Car and Driver: GTR vs M3 vs 911 Turbo

[E. Haskell]

1st place: M3
2nd Place: GTR
3rd place 911

I noticed that C&D pointed out many faults on the GTR.

Some of their comments....

-excessive road noise
-transmission clunks
-rough one-to-two shift
-can feel to wide, heavy and big
-interior creaks
-teeth-clenchingly firm ride (even on softer settings)
-wearisome slammed shifts from the gearbox (even in normal mode)
-a "brutal" ride
-disconcerting "whirring" and "clomping" noises from the transmission
-clutch temperature warning light coming on for a few minutes

For those that don't get C&D, someone scanned the article at VWvortex: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3859745&page=2

[JBsZ06]

GTR beats Audi R8 by 1.24 seconds but LS2 C6 beats R8 by 1.0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2009 Nissan GT-R
As-tested price: $75,925
Mountain road time: 2:04.35; Rank: 1st
Streets of Willow lap time: 1:25.68; Rank: 1st
0-60 mph: 3.5 seconds (3.2 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip)
Quarter-mile: 11.7 seconds at 116.8 mph
60-0 braking: 98 feet
Slalom: 74.0 mph
Skid pad: 0.96g

By now you've read every word printed about the 2009 Nissan GT-R. You know it's quicker than a 911 Turbo on a track. You've seen it beat the best the Americans can offer. You've read that it's as antiseptic as it is quick. And now you're reading that it can stomp damned near any car on any piece of tarmac, anywhere. Yes, Nissan's 480-horsepower, six-speed all-wheel-drive monster wins this test, too. It was quicker up the mountain road and around the Streets of Willow than any other car in this test.

Here's the thing about the GT-R. Despite its mass, it simply doesn't do anything poorly. It is the embodiment of technology conquering physics. And yes, it is less involving than other cars this quick. That said, it's always on your side. It's safe.

Only the R8 was able to top its cornering speeds through the tightest corners on the mountain road. On the track, which is faster still, it was untouched in virtually every corner. And it closes the gap between corners in less time than anything else sold today. Most striking is the fact that the GT-R is among the easiest cars to drive in this test. Even with its stability control disabled, it rarely does anything to make us question its poise. It's as stuck and predictable as it is massive. And, by every measure, it lives up to the hype.

2008 Audi R8
As-tested price: $134,545
Mountain road time: 2:04.68; Rank: 2nd
Streets of Willow lap time: 1:26.92; Rank: 2nd
0-60 mph: 4.5 seconds (4.2 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip)
Quarter-mile: 12.7 seconds at 109.0 mph
60-0 braking: 103 feet
Slalom: 71.0 mph
Skid pad: 0.98g
24

-------------

Car and Driver test had the 400hp LS2 beat the R8 by 1 second and the Porsche 911 twin turbo by 2.5 seconds and it wasn't the world reinventing itself.

I hate to say this but if the ls2 C6 can beat the Audi R8 by a second and the Porsche 911 twin turbo by 2.5 seconds at the track..

How could the Nissan GTR be considered better than a 505 hp C6 Z06?

Hell the 430 hp C6 coupe with the ls3 can be purchased for 40 grand now a days... 41,500 for the ls3 C6 with Z51..

I don't understand how the new Nissan GTR is such a press darling at 70 grand..

[BGH]

Wait, when did the C6 beat a 911 turbo?

[JBsZ06]

Originally Posted by BGH

Wait, when did the C6 beat a 911 turbo?

July 2007 car and driver track test.

[E. Haskell]

In the two latest test, the GTR hasn't put up the same mind numbing numbers we saw in earlier test.

Car and Driver:

GTR = 1:26.7
911 Turbo = 1:27.8

Edmunds:

GTR = 1:25.68
R8 = 1:26.92

Car and Driver also trapped only 115mph in the GTR. They trapped 116 mph in a LS3 Corvette.

The Z06 absolutely wrecked the R8 and 911 Turbo at VIR:

LS2 Corvette - 3:03.6
Audi R8 - 3:04.6
Z06 - 2:58.2
GT3 - 3:01.8
911 Turbo - 3:05.8

[JBsZ06]

I'm not trying to say the GTR isn't a great performance vehicle but rather make the point the E Haskell has plainly brought to light..

Seems to me the C6 Z06 on certain tracks easily take out a 70 grand GTR and the 40 odd thousand dollar C6 LS2 coupe should give the GTR a good run for its money. (same for the LS3 powered coupe)

Anybody think Nissan had a ringer at the "ring" now?

[BGH]

Originally Posted by JBsZ06

July 2007 car and driver track test.

Yeah the lightning lap, kinda of surprising.

[a_v_s]

So let me see if I got this right:

When edmunds tests GTR to perform worse than the previous test, it's because the previous car is a ringer...

When edmunds tested the Z06 and got a 12+ second 1/4 mile, which is slower than others, it's because Edmunds can't drive.

