E92 M3 > GT-R

[Atlblkz06]

My take:

*The average MPG thing is a toy, its not like the Japs cant do it, they just dont care to.

* The window thing: What are you talking about? If you're talking about indexing - its done to prevent water from entering the cabin. Hell even american cars do this!

* Turbos: These TT setups spool up pretty quick, dont under-estimate em! The 911TT has the same problem so its a moot point.

* Sorry but the M3 motor is sorely lacking in the torque department. You're talking about it like its an American V8, and that is simply not the case.
The S65 has 295 max torque and a VERY impressive torque curve that holds rock steady at 250ft/lb from 2k on up - impressive!

DYNO - click me

Exhaust: This is highly subjective, but I'll stick to american V8s in the department. Nothing quite like it! However if you want high revin insane exhaust notes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYYbHvwGCPo

One of the biased things for me is, Ive owned older german cars. The things even the old german cars do, the Japs still havent done.

For instance, my 1988 Jetta GLI had a average mpg feature. That was a cheap sport fwd German car made in the 80s. I have yet to see a similiar Japanese car with something as cool.

Or, the E36 coupe BMWs windows roll down about a half an inch when you open and go back up that half an inch when you close to make better aero-dynamics.


Specs mean nothing to me, overall driving experiance and how the cars are made are more to me.

**Also, the GTR is a Turbo 6 cylinder. When you give it some hell the turbo has to spool up to get the rear end sideways.


However... The M3 is a V8 HOSS. Take off the TC and itll romp those tires at 2k all you want.


Moving on to exhaust tones.... The GTR sounds cool when the turbo spools up and whines up the motor... Where-as the V8 M3... You can hear from a mile away roaring like hells angels coming to rip your face off.

Now, to me a sports car should sound like something is coming to kill you, your family, and wreck your town in the process. And truely, there is nothing like the V8 throating sinister growl.

[JITB]

gtr has avg Mpg.. and a ole 88 mazda 323 gtx had average mpg, on the digital dash.

[1SICKLEX]

Oh the things you could do to the M3 with that extra $20 grand you didn't spend on the GT-R...

I'm glad BMW decided to be true to the M badge and up the displacement instead instead of adding boost to the mix. The E92 exhaust note is honestly one of the most deadly sounding cars I've ever heard. 8k is music.

I'm pretty biased against the GT-R. I enjoy driving my cars, not being driven by them.

I think it was Chad who on the first page called the M a "luxury coupe" and the R35 a sportscar...I'm sure someone pretty soundly disproved that one already (without reading through the rest of the thread). The M is still 100lbs lighter than the GT-R. I'm not sure why folks are complaining about the E92's weight.

I guess I'm a purist for the most part, and the GT-R is as far from a pure driving experience as it gets these days. I'll drive a minivan if I want to let the vehicle do the driving and reacting for me.

///M ftw.

Purist? Then you wouldn't like either car. THe M3 is still based on a lowly 320 in Europe. Its only 100lbs less but the GT-R has AWD. BMW has simply lost their mind with weight. THe M6 convertible weighs 4400 lbs!!!

I do agree, the GT-R is so good, it is less involving than an M3, which makes the M3 more fun to some reviewers.

Reguardless of the back seat or not, BMW makes a better car.

The M series cars are the top notch vehicles around. The are the balance between a powerful sports car, and then roll up the windows turn the A/C on and youve got quite a luxary car.

The GTR to me is just a faster 350z. I don't even understand why they made it look like they did. It looks nothing like the R34 or the previous skylines.

The M3 however, follows quite a family of stylish cars.

Clearly you have not read about the engineering that goes into the GT-R, down to the paint finish, yes 14 steps. M cars are a great balance between luxury and sport, no arguement there.

[1SICKLEX]

My take:

*The average MPG thing is a toy, its not like the Japs cant do it, they just dont care to.

* The window thing: What are you talking about? If you're talking about indexing - its done to prevent water from entering the cabin. Hell even american cars do this!

* Turbos: These TT setups spool up pretty quick, dont under-estimate em! The 911TT has the same problem so its a moot point.

* Sorry but the M3 motor is sorely lacking in the torque department. You're talking about it like its an American V8, and that is simply not the case.
The S65 has 295 max torque and a VERY impressive torque curve that holds rock steady at 250ft/lb from 2k on up - impressive!

DYNO - click me

Exhaust: This is highly subjective, but I'll stick to american V8s in the department. Nothing quite like it! However if you want high revin insane exhaust notes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYYbHvwGCPo

M3s, hell M cars never had torque. The new ones are high revving beasts, so that makes them very involving. You really have to shift the car and abuse it to have some fun!

