From the July 2008 issue of Car and Driver.
When the Spanish arrived in the New World some 500 years ago in their enormous wooden sailing ships, it is said the indigenous people standing on the shore literally did not see the great vessels on the horizon because they simply weren’t a part of their world—their visual reality. It took a few days for the wondrous ships to register, to become part of the natives’ visible existence. The story reminds us that reality is limited to what the human senses can perceive and what our neurons can process.
Like those indigenous Americans trying to grasp the new, it took us a several days to get a handle on the 2009 Nissan GT-R, to see it for what it is. We’re still in wonderment over the reality of a 3900-pound coupe that seems to break Newton’s laws. Can this be real—Ferrari performance for $70,000? Is the GT-R a good thing, or is it evil, some kind of postmodern god?
We first came in contact with a Nissan Skyline GTR in 1991. At the time, the quickest car on the road was a Ferrari F40—0 to 60 mph in 4.2 seconds. The car, a gray-market Japanese-spec Skyline GTR tuned to deliver 350 horsepower (up from the standard 276 horsepower), would quickly rearrange the furniture in our heads. Powered by a 2.6-liter, twin-turbo inline-six, it matched the F40’s 0-to-60 time.
We’d have to wait 17 years before another GT-R arrived here. It ripped from 0 to 60 in 3.3 seconds [May 2008]. That equaled the time of the F40’s heir, the ferocious Ferrari Enzo. As to Ferraris currently being built, the GT-R is as quick to 60 mph as the 611-hp 599GTB Fiorano [June 2007] that sells for $280,295.
In ’91 we struggled with how the Skyline GTR would fit into our automotive landscape. But since it was not sold in this country, we spotted something shiny and our interest drifted off. Now it is officially here, and we’re struggling to determine where it fits in, what it competes with, and why the name “Skyline” was dropped but GTR given a hyphen.
When gathering opponents for this comparison, we fell back on a lesson we learned a few years ago: When your automotive bearings are shaken (as the GT-R has the power to do), invite a Porsche 911 to recalibrate. On paper, the closest 911 model to the GT-R, in terms of philosophy, is the 480-hp, all-wheel-drive Turbo, which is why it’s here. Yes, a Porsche Turbo costs nearly twice the asking price of a GT-R, it’s not the staff’s favorite 911 (we’re partial to the naturally aspirated models), and it didn’t win its last comparison-test outing. But the 911 Turbo is indeed the car Nissan put on its performance pedestal, the car to get. So if any car can help us make sense of the GT-R’s place in the world, it’s the 911 Turbo.
To bookend the GT-R, we decided to add a BMW M3 coupe to the mix. Unlike the GT-R and the Turbo, the naturally aspirated M3 lacks turbochargers, and should a Chubby Checker twist competition break out, it would find itself seriously outgunned. Compared with the 505 pound-feet of torque spooled into the 911 Turbo and the 430 pound-feet found in the GT-R, the M3 has a seemingly minuscule 295 pound-feet. The M3 is out of its league in horsepower, too, but it makes up some of this handicap by weighing several hundred pounds less than its brethren. The M3 also has a price advantage: Our test car rang up at $63,600, the Nissan commanded $70,475, and the 911 Turbo dwarfed them both with a $127,060 base price. Throw in the M3’s two comparison-test wins against impressive opponents—Audi RS 4, Lexus IS F, Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG—and a solid case can be made for this middleweight’s claim to a shot against the two heavyweights.
At this point you’re expecting the obligatory paragraph introducing the ubiquitous comparo star, the Chevrolet Corvette Z06, especially if your name is Larry Webster. But, alas, the Z06 lacks back seats, and it was beaten by the 911 Turbo [“The Sports Car World Cup,” September 2006]. Yes, we might have included it anyway, but this time around, we’re keeping the competition to performance cars with four seats and a modicum of civility and practicality.
And consider this, Corvette dudes: Maybe there is a Z06 in the test— it’s just too awesome to see. That paragraph introducing it could be hiding here somewhere, maybe there’s really a Z06 in every photograph. You just can’t see it now. It might appear. Wait a few days.
Third Place: Porsche 911 Turbo
Our high-speed run began in Los Angeles and snaked 450 miles north to Reno, Nevada, on two-lane roads. The Porsche quickly emerged as the sports car of the group. Although the 911 Turbo is 120 pounds heavier than the relatively lightweight M3, the 911 sports the lowest roofline and the shortest wheelbase and overall length. But the Porsche’s sports-car demeanor comes from more than its measurements. It’s a tactile delight, from the redolent and flawlessly leather-wrapped Carrera Red interior to the steering that delivers more information than your credit report. Everything in the 911 seems to have been thought out and designed to please the driver, so why is it bringing up the rear?
