Car Magazine shootout: e92 M3 / GT-R / 911 turbo / R8 (16 page review)

[d_dot]

Originally Posted by umcool911ok

One thing they forgot to say is how much over
MSRP you will pay for the GT-R I know someone
over here in Nashville who paid 92,000$ U.S. for his and thats
the cheapest I have heard of so far, some are paying 100K

my boy got his for only 15k over sticker. then again he had a deposit down almost a month ago in jersey.

[Buschy]

I still love the fact that the M3 is een being compared to these three cars.

[Jack's dad]

+1. While our car did not take the top slot I walk away from this article feeling good about the M3. As I will be getting a sedan I will have a car that I can haul my kids around and yet still competes with some of the best performing cars on earth. Not bad all things considered...

[PIMP "E"]

the ///M does pretty good for the crowd its running with. 2 seconds is nothing either way your still getting away from the cops. lol

[swamp2]

Look like comments about this article are getting split up amongst two threads. Oh well. Sorry for the repost but I really wanted to put the thoughts I put over there over here as well.

+1 on the other comments about the M3. 2nd place - UNREAL!

This car just is not in the 911TT nor GT-R league, yet it totally held its own. It is an honor to even be invited to such a test IMHO. It even scored the fastest at more than one spot in the track. What an accomplishment . The damp conditions (as noted above) absolutely helped all of the other AWD-ers and hurt the M3. It would also be very interesting to know if the car had MPS or MPSC+ tires. That makes a big difference. The M3 has already basically matched the R8 at the N'Ring, when both had similar tires. Also recall the M3 has already also "bested" even the mighty GT3 by the judgement of a German magazine. Sure we all know which is faster in most straights and the corners, and which is clearly the better track car, but this comparison took some practicality, comfort and cost points into consideration. Like I keep saying M-DCT will continue to narrow the margins against such respectable "competition".

[ronushi]

All because of the turbo thats all. M3 just looks fcuking hot man. I mean its a BMW. Give it a turbo to M3 it'll leave all of them to dust. I think thats what Bmw made a mistake there for not going turbo on the m3. I would of done it and just unleash the beast.

[ArtPE]

the track was wet/greasy...this favors awd cars...the M3 was the only one that wasn't...

despite this the M3 was the fastest thru 2 corners, and 2nd in the other 2...

although it was 0.5 sec slower to 60 than the R8, it was fast (0.3 sec) from 60-100, awd is a launch advantage, in gears I'm guessing the M3 is faster...and on a dry track the M3 would not be 0.5 behind to 60, maybe a couple of tenths...

the M3 was run on a wet track to clear it for the other cars, it was driven sideways to do so, this destroyed the tires...it's timed lap was done after doing so...

so with bad treadless tires in the wet, it was ~3 sec slower than the 997TT awd with good tires and costing twice as much...not too shabby...

[jaiman]

Originally Posted by E82tt6

Hmm, a bit suprised that the R8 was faster than the M3 in both a straight line, and around the twisties. Based on earlier test numbers, I would have expected the M3 to have an edge against the R8 in terms of power.

Also interesting to see that the 997TT is significantly faster than the GTR in a straight line. I think they should have run all 4 cars on a dyno, so we could get an answer on where HP for the GTR really is. Some have said 480whp, but if that were the case, it should have stayed ahead of the 997TT in a straight line.

Sorry, what? The GT-R wins to 60 and 100. Sure its top speed on the track is lower, but its a JDM car that has a speed limiter at 110 mph!!!

[Los Angeles]

Originally Posted by hansyes

Come on.. Just say "I have such a bias in favour of German cars"

[ArtPE]

Originally Posted by jaiman

Sorry, what? The GT-R wins to 60 and 100. Sure its top speed on the track is lower, but its a JDM car that has a speed limiter at 110 mph!!!

this car did not have the limiter...
it's owned by nissan tuner gtc, and was dyno'ed up to 117+ mph...
notice the plates and the guys jacket...

although the dyno was rigged:
google, you'll find it, 457 rwhp/520 crank on 102 octane fuel... (might be 96 in our rating system)

the dyno set-up screen says 13.67 mph / 1000 rpm in 4th gear
this is calculated from the input data, ie, ratios, tire size, etc. and is used to back calc torque, etc.

trouble is in 4th it's 17.6 mph / 1000 rpm, from nissans specs...
(1000)/(60 x 3.7 x 1.248) x 7.15 = 26 ft/sec or 17.6 mph / 1000 rpm

also this shows the car is not restricted
6.62 x 17.6 ~ 117 mph...