I have to say the M3 moving to a V-8 really appeals to me. Who can't love a V-8 coupe?

[OnURleft]

Compare M3 to GTR, the only thing that makes the GTR less fun is the computerized AWD system. That's about it.

Clearly stated by someone with no seat time in a turbo car on a track and a high revving car on a track...back to back..
Ferrari would have the same soul with a 450hp 6800rpm 3.4 liter turbo car wouldn't they. An NSX-R would be so much fun without 8500rpm. The F40 was good, but they walked away from forced induction for a reason. Yawn.

On a side note..with new technology, variable turbo's etc. the "fun factor" in turbo cars is getting better...In a 335 it's hardly noticeable and sounds mean, but it's there. Rumor has it BMW is working on high revving turbo cars for production M's. We'll see.

[EJ25RUN]

For me its like, Corvette Z06/ZR1>>GT500>C63 AMG>E92 M3>GTR.

I mean to each their own but....damn.

[CHADbee]

I dont have anything against paddle shifters, but list EVERY insane little technological thing the GTR has, and things that make the car fun.

OMGFNGAWD

did you really neg rep me in this thread cause i spoke my mind

cause i stated my opinion?

you have + reps in your CP cause hopefully that will relieve some stress in your life

[Atlblkz06]

Of course, you're not allowed to like H shifters - paddle shifters with slush boxes are da bomb yo!

ugh, I feel so.. dirty south just from saying that!

[kouki]

GTR > M3 lol

[chituntang]

Clearly stated by someone with no seat time in a turbo car on a track and a high revving car on a track...back to back..
Ferrari would have the same soul with a 450hp 6800rpm 3.4 liter turbo car wouldn't they. An NSX-R would be so much fun without 8500rpm. The F40 was good, but they walked away from forced induction for a reason. Yawn.

On a side note..with new technology, variable turbo's etc. the "fun factor" in turbo cars is getting better...In a 335 it's hardly noticeable and sounds mean, but it's there. Rumor has it BMW is working on high revving turbo cars for production M's. We'll see.

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.

[RL...]

GT-R > m3

but both are great!

And to those people who say the GT-R drives itself, I assume you ppl drive cars with no power steering, no fuel injection, no a/c, and no other electrictronic assistance, because it takes the fun and skill of driving away. LOL What nubs...ppl who are ignorant to new, and quite frankly better technology. Especially when I'd bet 100% of the ppl that said paddle-shifting isn't as fun as an h-box haven't even driven a paddle-shifted car. So what are they basing their opinions on?..............on nothing, but maybe OTHER ppl's opinions...

[1SICKLEX]

[Elbow]

GT-R > m3

but both are great!

And to those people who say the GT-R drives itself, I assume you ppl drive cars with no power steering, no fuel injection, no a/c, and no other electrictronic assistance, because it takes the fun and skill of driving away. LOL What nubs...ppl who are ignorant to new, and quite frankly better technology. Especially when I'd bet 100% of the ppl that said paddle-shifting isn't as fun as an h-box haven't even driven a paddle-shifted car. So what are they basing their opinions on?..............on nothing, but maybe OTHER ppl's opinions...

My car has no power steering or other aids. I took it all off.

I like new technology, I have driven it, I usually turn TCS off and all, but it's cool. I like paddle shifting, I have driven exotics with paddle shifters, but not any Japanese car.

[Cool Cat Racing]

I still say its all about who wants to go the fastest. If you want to be very comfy and have a quick car get an M3, if you want to go faster and still have an "involved" car then you have to make sacrifices in comfort. If you want comfort and speed then you make sacrifices in the "involved" feel of the car. As for the car driving itself, yes a paddle shifted car like the GTR can make an idiot go fast in a straight line but the car still doesn't turn itself or hit the brakes for you. The driver still has to be good to get good times. If you want a pure fun car to drive get a Miata, if you want a fast luxury coupe, get an M3 if your want a fast ass car in any conditions wait for the Vspec next year.
Now for everyone saying the M3 has heritage or soul and the GTR doesn't. Lets look at who has held true to the cars heritage. Both cars started as homolagation cars in the eighties. The M3 was a lightweight high revving no frills performance car. Yes it had leather but they were very supportive sport seats and only had 2 doors. It was made as a purist car and had to be driven to be fast. The R32 GTR came in as a heavier, more powerful car with AWD and twin turbos to make the most out of any engine. They used technology to make the car faster, that's what you do to win races. I won't even go into the disappointment that the E36 M3 was, car got fatter, more luxury, and only a marginal power bump from the Evo3's 215hp. The R33 GTR got a little fatter but got much more rigid and some more technology and the car got faster. Then the E46 M3 finally got its balls back but it still got fatter and more toned down. It got some more power and more technology with traction control and stability control to help the car go faster. The R34 GTR weighed about the same, got a better suspension, better AWD system, better turbos, less lag, more power, more rigid, and looked the part of a sports coupe, mean yet tasteful enough to park at the country club if we had them. The E92 gained even more weight, got more luxury, more driving aids, more technology to compensate and a decent power bump to make it fast enough. The R35 is still using a 6 cylinder twin turbo AWD platform to squeeze as much performance as you can out of a performance coupe and BMW has changed their setup yet again. When you look at the two cars heritage the GTR has held very true to its roots of race proven performance and high power AWD. The only trend BMW has upheld with the M3's is adding more weight and making the car something it wasn't meant to be. Yes the M3 is the most winning car in racing history but except for the E30 the race versions are far from the street versions. And the group A R32's were a far departure from the normal GTR I know.

