M3 beats GT-R and Porsche turbo in C&D comparison test
#16
05-28-2008, 04:16 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: too far from the autobahn, USA
Posts: 447
Rep Power: 36 
C&D completely lost me on this one. Their tests are normally a little more clear cut. Price, configuration, etc. really created unlevel playing ground. No matter what 3 great cars in their own right.
#17
05-28-2008, 04:20 PM
LOL --I have BOTH cars . http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/yrralis1
First I'd like to say that the M3 is one spicy machine in terms of fun and value . Plus the way the car is released stock is quite impressive .
In contrast the 997tt stock really needed some help and in my case the price tag of those mods to give it that help is about 70K (the cost of an M3) .
But make no mistake --the modded 997tt is a monster and ought not even share the same drveway with an M3 UNLESS one wants that trunk and extra seat in moments when driving becomes more rational .
First I'd like to say that the M3 is one spicy machine in terms of fun and value . Plus the way the car is released stock is quite impressive .
In contrast the 997tt stock really needed some help and in my case the price tag of those mods to give it that help is about 70K (the cost of an M3) .
But make no mistake --the modded 997tt is a monster and ought not even share the same drveway with an M3 UNLESS one wants that trunk and extra seat in moments when driving becomes more rational .
#18
05-28-2008, 04:25 PM
I love the M3 but this article is very poorly written. I have just lost so much respect for this magazine.
This really does make me wonder if they got paid by BMW for this blatant endorsement becuase they are strapped for cash due to the poor US economy.
Why dont they just add the Ford Expedition in this comparison and give it higher points that the M3 because it has more legroom and bigger back seats??
Give me a break.
This really does make me wonder if they got paid by BMW for this blatant endorsement becuase they are strapped for cash due to the poor US economy.
Why dont they just add the Ford Expedition in this comparison and give it higher points that the M3 because it has more legroom and bigger back seats??
Give me a break.
#19
05-28-2008, 04:28 PM
Common sense anyone?
Just so you know, lap time is nothing like 1/4mile. It's all about how much you can carry around your speed through turns, how fast you can stop, and the exit speed plays big role in determining what top speed you will reach on the straight.
That's why GT2 is a lot faster than 911TT on the ring, but not that much difference on the 1/4mile. Or better example, GT3 being faster than 911TT on the track despite being slower on the 1/4mile.
That's why GT2 is a lot faster than 911TT on the ring, but not that much difference on the 1/4mile. Or better example, GT3 being faster than 911TT on the track despite being slower on the 1/4mile.
Give me a break, Nurbrugring is not a tight technical cercuit, a quarter of that track is basically straights. A car that traps 115mph in the 1/4 mile would never achieve the speed necessary to do a 7:29 time on the ring. Even in terms of grip, GT-R does not have a huge advantage over the turbo. A 7:29 is what a Porsche Carrera GT does on the ring, a 3,000lb 610hp racecar with a carbonfiber monocoque chassis, carbon brakes, and carbon composite body and Le-Mans developed V10 engine. There is no way a GT-R is going to match that, it is clear to everyone except the most idiotic Nissan fanboys that the 7:29 GTR was a highly tuned version. Look at this track, a 1 second difference between a 911TT and a GT-R. The difference was so small that it could've easily went either way depending on the driver. If a 911 GT3, a much faster track car than the 911 Turbo, would be included in the test, it would've smoked the Nissan GT-R on this track (as it did in the One Lap of America by the way)! You think being 1 second and 2mph faster than a 911 Turbo is impressive? Please... 911 turbo is not even designed for track, that's what GT3/RS is for! GT3 is easily 3-4 seconds faster than TT on a track like this!
Last edited by Tuskir; 05-28-2008 at 04:32 PM.
#20
05-28-2008, 04:39 PM
summery:
the 997 brakes better than the gtr and m3.
the 997 accelerates faster than the gtr and m3.
the 997 scores better/equal to the gtr and m3 on the skidpad.
yet finishes last in this test? yea cd is still sucks!
the 997 brakes better than the gtr and m3.
the 997 accelerates faster than the gtr and m3.
the 997 scores better/equal to the gtr and m3 on the skidpad.
yet finishes last in this test? yea cd is still sucks!
#22
05-28-2008, 05:04 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: W Palm Beach, FL
Age: 54
Posts: 174
Rep Power: 28
The whole comparison test is stupid. How many people shopping a 997 Turbo are thinking about whether they can fit adults in the back comfortably? The M3 shouldn't even be in this test.
#23
05-28-2008, 05:15 PM
The key point as someone else mentioned is that the GTR is slower in acceleration, worse in braking and in skidpad than the TT which all make sense considering the weight it carries. The TT has a very mild suspension alignment out of the box which hampers its track potential. A small adjustment would improve the track behavior greatly.
#24
05-28-2008, 05:19 PM
Give me a break, Nurbrugring is not a tight technical cercuit, a quarter of that track is basically straights. A car that traps 115mph in the 1/4 mile would never achieve the speed necessary to do a 7:29 time on the ring. Even in terms of grip, GT-R does not have a huge advantage over the turbo. A 7:29 is what a Porsche Carrera GT does on the ring, a 3,000lb 610hp racecar with a carbonfiber monocoque chassis, carbon brakes, and carbon composite body and Le-Mans developed V10 engine. There is no way a GT-R is going to match that, it is clear to everyone except the most idiotic Nissan fanboys that the 7:29 GTR was a highly tuned version. Look at this track, a 1 second difference between a 911TT and a GT-R. The difference was so small that it could've easily went either way depending on the driver. If a 911 GT3, a much faster track car than the 911 Turbo, would be included in the test, it would've smoked the Nissan GT-R on this track (as it did in the One Lap of America by the way)! You think being 1 second and 2mph faster than a 911 Turbo is impressive? Please... 911 turbo is not even designed for track, that's what GT3/RS is for! GT3 is easily 3-4 seconds faster than TT on a track like this!
The data trace that Mizuno is proud to take me through suggests that Suzuki is being ridiculously modest. The peak lateral G figure is 1.4 - and the car averages 1.3G from corner to corner. The GTR hits 290kph twice on its way to that lap time. The throttle position graph tells of total commitment (TPOS on the graph). Lapping a 1740kg road car in 7:29 is simply a phenomenal achievement.
#25
05-28-2008, 05:29 PM
The key point as someone else mentioned is that the GTR is slower in acceleration, worse in braking and in skidpad than the TT which all make sense considering the weight it carries. The TT has a very mild suspension alignment out of the box which hampers its track potential. A small adjustment would improve the track behavior greatly.
#26
05-28-2008, 05:41 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: W Palm Beach, FL
Age: 54
Posts: 174
Rep Power: 28 The key point as someone else mentioned is that the GTR is slower in acceleration, worse in braking and in skidpad than the TT which all make sense considering the weight it carries. The TT has a very mild suspension alignment out of the box which hampers its track potential. A small adjustment would improve the track behavior greatly.
#27
05-28-2008, 05:49 PM
But if you look at the average of all the magazine test out there. My opinion is that GTR is faster than 911TT in most road conditions. (I know some will disagree, but that's okay)
