What? Car & Driver says M3 better than GT-R and 911 Turbo
Car & Driver is a common choice as bathroom reader around Autoblog HQ, though thumbing through the latest issue had us contemplating using the glossy pages for TP. C&D got its hands on Nissan's new GT-R and its development benchmark, the Porsche 911 Turbo. That's great so far, as everyone wants to know how the Nissan stacks up against its bogey. The trouble comes when a BMW M3 gets tossed into the mix. What? The M3 is a hell of a car and it clearly earns its perennial 10-Best status, but it's outgunned and mismatched in this company. Somehow it managed to win a three-way comparo with two supercars anyway.
The explanation given was that the M3 attended as the "voice of reason" and gosh, just happened to be everyone's favorite. It's no great leap to imagine that the smallest, lightest car with sedan lineage would feel lighter on its feet and be a better everyday conveyance than two purpose built supercars. Thanks for the detective work, guys, but we think the M3 is a bit wide of the bullseye at which the GT-R and 911 were aimed. It's long been grumbled that C&D is in cahoots with this automaker or that one (an accusation that's been levied against every one of the big four major auto publications at one point or another), and the outcome of this comparo will surely fan those flames. We call foul on a few levels. The larger issue is the poppycock categories of "Fun to Drive" and the even more preposterous "Gotta Have It Factor" that arguably allow comparison results to be twisted one way or another, but also the reasoning for bringing the M3 knife to a big, turbocharged coupe gunfight is flawed. GT-R and 911 Turbo buyers don't strike us as the type of folks who might cross shop the M3. They want a range-topper, not a segment-pole-sitter.
Here's the real deal - ignoring the noise of the M3, the GT-R spanks the 911 Turbo on the track, while the Porsche feels like a more quality piece (at double the price, it'd better). While both cars sport AWD chassis that vector torque, the Nissan is quicker on its feet and dramaless where the Porsche is swinging wide. Both are a total hoot to drive, but the GT-R team definitely bested its development target as far as raw performance goes. Controversy will undoubtedly sell dead trees, though, and you can't really blame an increasingly irrelevant buff book for trying to find a hook. Take pity - hit the link and share some traffic. Thanks to all our incredulous tipsters.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 8)
M 11:01AM (6/03/2008)
GTFO
Reply
Allan 11:54AM (6/03/2008)
SRSLY.
User 12:05PM (6/03/2008)
Y R U H8N?
Torrent 4:16PM (6/03/2008)
RLLY THO
Randy915 8:05PM (6/03/2008)
IIGHT
Shawn 11:02AM (6/03/2008)
You just lost a few points by admitting that it is a common read for autoblog... Unless you're using it as toilet paper in your bathroom. C&D is trash.
Reply
SOhp101 12:11PM (6/03/2008)
Before I actually thought C&D was one of the decent US car mags. I'll be more than happy to forget about renewing my subscription now...
Conor 12:46PM (6/03/2008)
I don't hate C&D. I enjoy lots of their writing. This boggles the mind though. I think it won because of "daily driver" abilities... The GT-R is just fine there, as is the 911 Turbo... The GT-R is a miracle of engineering. How did it lose? (I'm a domestic fan, not a JDM fanboy.)
JZeke 3:40PM (6/03/2008)
Autoblog gains points back saying its a bathroom read. I dont let my copies of EVO or Car into the loo...
Temple 7:13PM (6/03/2008)
I've read the C&D comparo and its absolute trash. They complain that the "floor mats cost extra" on the bottom ranked 911 Turbo. It loses by almost 30 points, primarily on things like "rear seat comfort" and "trunk space". They also don't include the Z06 in this review because it doesn't have back seats. Absolutely missing the point of the cars.
While I haven't driven the GTR, I have driven both the new M3 and 911 Turbo. While, yes, the M3 offers better rear seats, from performance terms its night and day. C&D needs to understand these cars are designed for people in the front seats (behind the wheel) not the back.
Brian 11:02AM (6/03/2008)
They've been in the tank for BMW as long as I can remember. They've even had "e-polls" that several readers wrote in surmising that C&D was resetting them because the Bimmer wasn't winning the votes.
Reply
halogenrepublic 11:15AM (6/03/2008)
Not to mention that Honda also is in the same bed with C&D
Dude 11:20AM (6/03/2008)
Agreed. They compare every car to a BMW.
Heck, the new Caddy CTS got compared to two BMWs and lost because it was "too small" compared to the 5-Series and "too big" compared to the 3-Series.
DJ 1:41PM (6/03/2008)
No kidding!
The theory has always ben that if a BMW couldn't make the annual Top Ten list for some reason, they simply wouldn't publish the list at all. I also heard that Pat Bedard has BMW tatoo'd on his ass.......
klitorisaurus 3:32AM (6/04/2008)
Well duh! That's because BMW is the best motor company in the world. Period. The worlds sexiest, fastest, and most exciting cars are not BMW's. However, BMW has been constantly and consistently providing fun and exciting daily drivers since the late 60's. They have always set the benchmark in their class and Audi, MB, and Caddy have just now begun to catch up. You can bet your ass that those brands would not be near as exciting today without BMW's influence.
Chris 11:06AM (6/03/2008)
This reminds me of an issue of R&T several years ago where the Porsche Boxster S narrowly beat the S2000 in a comparison based on such sports car intangibles as 'trunk space' and 'interior space' despite having similiar performance and costing twice as much. I think that article singlehandedly caused me to lose complete faith in all automotive 'journalism'.
Reply
ML 11:11AM (6/03/2008)
I'll tell you something. "Journalism" in any form is not based one subjective fact (although it SHOULD be), but on personal preferences and personal whim. I was in TV journalism for years and found the same to be true whether the subject was race, religion, politics, or - as in this case - cars. Journalism is all 'smoke and mirrors' and what-you-can-get-people-to-believe(!).
ML 11:14AM (6/03/2008)
. . . by the way, I could spell better in those days too. That should have read, "...is not based on subjective..." and not as I mis-typed it(!). Sorry. Guess I'm getting old.
geo.stewart 11:16AM (6/03/2008)
ML,
I think you mean OBjective fact, not subjective.
maybe why your name is not heading any article ;-)
and yes, you are correct, you have to search far and wide to find an article that presents facts, not slanted interpretation. too much of the news is presented in an editorial format in order to illicit attention and generate buzz.
see how it worked here. C&D got everyone talking about their mag article.
ML 11:33AM (6/03/2008)
No geo.stewart, I meant SUBjective. But use of that word is not based on a generalized perspective nor on this example, but on several incidences that were blatantly dishonest and self-serving. Not on my part, but on the company's part. And yes, you're right. I'm not smart enough to have my name appear on the masthead of any article(!). You got me there . . .