[EJ25RUN]

GT-R > m3

but both are great!

And to those people who say the GT-R drives itself, I assume you ppl drive cars with no power steering, no fuel injection, no a/c, and no other electrictronic assistance, because it takes the fun and skill of driving away

How is fuel injection a driving aid? And yeah, when i had my 300zx, no ac, when i had the hatch, power steering and AC....GONE.

. LOL What nubs...ppl who are ignorant to new, and quite frankly better technology. Especially when I'd bet 100% of the ppl that said paddle-shifting isn't as fun as an h-box haven't even driven a paddle-shifted car. So what are they basing their opinions on?..............on nothing, but maybe OTHER ppl's opinions...

I said it.

And if i listed all the cars i have driven with paddle shifters, you really wouldn't take the time to read the list.

[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.

[40th GT]

I mean to each their own but....damn.

Idk, i guess i'm the #1 mustang fanboy on IA.

[1SICKLEX]

Remember Audi Quattro was so incredible, it was banned from Racing in the 1980s...

Also the Skyline pre-dates the 1980s...the GT-R came later of course.....Today they seperated Skyline (our G35/37) and GT-R.

[JBalla1036]

Im gonna have to say you got those backwards. Here is why.

No matter how advanced that double clutch box is from the gtr, the fact that it is missing a "real mans gearbox" makes if fall flat on its face.

I love it when ppl say this about the GT-R, so basically ur saying that F1 cars are missing a real mans gearbox???

[JITB]

IN 5 years you all will wondered why u ever had anything bad to say about the gtr...

[OneSlow5pt0]

IN 5 years you all will wondered why u ever had anything bad to say about the gtr...

or people wont care cause its old news............none cares bout the Z06 really anymore but it was amazing when it came out,i mean it still is.....but its new smell has wore off

its just like all these cars that break top speed record,omg their the best car ever nothing can beat them........and im like" a new car will come out in less than year and beat it" then they say "no it wont nothing can touch it"

aka the veyron

[Elbow]

I love it when ppl say this about the GT-R, so basically ur saying that F1 cars are missing a real mans gearbox???

lol i'm sure you know a race cars paddle shifting gear box is a TAD more "hardcore" then a nice quiet non exotic street cars.

[EJ25RUN]

I love it when ppl say this about the GT-R, so basically ur saying that F1 cars are missing a real mans gearbox???

Yes. yes they are. In the cars we have drive since a 1920's Cadillac introduced a driving setup consisting of a clutch, break, gas pedal in the way they currently sit, that's how cars were meant to be driven.

F1 is at the extreme end. Here's why, an F1 driver is 90% mental ability. And the move from an H box to a Paddle setup made sense since modern F1 cars have aerodynamic and mechanical grip that normal cars will NEVER EVER achieve. It allows them to have cornering and breaking speed that far more impresses me than even their acceleration. In that extreme environment, it only makes sense to give a driver the ability to adjust and change as fast as the driver can think, and changing gears is one of those things. It is just impossible to do it that fast in a car that adjusts millions of times in milliseconds. It would be almost unsafe to do it in a modern f1 car

When Ferrari introduced the paddle shift setup in 1989, it was a slight advantage but the rest of the car was crap. Racing is simply "Monkey see, Monkey do". Once something is proven, everyone must have it. In later years, it was the norm. In 2008, the wheel covers and a 2nd wing element above the front wing itself take the role of this years must have techs.

I say as long as a part is not an active component....i.e traction control, launch control, active suspension, it is legal in my eyes.

A street car walks a different line to me. Should all cars have a H box. Of course not. Should most have it as an option,

Here is a sad hurdle. When BMW put a true manual in the M5 years back to go side to side with the SMG. Yes it was more involving and fun. But it was appallingly slower. Still, i would have opted for it.

