gshb

in C&D, every single test that features the M3, the M3 wins first place. by using commutative logic, if the M3 beat the GTR in last months test, it therefore beats all the cars that the GTR beat in this months test.

this is the world of C&D. its wack.

doug_999

Did you just start reading C&D?

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...omparison_test

Jujharoo

what a load of **** this magazine is man.

ba-b4

I think in the M3 vs. GTR comparo the M3 won because they were looking for a best all around car same for this comparo. So I guess if you were looking for the BEST all around car to live with on a daily basis that would be the M3. Yes the rest of the cars in THIS comparo smashes the M3 to bits on the track but the M3 has enough performance for the editors and is the best daily driver of the bunch. Makes sense..

leedogg

It looks like the "as tested price" point difference btw the GTR and the Porsche basically determined the outcome of this test.

PVlexus

well look at the 5 points the GT-R got for having a back seat. Who cares if it has a back seat. If it's a performance test the performance should be what's scored. C&D has always been a little off on their rankings.

f=ma

uh...buttonwillow sells race gas. up to 103 i think.

S8B

So you're saying that the drop from 93 to cali 91 is going to make that huge of a difference? No way...

In reality, the GTR is the the slowest one in acceleration of the 4, but not by that huge of a margin. I would have expected a ~119 trap speed from the GTR if the Z06 got 124 mph since its usually a good 4-5 MPH slower at the 1/4 mile. But being out trapped by 13 MPH is a blow out.

There was something else wrong. But then again, this whole comparison is wrong.

Why does C&D bring up points such as cargo space on a performance test of supercars

.

Bean

iTrader: (1)

Its what I've been saying; the crazy fast GTRs you see in magazines are totally doctored up and making well over 100hp more than factory specs. There has also been other evidence to suggest that Nissan was doing this.

You dont go from 121-124mph traps to 111mph traps on just changing octane from 93 to 91, children. Thats a HUUUGE power loss. WAKE UP!!!

EZZ

Car magazine used a privately owned GTR and it trapped in the 120mph range. Also, C&D tested a GTR and it trapped low but endnoted that since the test, had a chance to test another GTR and it trapped in the 120mph range. Sounds like that car had some issues with it...lets see some more tests before accusations.

Bean

iTrader: (1)

i've seen other mag tests that put it in the 114mph range. 480hp and 3900lb curb weight dont equal 120mph traps. It generally takes a 3400lb supra about 430-440whp to run 120mph traps (thats a 500lb and 30-45hp difference)

LexFather

Not sure if it was Nissan doing it. Every magazine acts like a 7 year old child when its time to test the NEWEST big thing and they always advertise some ridiculous performance times no one can match and then months later they test the same car and its slower.

This happens ALL the time. They do it to sell magazines.

MI350_55

Hmmm... I wonder if C&D knows anything about the Launch Control feature on the GT-R.

doug_999

yes, cause that has everything to do with trap speeds....not

gshb

no i didnt, but thanks for referencing an article about an old M3 that has nothing to do with this topic. try again.