something is amiss...
say the engine is making 400 lb ft (I'm using round numbers to simplify)
and in 3rd gear, say 3:1 overall
road T = 3 x 400 = 1200

but when calculating the engine gear corrected torque, if the set-up is 'wrong' and you use 2:1 4th gear:
gear corrected torque = 1200/2 = 600!!!

the torque error is actually 1.248/1.595 = 0.7824 (4th/3rd)
they measure 444 ft lb, should be 348 ft lb (wheels)
348/430 rated = 0.81, or 19% loss, almost exactly what I calculated before...
when the 'other' dyno was floating around

he says it's 520 HP, calculated from 457 whp..how does he know the loss factor? he used 14%...

he says the torque is 444 (wheel) in 4th gear, but the test was run in third...
so it's actually 1.248/1.595 x 444 ~ 347 (wheel)
assuming 20% losses, about right for an awd on a roller dyno, 2 drivshafts, etc.

347/0.8 = 433 (crank) exactly nissans rating

peak HP is at 6600 rpm
dyno torque ~ 410 at 6600

crank HP = correction f (20% loss assumed) x 4th/3rd x rpm/5252 x T
= 1.2 x 1.248/1.595 x 6600/5252 x 410 ~ 484 HP

weird how that works out, I'm sure the 96 octane gave it a few ponies

[devo]

Originally Posted by the_stranger

Coming to the looks, I cant disagree with you. it depends on each person's opinion. I think the M3 looks great. But not as good as the R8. I think it definitely looks better than the GTR. Coming to the price, GTR is not slightly more expensive than the M3. It is being marked up a lot. The minimum is 20k. Although, I agree that GTR is a great track car and the R8 looks FABULOUS..

The minimum is not $20k. Many are had for $5k-10k over and quite a few have sold for MSRP.

[devo]

Originally Posted by 240ka

here we go once again with the rediculousness. the GT-R has a speed limiter and still out performs the 911 turbo. any where you read you will see the GT-R has a rev limiter. except the first couple test it was obviously disabled. just get over it.

theres not one test where a 911 turbo beats a GT-R. just give it up.

porsche needs to anser back and they will, leave it at that

stop trying to act like there is a conspiracy going on to dethonre porsche. Nissan has made a phenonmenal car. give it its credit and stop whinning

I am a fan of the GT-R but if it were not making well in excess of the 473/480 claimed hp, then it would easily fall behind the 997 turbo. I just hope that Nissan isn't just giving us a ringer. The speed limiter had no role in holding the GT-R back. Let me guess, you came over from the NAGTROC forum. You guys think that the GT-R is the best thing to ever grace asphalt.

BTW, try spell check.

[ArtPE]

Originally Posted by 240ka

here we go once again with the rediculousness. the GT-R has a speed limiter and still out performs the 911 turbo. any where you read you will see the GT-R has a rev limiter. except the first couple test it was obviously disabled. just get over it.

theres not one test where a 911 turbo beats a GT-R. just give it up.

porsche needs to anser back and they will, leave it at that

stop trying to act like there is a conspiracy going on to dethonre porsche. Nissan has made a phenonmenal car. give it its credit and stop whinning

WHINING, not whinning...
it's called objective reality, join in, you might like it...

the numbers don't lie...this car was dyno'ed and does not have a limiter...
the dyno's are doctored...you'ld see that if you could understand my post...

the Porsche was driven sideways for 6 laps, then the timed lap was done after the tires were shot, watch the videos...they play like a nissan commercial...

sportAuto will do a supertest in about 1 year...then we'll have a valid reference...

in this test the GTR was 1 sec over 1.7 miles faster, 7.5 over the Ring difference...
now put the TT on PSC's, it was on PS2's for the test, (it ran 7:54 on them driven by Horst, one of the best, if not the best) it gets 5-7 sec back...so almost even...

there is no way the GTR ran 7:38 (16 sec faster) on street tires on a damp track than a car weighing 300 lbs less, with much more torque and on a dry drack with semi-slicks...

it defies all logic
and I'll decide when to 'leave it'

[devo]

Originally Posted by 240ka

no we dont. we just cant stand the whinning thats going on because of the GT-R beating the 911 turbo. have you seen the video of the GT-R running the 1/4 in 11.67 with a trap speed of only 111.6mph. that only suggest the cars limited is kicking in.

i mean theres no mystery. Nissan has said plenty of times that they put a speed limiter on the car that deactivates once you are on a track. but the track has to be programed.

just like NIssan is trying to keep people from modding the GT-R.

which both i hate b/c who wants a car you cant mod.

but the fac tof the matter is that. the car has a speed limiter.

these are independent test and arent baised. and the 911 turbo is out gunned plain and simple.

yall act like its sin to beat a 911 turbo. when porsche beat out ferrari it was ok but when nissan beats out porsche the world turns upside down.

welcome the competition. pcar owners should want porsche to justify the price of the 911 turbo by making it perform like a 120k car which it doesnt.

