The fact that the BMW M3 was chosen as winner over the 911 Turbo and the Nissan GT-R is certainly enough to stir up debate and argument, but was the 911 Turbo the right car for the comparison.

Porsche has cars that are as capable as the Turbo, but not quite as expensive.  Should the GT3 have been invited to the test instead.
GT3            RWD    3.6L flat 6       Manual    $107,500GT3 RS     RWD    3.6L flat 6       Manual    $124,900Turbo         AWD    3.6L flat 6 T    ManualAuto    $126,200


Consider this, in the C&D article they state about the M3:

"...The M3 offers an unparalleled mix of hassle-free livability and performance at a price that undercuts those of the Nissan 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."

It goes on to say:

"...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 was 29.5 years..."

I guess the question most relevant to ask then, is aside from the Porsche and BMW, what other cars should have been included in this comparison?

Perhaps secondly we should consider, does the GT-R really have a true competitor in the marketplace, and if so, WHO?

Finally, if you happen to agree with the C&D choices but not the outcome, how would you have ranked the competitors, and WHY?  (I would rank the Porsche first mainly because it is a timeless classic with mind blowing performance that has stood the test of time, the M3 second because of its all around versatility, and the GT-R third.  Insanely fast yes, but will it truly stand the test of time in terms of intrinsic appeal)

To help get your thought process started, check out this video featuring the GT-R versus a group of cars not included in the C&D comparison.



Tell us what you think...


[source]