HIGHS: Sucker-punching turbos, steering perfection, sports-car feel and manners, craftsmanship pervades every corner.
LOWS: Sticker shock, not as trackworthy as the GT-R, tiny trunk, clunky shifter and clutch feel, floor mats cost extra.
As noted, the Turbo model is not our favorite 911. Naturally aspirated 911s (even base Carrera models) offer the same tactile thrills as the Turbo for a lot less money. We’re not denying the appeal of this car when 17 pounds of turbo pressure slams into the flat-six engine. There is a whiff of turbo lag, but when the turbos kick in, the driver will be looking for the bus that slammed into the rear bumper. Even the digital speedometer can’t keep up and leaps forward in clumps of 5 to 7 mph. Acceleration times were the best in the test (0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds) and about on par with other 911 Turbos we’ve tested in the past.
From inside, the snarling boxer six and the whee of the turbos made us giggle. Outside the car, all one hears is air being made to do unholy things. If thunder is God bowling, a 911 Turbo under maximum acceleration sounds like God vacuuming His brownstone. This isn’t the quickest 911 Turbo we’ve ever tested, but it did manage to outaccelerate the Nissan wondercar.
At the track, the order changed as the GT-R left the 911 Turbo skidding in its wake. There’s plenty of grip from the Turbo’s wide Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s, as displayed by the best-in-test 0.97 g of skidpad grip, but the all-wheel-drive system doesn’t seem to be as track tuned as the GT-R’s. The Turbo’s AWD system doesn’t pull the car through the corners as tenaciously as the GT-R, nor does the AWD system stabilize the car as well as the GT-R’s. Under power, the Porsche tends to arc wide; a bit less throttle tucks the front end back in line, but the GT-R’s AWD doesn’t require finessing. It’s an automatic Nikon to Porsche’s Leica. With the GT-R, just point and shoot.
Playing around with the Porsche’s transient responses is a lot of fun, arguably more so than the oh-so-serious GT-R. The classic 911 ASS MASS and the 92.5-inch wheelbase make for a weight-sensitive and reactive (but never twitchy) chassis. Pitching the Turbo into corners and catching the slide had us grinning like schoolboys. While you’re messing around with the Porsche’s cornering attitude, the GT-R may flow by without a hint of drama.
A less enjoyable aspect of the 911 Turbo is its $127,060 base price. And yet, the Porsche can occasionally seem worth it. Alongside the GT-R, the 911 Turbo offers slightly higher refinement, a better ride, superior steering and brakes, and it suffers a little less from road noise. There were some gripes in the logbook about the Turbo’s notchy shifter, abrupt clutch takeup, and, of course, the sock-it-to-me price.
THE VERDICT: Costs nearly as much as an M3 and a GT-R; you could almost buy two standard 911s instead.
Even if we remove the price issue from the charts, the GT-R still ends up ahead of the Porsche, primarily because it offers a real trunk and a marginally larger rear seat. And yet, we’d say that if you have an extra $70K lying around, want a true sports-car experience, and can live with a slightly less practical package, the 911 Turbo might be your winner. Or you could almost buy a base 911 and a GT-R. Are you getting the picture? This car is seriously expensive.
2008 Porsche 911 Turbo
480-hp flat-6, 6-speed manual, 3720 lb
Base/as-tested price: $127,060/$135,465
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.5 sec
140 mph: 16.6 sec
1/4 mile: 11.8 @ 120 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 154 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.97 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg
Second Place: Nissan GT-R
We were unaware of the pent-up anticipation created by years of GT-R video-game play. Making the leap from a car made up of electrons to one of real atoms involved being questioned, flagged down, chased, and stalked everywhere we went by awestruck gearheads. Moreover—and a rarity in the realm of exotic cars—those approaching us with their camera phones blazing away knew exactly what they were gazing upon. We were beginning to feel like Britney Spears.
No one, not even Ms. Spears, deserves constant hounding, but the GT-R certainly deserves the attention. Nissan points to the 911 Turbo as the competition, but we’re thinking that maybe Nissan had its sights set on Ferrari. As road-test wrangler K.C. Colwell put it, “The GT-R is Japan’s Enzo.” He’s right. It’s the apogee of the car-building art form from Japan. Japanese cars have never been this exotic from the factory.