Nissan showed the 911 turbo should only cost 70k.

and porsche has brain washed people into thinking the price is what it should be

First, go back to grammer school and learn how to construct something resembling a proper sentence and or paragraph.

Secondly, I do not have any problem whatsoever with the Nissan beating the Porsche. I do have a problem with Nissan claiming 480hp then delivering well over 520hp. If they keep that up for the entire model run, kudos to them, if they do not, then they are deceiving the customer. I am fully aware of the limiter. I am fairly certain that it played no role in these tests.

Also, consider that the GT-R has bested the 997tt in 60 and 100 mph sprints because of the launch control. Try a roll on from 20 or so and I am pretty certain the turbo win leave the GT-R behind. More torque acheived at lower revs and close to 350 lbs lighter. Without 520+hp the GT-R would just be an over weight wannabe. I would not even consider it, if it had the claimed 473hp while weighing close to 2 tons.

As far as teaching Porsche that the turbo should cost $70k, well the 997tt should be cheaper, but certainly the GT-R pales in comparison to the build quality of the Porsche. Even the reviewers agree on this one. The GT-R has its place, but please remember that it is no Porsche, Ferrari or similar exotic. Cheap speed is great but it is not the only answer to the equation.

[Ced]

Originally Posted by E82tt6

You won't see it soon, because the Z06 will light it up like a candle.

I think the reason the M3 falls behind is because of Mercedes and Audi. The M3, over time, as consistantly gotten softer, and softer, more and more like an AMG instead of an M, and the inverse trend can be seen among Mercedes, as is evidenced by the newest AMG cars.

BMW is used to competing with other Luxury marquees, and because of the compromises they've made, it doesn't hold up as well to more purpose built competition.

In other words, where's the CSL? That'd be a better comparison for those more pure sports cars, than the plain ole E92 M3, which is much softer around the edges than the other cars.

Yeah,

BMW is trying to sell by the numbers and that in itself is softening up the M brand when facing other competing marques; so, they try to make the M3 well-rounded and they do a great job. Of course the BMW engines are top notch.

I remember hearing BMW Manager saying that the reason they haven't built a supercar is because they don't want to sell just a couple of them; they want many people to enjoy their cars.

[GewoW]

Originally Posted by 240ka

most importantly STOCK IS STOCK

well im typing fast i dont have time to spell check. you all get what im saying.

520 is at the engine 472 is at the wheels. pleaes name one skyline that hasnt been underrated. you cant. all have been so whats the suprise.

a 3800lbs GT-R out performs a 911 turbo thats nearly 400lbs less.

the videos arent illusions or baised-it is what it is. there is no "dethone porsche conspiracy" going on.

give credit where credit is due. the GT-R has much better body control than the 911 turbo. the GT-R is just the better car.

the GT-R is the new KING. the 911 turbo is still great but can be better and needs alot more improvement.

did you read my post? or do you know nothing of porsches

[E82tt6]

Originally Posted by 240ka

most importantly STOCK IS STOCK

well im typing fast i dont have time to spell check. you all get what im saying.

520 is at the engine 472 is at the wheels. pleaes name one skyline that hasnt been underrated. you cant. all have been so whats the suprise.

a 3800lbs GT-R out performs a 911 turbo thats nearly 400lbs less.

the videos arent illusions or baised-it is what it is. there is no "dethone porsche conspiracy" going on.

give credit where credit is due. the GT-R has much better body control than the 911 turbo. the GT-R is just the better car.

the GT-R is the new KING. the 911 turbo is still great but can be better and needs alot more improvement.

I can name one. The Skyline GT350.

OH WAIT, this car isn't a Skyline. It's a GTR. Though the previous GTRs were based on the Skyline, this one is not.

Additionally, the earlier GTRs were underated because of the "HP Limit" of 280 in Japan.

I think to say it's the king is overkill. It's slower in a straight line, and is easier to drive. It hasn't even been proven that it's faster around a track yet, because the guy driving the 997TT in the test was clearly not driving the car nearly as fast as it could go.