When Road & Track tests the GTR at willowsprings and beats the Z06 by a significant margin, it's because they had a ringer.

When Car and Driver tests the GTR and gets slower than expected results, it's because Nissan supplied ringers to others.

When Car and Driver tests the CTS-V and gets slower results than expected (5.2 second 0-60), it's becuase their testers don't know how to drive.

When Car and Driver tests C6 Vette and beats 911, it's becasue the C6 is awesome.

When Car and Driver says negative things about the GTR, it's becuase the GTR sucks...

When Car and Driver says negative things about the GM, they are biased dingbats on BMW/Honda/insert-name-of-foreign-company payroll...

When Car and Driver publishes something positive about GM, everybody posts scans of the articles, and use this article as evidence of greatness.

When Car and Driver publishes something positive about GM's competitor, people bitch and moan and say that they are garbage, ringers must've been supplied, and assert why they had let their subscriptions to said magazine lapse, and that "magazine racing" is speculative and unsubstantiated.

Did I sum it up correctly?

[mbukukanyau]

Originally Posted by a_v_s

So let me see if I got this right:

When edmunds tests GTR to perform worse than the previous test, it's because the previous car is a ringer...

When edmunds tested the Z06 and got a 12+ second 1/4 mile, which is slower than others, it's because Edmunds can't drive.

When Road & Track tests the GTR at willowsprings and beats the Z06 by a significant margin, it's because they had a ringer.

When Car and Driver tests the GTR and gets slower than expected results, it's because Nissan supplied ringers to others.

When Car and Driver tests the CTS-V and gets slower results than expected (5.2 second 0-60), it's becuase their testers don't know how to drive.

When Car and Driver tests C6 Vette and beats 911, it's becasue the C6 is awesome.

When Car and Driver says negative things about the GTR, it's becuase the GTR sucks...

When Car and Driver says negative things about the GM, they are biased dingbats on BMW/Honda/insert-name-of-foreign-company payroll...

When Car and Driver publishes something positive about GM, everybody posts scans of the articles, and use this article as evidence of greatness.

When Car and Driver publishes something positive about GM's competitor, people bitch and moan and say that they are garbage, ringers must've been supplied, and assert why they had let their subscriptions to said magazine lapse, and that "magazine racing" is speculative and unsubstantiated.

Did I sum it up correctly?

A V S... This is a GM site. Do you really expect people around here to accept the defeat of Corvette?

Any loss is not becouse the Z06 is bad, no its becouse someone lacks the bolls to drive it at the limit.

Now, will you leave us alone. If you do not want a corvette, go buy your GT-R we will meet on the track somewhere, and you will learn just how much rice you could have bought instead of the fugly eNanny rice eating GTR, and also join a GT-R forum. I am sick and tired of your summing it up

[redTT]

What ever happened to the GTR doing all the work for the driver? If the system does indeed work then differing times cant be blamed on a bad driver.

[a_v_s]

Originally Posted by mbukukanyau

A V S... This is a GM site. Do you really expect people around here to accept the defeat of Corvette?

Any loss is not becouse the Z06 is bad, no its becouse someone lacks the bolls to drive it at the limit.

Now, will you leave us alone. If you do not want a corvette, go buy your GT-R we will meet on the track somewhere, and you will learn just how much rice you could have bought instead of the fugly eNanny rice eating GTR, and also join a GT-R forum. I am sick and tired of your summing it up

In case you didn't notice the smileys, I was being sarcastic. But thanks for the racist remarks with the buying rice. But the US actually exports more rice than japan does.

I actually like the Vette, and would get one over a GTR. I don't expect people here to accept defeat. I do however expect people to be consistent with their arguments.

[mbukukanyau]

Originally Posted by a_v_s

In case you didn't notice the smileys, I was being sarcastic. But thanks for the racist remarks with the buying rice. But the US actually exports more rice than japan does.

I actually like the Vette, and would get one over a GTR. I don't expect people here to accept defeat. I do however expect people to be consistent with their arguments.

Rice is not racist.
I am still sick of people trying to defend the GTR

[a_v_s]

Originally Posted by mbukukanyau

Rice is not racist.

It is in the context you used it. How/why does a GTR "eat rice"? You are using it in a derogatory fashion to imply asian/japanese descent. To say rice-eating is no different than saying cotton-picking.

[mbukukanyau]

Originally Posted by a_v_s

It is in the context you used it. How/why does a GTR "eat rice"? You are using it in a derogatory fashion to imply asian/japanese descent. To say rice-eating is no different than saying cotton-picking.

I do not perceive it as derogatory..

[a_v_s]

Originally Posted by mbukukanyau

I do not perceive it as derogatory..

Doesn't matter if you do or not, it matters if the person on the receiving end perceives it that way. Otherwise, I could say that I don't find the phrase "cotton-picking" to be offensive, but that doesn't mean that it isn't.

It's like if somebody doesn't like something, and he calls it "g-a-y" He might not think it is offensive, but it could still be offensive to somebody else.