HIGHS: Heroic launch control, nearly lag-free turbo motor, balanced chassis, quick-witted all-wheel drive, hides its 3900 pounds (well, most of the time).
LOWS: Excessive road noise; strange transmission clunks; rough one-to-two shift; can feel too wide, heavy, and big.
Graced with the same electric, futuristic feel of the film Blade Runner that pervades all of Tokyo, the GT-R just buzzes with technology. There are 11 selectable information screens in the dashboard, a dual-clutch gearbox, adjustable dampers, a carbon-fiber undertray, and, of course, a 480-hp, twin-turbo 3.8-liter V-6 that delivers its power in a linear and lag-free manner. Our test car couldn’t quite match the acceleration of the May GT-R, but it still impressed us with its massive thrust and consistent times.
Preparing the GT-R for launch has the feel of a space program to it. Flip the transmission switch into “R” mode. Flick the suspension into the firm “R” setting. Turn off the stability and traction control. Almost ready for flight. Put the transmission into manual mode, left foot on the brake, right foot on the gas. Get it right, and the GT-R spools up to 4400 rpm and dumps the clutch when the brake is released. A shock wave runs through the car as if a cartoon anvil was just dropped on top of the transmission, but after that, the experience calms significantly. All-wheel drive hooks up the GT-R immediately, and the driver is sent hurtling through first gear. A shift light in the tachometer serves as a reminder, but the short first gear is over with so quickly that it’s easy to forget to shift.
That GT-R from the May issue launched at 4500 rpm; 4400 rpm is the final setting for production. This GT-R may have been down on power; the May car ran the quarter-mile in 11.5 seconds at 124 mph. This one couldn’t crack 12 seconds and was a stunning 9 mph slower. (We’ve since tested a third GT-R that was as quick as the first car.)
Despite losing the drag-racing segment of our comparo to the raucous 911 Turbo, the GT-R posted the best lap time (1:26.7) on a 1.5-mile-long portion of Nevada’s Reno-Fernley road course. Nissan’s sure-footed AWD system sends up to 50 percent of the power to the front wheels, but in normal driving sends it all rearward to the mechanical limited-slip differential. That AWD system responds not only to wheelslip but to the same sensors used by the stability-control system (steering-wheel angle, yaw rate, speed, and lateral acceleration). When the stability control is in “R” mode or when it is switched off, the GT-R’s AWD system doles out power between the axles to stabilize the car’s handling. The Porsche sends about two-thirds of its torque rearward and a third of it forward in normal driving; up to 100 percent of the 911’s power can be sent fore or aft (a rear limited-slip differential is an option our test vehicle lacked).
The Porsche also distributes its power based on inputs from sensors such as the GT-R’s, but the 911 Turbo’s system doesn’t feel as if it is tuned as effectively as the GT-R’s. The result is a less stable chassis. It’s a difference that helps make the GT-R a track hero and makes the most of the considerable grip from the Bridgestone Potenza RE070R tires. This is a nearly foolproof chassis with supernatural balance. It makes any driver seem smoother and faster.
Off the track, the GT-R felt rawer and far larger than the BMW and the Porsche. Excessive road noise, interior creaks, a teeth-clenchingly firm ride, and an occasionally slammed shift from the gearbox became wearisome. There are a few settings that try to mitigate a couple of these complaints, but even with the shocks in “comfort” mode, the ride remains brutal, and if the gearbox shifted more smoothly in “normal” mode, we didn’t notice.
Motoring through a mountain pass demonstrated the superior stability and grip of the GT-R. The GT-R never ceases to feel wide and heavy, but it never does anything untoward. Firm and responsive brakes, quick steering with impressive feel, and the sticky tires almost erase the 3900-pound mass. Almost.
We’re guessing that our GT-R test vehicle hadn’t led the life of Riley, and it probably collected many of its 3976 miles one launch-control-aided acceleration run after another. By test’s end, its transmission made a lot of disconcerting whirring and clomping noises, and a clutch-temperature warning light did illuminate briefly but extinguished itself after a couple of minutes.
THE VERDICT: Nissan aims for Ferrari and hits somewhere between an M3 and a 911.