It matches, or perhaps even slightly exceeds the overall performance of the 997TT for a lot less money. Great acomplishment, but let's not get too crazy.

[nusevad]

Thanks for the scans, the GT-R is mighty fast, but it sure is ugly too...

But i give it the it deserves. Nissan made one helluva machine.

[E82tt6]

Originally Posted by 240ka

no its not slower in a straight line. its a tab slower getting up to its top speed than the 911 turbo. and as top gear stated. the 911 turbo creeps up to its top speed a tab quicker than the GT-R. key word being "creeps." in a 1/4 the GT-R will beat the 911 turbo consistently

and maybe i shoudl have been more specific. by saying Skyline "GT-R" instead of just Skyline

no matter which way people look at it. for the pcar or german car fanboys look at it.

Nissan has rewrote the definition of what a supercar is

5mph on a straight is a lot slower.

And it won't destroy it in the 1/4, both cars run mid-high 11s.

It's not a Skyline at all. A G35 is a Skyline. It's completely unrelated, it's just "GTR".

No, they haven't. It couldn't keep up with a real supercar if the drivers life depended on it. Zonda, Enzo, CGT, etc, all so much faster it's not even worth comparing them. Hell, it's slower than a 996 GT2.

It's quick. Only a little slower than the $65k Z06. Pretty good bang for the buck.

But it's far from rewriting the definition of what a supercar is.

[nusevad]

Originally Posted by E82tt6

It's not a Skyline at all. A G35 is a Skyline. It's completely unrelated, it's just "GTR".

It kinda bugs me too when ppl keep saying Skyline

[BMW335icDDS]

Originally Posted by devo

First, go back to grammer school and learn how to construct something resembling a proper sentence and or paragraph.

Secondly, I do not have any problem whatsoever with the Nissan beating the Porsche. I do have a problem with Nissan claiming 480hp then delivering well over 520hp. If they keep that up for the entire model run, kudos to them, if they do not, then they are deceiving the customer. I am fully aware of the limiter. I am fairly certain that it played no role in these tests.

Also, consider that the GT-R has bested the 997tt in 60 and 100 mph sprints because of the launch control. Try a roll on from 20 or so and I am pretty certain the turbo win leave the GT-R behind. More torque acheived at lower revs and close to 350 lbs lighter. Without 520+hp the GT-R would just be an over weight wannabe. I would not even consider it, if it had the claimed 473hp while weighing close to 2 tons.

As far as teaching Porsche that the turbo should cost $70k, well the 997tt should be cheaper, but certainly the GT-R pales in comparison to the build quality of the Porsche. Even the reviewers agree on this one. The GT-R has its place, but please remember that it is no Porsche, Ferrari or similar exotic. Cheap speed is great but it is not the only answer to the equation.

The Turbo can get fast 0-60 times that are close to the GTR, but it can't do so consistently. Also, in order to do so it has to drop the clutch, decreasing its reliability. The GTR can do it EVERY single time. And when you talk about build quality issues, that is ridiculous. The GTR is built to a supercar's standards, and look up any "GTR assembly" in youtube and you can see for yourself. My dad has a Carrera S, I'm on a waitlist for the GTR and I feel I am pretty unbiased. The Porsche is awesome, and the GTR wouldn't be so awesome without being superior to such an awesome car. It is also hilarious some of you say the GTR isn't that good because its too easy to drive. There is NO ONE on this forum that can even push the GTR to its limit. Absolutely no one. The GTR has moved the game far beyond the M3 and its competition.

[E82tt6]

Originally Posted by 240ka

actually

the GT-R is hitting the rev limiter and it still it managed 11.6 in the 1/4 at 111.6mph

the GT-R without the rev limiter was traping 120-121 mph in edmunds and motor trends test. which means the GT-R is actaully a low 11 sec car

the 911 turbo isnt

the GT-R Spec V is aimed at the Carrera GT's time. which means it will be the GT2, koenesigg and zonda in the process

If that is the case, then why didn't it do so in those tests? It ran an 11.6@120. On par with a 997TT.

And if you're referring to the CGT's Nring time, I doubt the VSpec will run 20+ seconds faster than the plain GTR. 7:50-758 is a ways off the CGT, and those are the only verified 3rd party times we've seen.

Also, FYI, the Zonda R ran a 7:27, faster than the CGT.

Honestly, these GTR fanboys are so silly. I mean no offense by this, but are you even old enough to drive?

I really have no interest in continuing this conversation. I don't believe I'll hear anything new.