Same for the GTR. If the GTR had a REAL MANS GEARBOX, my opinion would change completely even though i know the car would be at least 10 seconds slower around the Nurburgring.

[1SICKLEX]

^^I'm a lil confused, I think u mean M3. The last M5 only came in a manual.

Here is the kicker. BMW feels SMG is the best way to drive a M car, thus the current M5 had the new 7 speed SMG only. Amazingly it wasnt' Europe that cried, it was AMERICA, who said "we want a manual".

BMW finally made the option of a M5 manual. But they Won't let you turn off the the traction control completely.

So do you pick the M5 with SMG but you can disable all electronics
or
M5 that is a manual but keeps some electronics?

Porsche just debuted a PDK dual clutch and expects American buyers to shift from 70/30 manual auto to 50/50 manual/auto.

Guess what, Europe is ALREADY 50/50 auto/manual with Porsche!!

[OneSlow5pt0]

the V10 M5 comes with automatic

[EJ25RUN]

^^I'm a lil confused, I think u mean M3. The last M5 only came in a manual.
Here is the kicker. BMW feels SMG is the best way to drive a M car, thus the current M5 had the new 7 speed SMG only. Amazingly it wasnt' Europe that cried, it was AMERICA, who said "we want a manual".
BMW finally made the option of a M5 manual. But they Won't let you turn off the the traction control completely.
So do you pick the M5 with SMG but you can disable all electronics
or
M5 that is a manual but keeps some electronics?
Porsche just debuted a PDK dual clutch and expects American buyers to shift from 70/30 manual auto to 50/50 manual/auto.
Guess what, Europe is ALREADY 50/50 auto/manual with Porsche!!

.....

No im talking about the E60 M5 (this one \/)


The SMG 7 speed manual


True Manual H 6 speed with a human operated clutch


When i say Manual....i guess i should call it a standard gearbox instead.

now i found this on wiki but i went to every BMW website and cant find anymore info on the 6 speed.

The BMW M5, along with the new M6, were designed to use the new SMG III electrohydraulic manual transmission. The transmission, while responsive at the track, has been criticized for its general lack of smoothness in everyday driving. In October 2006 BMW announced that a 6-speed manual transmission would be available in North America based on suggestions from the motoring press. Unfortunately, this gearbox reduces acceleration performance slightly. The 6-speed manual M5 was marginally slower, since the stability control cannot be disengaged as per the SMG version. The SMG III includes the "Launch Control" feature, which allows maximum performance standing starts automatically. However, the US spec vehicles have a reduced rpm to prevent vehicle damage and abuse.

Do you have a pic of an E60 6 speed manual?

Is it no longer in production?

[OnURleft]

^. I've driven one. The Bimmer store normally has one. They are all special order and limited. I believe BMW said they were only going to make a certain number but I still see them for sale new from time to time.

The traction and all that can be turned off with a simple chip..big whoop. They are slightly slower because of the gear ratio's but not much. If you can get it out of the hole you'll still do low 12's

[1SICKLEX]

.....

No im talking about the E60 M5 (this one \/)


The SMG 7 speed manual


True Manual H 6 speed with a human operated clutch


When i say Manual....i guess i should call it a standard gearbox instead.

now i found this on wiki but i went to every BMW website and cant find anymore info on the 6 speed.

The BMW M5, along with the new M6, were designed to use the new SMG III electrohydraulic manual transmission. The transmission, while responsive at the track, has been criticized for its general lack of smoothness in everyday driving. In October 2006 BMW announced that a 6-speed manual transmission would be available in North America based on suggestions from the motoring press. Unfortunately, this gearbox reduces acceleration performance slightly. The 6-speed manual M5 was marginally slower, since the stability control cannot be disengaged as per the SMG version. The SMG III includes the "Launch Control" feature, which allows maximum performance standing starts automatically. However, the US spec vehicles have a reduced rpm to prevent vehicle damage and abuse.

Do you have a pic of an E60 6 speed manual?

Is it no longer in production?

I think you edited your post on what I was talking about. I seems we both are on the same page now

I thought you said the last M5 had SMG, but its no biggie.

Lil known fact, the E36 had SMG!! It was primitive but that is where it got its start!
Europe only

[OnURleft]

I think you edited your post on what I was talking about. I seems we both are on the same page now

I thought you said the last M5 had SMG, but its no biggie.

Lil known fact, the E36 had SMG!! It was primitive but that is where it got its start!
Europe only

Yeah some people have swapped it into their U.S cars...like E36 325's with SMG. It's pretty interesting if you ask me, i'd love to try one out