E92 M3 > GT-R

[OnURleft]

That's truth that I have never been on a track. I have only owned a turbo'ed 240sx and the highest revving car I ever driven is the new Si, but I am not here to say which is better. I am just making a statement for those people saying driving a GTR is like playing playstation. If you pick one sentence out of an essay and say it is false, it always works. My point is that if you want to be involved in driving a "real" car, drive a car from the 60's. No abs, t/c, whatever. There are enough crap in both M3 and GTR that drives the car rather than you drive it. That's my point.

Not everybody, including me, lives a life where you can try all kinds of cars on a track. I work my ass off putting my SR'ed S14 together, wishing one day I could see what I can do with it on the track. But time have not yet come.

So you like high revving engined cars, so be it. May be it is for you, but I stand by my favorite as of right now- turbo. With what you said about me, even I went to the track today and try a turbo and a high revving car, I would still say the turbo car is more fun. But maybe fun will change over time.

And I hate what you say about the F40 and NSX. F40 is a road version of the Ferrari's F1 car, which was turbo'ed at the time. NSX is not really credit at its engine. It is the way it handles. I love both of these cars, and what you wrote just does not make any sense to me.

The car I would love to drive on a track right now is a Super 7. No driving aids, pure driving ability.

M3, GTR, F40, NSX, whatever. I love all these cars, but not for the same reasons.

Maybe I should put it this way:

Between the GTR and the M3
If you want to have fun on the track, drive the M3. If you want to win on the track, drive the GTR.

Well said. Most of your posts should be more like this one, proving that you have great things to say. Don't take offense, it's just how I see it and how everyone around me sees it and to me it's mostly laughable to go turbo to have a better time at the track. A silent wosh and a wall of power can be nice but just about every club racer I know hair will start tingling at the though of driving that 10,000rpm S2000 or built 997 screaming down pit lane.
As far as the F40, that was probably the worst example I could think of period..As it's a high revving, screaming turbo car anyhow. Comparing a 911 Turbo and a GT3 back to back would prove my point. Also, my close friend had a somewhat built NSX for some time and between all the NSX's at track days and driving it around town I think it would have no soul without the motor. Every part of that car was ahead of it's time but part of it's success was the fact that Honda didn't take any short cuts and actually produced a chassis and a motor you'd expect from Ferrari, Porsche, BMW etc...not just a block with a snail...anyone can do that and Japan will over and over again to save development costs.
Also your mind set on not being able to "live a life where you can drive cars on a track" is pure ignorance. Go out there and do it, it's very inexpensive once you have what you need. There are magazines which frequently tell you how to do it for say...less than 5 grand. Run a search it's called BMW CCA, P.C, N.A.S.A, SCCA, PANOZ, ACNA ...all cheap..no specific make required. If your good with your social and driving skills you'll probably make friends who own cars like these and get thrown the keys at every event...No $ needed.

As far as this thread goes I wouldn't call the AWD a huge disadvantage, it's not like you can't kick an R35 sideways. They are practically rwd, it would be the drawbacks I said in my first post and maybe the lack of a real motor and sound like an NSX or GT3 if your one who prefers N.A cars.