If you’re interested only in performance numbers, the GT-R proves to be a match for Ferrari’s finest, but comparing the two is like comparing Reno and Monte Carlo. Reno is relatively affordable fun that’s a little rough around the edges, but Monte Carlo is tuxedos and debonair refinement. To stretch this analogy further, the winner of this comparison test (which you’ve probably gathered is the M3) would be Las Vegas. Vegas versus Reno is a closer matchup, but where would you rather end up? Now ask yourself why.
2009 Nissan GT-R
480-hp V-6, 6-speed automated-manual, 3900 lb
Base/as-tested price: $70,475/$70,475
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.6 sec
140 mph: 19.3 sec
1/4 mile: 12.1 @ 115 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 156 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.96 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg
First Place: BMW M3
The voices in our head say: “ How could the M3 win against a GT-R and a 911 Turbo? Are you guys goofy? BMW jock sniffers! How could you let this happen? Impossible!”
In this group of radical cars, the M3 emerged quickly as the voice of reason. The extremist voices of the Porsche and the GT-R are just not present in the M3. It never shouts, utters complaints, or makes any unbecoming demands. Road and tire noise are subdued, the fabric-covered seats are perfect, and there is a back seat and a real trunk. But even with those attributes, the M3 doesn’t skimp on supercar performance. It just happens to be dressed in a polished and practical package.
HIGHS: The direct connection between man and machine, vice-free handling, feathery feel, Grammy worthy engine, day-to-day likability.
LOWS: Not as quick as the two other cars, somewhat light and numb steering, that stinking iDrive.
Even without the optional adjustable electronic dampers, our M3 test car displayed a better ride-and-handling compromise than either the 911 or the GT-R. Handling, both on the track and public roads, matched the GT-R in our individual scoring. But the M3 goes about its business differently. The GT-R steamrolls the tarmac into submission in an eerie sort of way; the M3 allows the driver to use the car as an instrument. Not many cars can play the road—the car world has more fakers than a middle-school band concert.
As one test driver put it, “The M3 is the car that the driver has the most control over.” Oversteer, understeer, and neutrality are all on the M3’s résumé, but they’re dependent on the driver’s inputs. The chassis has no surprises, no snap reactions, no bad habits—even midcorner bumps are sopped up without drama. Strong brakes have excellent initial bite and didn’t fade even after many, many laps. The BMW’s lap time lagged 1.5 seconds behind the 911 Turbo’s, but that translates to an average speed throughout the lap that was only 0.3 mph slower than the far more powerful Porsche. Thus the BMW, though suffocated by the thin air at 4200 feet, managed to make up most of the difference by cornering faster.
Unlike the heavyweights, the BMW feels smaller the harder it is driven. Part of that feel is due to light steering, but the importance of having the lowest mass and the narrowest width also plays a huge role.
It is immediately obvious (especially at altitude) that the M3 isn’t as quick as its turbocharged competition, but 0 to 60 mph in 4.4 seconds is nothing to scoff at, either (other M3s we’ve tested have been slightly quicker). A naturally aspirated 4.0-liter V-8 can’t deliver the massive torque of the blown sixes, but the M3 delivers its 414 horsepower in a linear and consistent manner from idle to its 8300-rpm redline. No lurching, no drama, no sudden explosions of boost. And the sound the BMW V-8 makes is due a Grammy. It’s a V-8 note not often heard outside racetracks, while the Nissan and the Porsche both sound as though they could wear a Dyson label.
If you’ll overlook the now cliché complaints about the iDrive control system and the car’s light steering, the M3 didn’t draw any negative words in its logbook. And the iDrive gripe is easily solved by not ordering the $2100 optional navigation system.
THE VERDICT: Every other manufacturer should give up on building their own cars and just make M3s instead.
The M3 offers an unparalleled mix of hassle-free livability and performance at a price that undercuts those of the ÂNissan and the Porsche. For that, it wins in our book. We say its performance deficit is made up by the near perfection and sophistication of the rest of the package. And before you think we’ve gone soft and are too old for a wildcat like the GT-R, know that the average age of the test drivers (and the voters of the comparison test) was 29.5 years. Moreover, we’re the only three C/D staffers who dream of having a Lotus Elise as a daily driver. Trust us, we can put up with a lot of crudeness—you should have heard our dinner conversations. But if you can have it all without the pain, who would vote against that? And until that Elise thing happens, the M3 is the car we’d take home forever.
2008 BMW M3
414-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3600 lb
Base/as-tested price: $58,575/$63,600
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.4 sec
140 mph: 22.5 sec
1/4 mile: 12.9 @ 111 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 158 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.94 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io
Source link
