a more economical way of getting power without having to have a bigger engine consuming more gas to give it to you. This is why I think comparing a force induced engine to a N/A engine is not really a good comparison to analyze from the optic of engineering.

Another advantage of turbo charging over a N/A engine is at altitudes. N/A engines tend to lose more power more rapidly as altitude increases. By contrast force induction engines lose significantly less power at altitude in comparison to their N/A counterparts.

The V8 in the M3, R8, Aston Martin, Maserati, Audi S5, Camaro ss, CTS-V, Mustang, and just about all V8 cars sounds soo much better than any V6 engine to include the GTR,

However from an efficiency, economics, and power perspective force induction is really the way to go, and as engineered in the GTR, it really is impressive for the time being.

Great post...sometimes turbo is almost useless per exemple Z4 3.0si(328I has 230) vs 335...it has two turbos and has only 30 hp more. The turbos are so tiny and run on low boost so not much power is gained from them. I often hear: Wow your car must be quick you have two turbos .....well they only produce 300 hp(stock).

[ihatepotholes]

[QUOTE=GatorBlue371;5510909]

Originally Posted by moosety2009

I agree that comparing N/A engines which make over 100hp per liter to twin turbo engines of nearly the same size is ridiculous.

whats your point? is that suppose to be impressive? s2000 had 120hp per liter 10 years ago, more than our precious M3. who gives a rats azz? are you saying 997TT's 3.6 twin turbo engine is ridiculous too? manufacturers simply don't run their engine to full capacity. GTR with no hardware just a cobb and a stage 2 tune will net you 70+hp.

no offense you got the stupidest argument of all time, nobody cares about how much power these cars making per liter. final result is what matters, 997tt and GTR will trounce M3 anywhere all day everyday.

M3 is an awesome car, it will be my next purchase in a couple of months, but to use stupid excuses like hp/liter and interior to say its a better car is just utterly retarded. M3 is the best choice for me at 60k, i simply don't have that extra 25k to spend on a GTR, also the maintaince is a killer.

[moosety2009]

[QUOTE=ihatepotholes;5515308]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

whats your point? is that suppose to be impressive? s2000 had 120hp per liter 10 years ago, more than our precious M3. who gives a rats azz? are you saying 997TT's 3.6 twin turbo engine is ridiculous too? manufacturers simply don't run their engine to full capacity. GTR with no hardware just a cobb and a stage 2 tune will net you 70+hp.

no offense you got the stupidest argument of all time, nobody cares about how much power these cars making per liter. final result is what matters, 997tt and GTR will trounce M3 anywhere all day everyday.

M3 is an awesome car, it will be my next purchase in a couple of months, but to use stupid excuses like hp/liter and interior to say its a better car is just utterly retarded. M3 is the best choice for me at 60k, i simply don't have that extra 25k to spend on a GTR, also the maintaince is a killer.

Ihatepotholes; I think you misunderstood my quote. I'm in violent agreement with what your saying. I was trying to convey your point to a previous poster about comparing Naturally aspirated engines to force induced engines. He was saying that the V8 4.0L in an M3 is a better engineered engine than the v6 3.8 L twin turbo of the GTR, because the M3's engine produces over 100 hp/L without having to use turbos (as in the GTR cheats by using turbos to prouce only 60hp more with nearly the same size engine).

Anyway, this shortsighted approach to measuring engine engineering superiority/achievement has almost spurned a different topic of conversation; and that is what are the advantage vs disadvantages of force induction? Why don't more cars force induce engines to achieve greater power output while minimizing gas consumption and weight?

Finally, your rational about the purchase of your M3 over GTR is spot on. IMHO there is NO other car better than an M3 at the price point of the M3, and the M3 has a far less impact on maintenance overhead to the bottom line of a driver than the GTR. So with all do I agree with all of your points!

[ihatepotholes]

[QUOTE=moosety2009;5515470]

Originally Posted by ihatepotholes

Ihatepotholes; I think you misunderstood my quote. I'm in violent agreement with what your saying. I was trying to convey your point to a previous poster about comparing Naturally aspirated engines to force induced engines. He was saying that the V8 4.0L in an M3 is a better engineered engine than the v6 3.8 L twin turbo of the GTR, because the M3's engine produces over 100 hp/L without having to use turbos (as in the GTR cheats by using turbos to prouce only 60hp more with nearly the same size engine).

Anyway, this shortsighted approach to measuring engine engineering superiority/achievement has almost spurned a different topic of conversation; and that is what are the advantage vs disadvantages of force induction? Why don't more cars force induce engines to achieve greater power output while minimizing gas consumption and weight?

Finally, your rational about the purchase of your M3 over GTR is spot on. IMHO there is NO other car better than an M3 at the price point of the M3, and the M3 has a far less impact on maintenance overhead to the bottom line of a driver than the GTR. So with all do I agree with all of your points!

my bad my friend, i was trying to quote BlueGator...

just a side note, the technology on GTR's drivetrain is light years ahead of M3s including its DCT

[E82tt6]

Why I pick M3:

I want a car that can REASONABLY be driven every day, without piling up 15k in service coats.

I don't want to spend that much money on a "world beating supercar" that the manufacturer does not have the confidence to support with a warranty.

I want a stick shift.

[991GT3]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

When the debate is based on the level of engineering of the engine it isnt the biggest concern.

Considering you're debating that in a thread about two cars what the end result is on the performance of the vehicle should be your biggest concern.