BMW M3 vs. Cadillac ATS-V Sedan vs. Mercedes-AMG C63 S Comparison

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

 

We'll start with our standard performance testing, because one of these three is not like the others. As you might expect, the two Germans are right on top of each other. Any power advantage the AMG has over the M3 is mitigated by lard. The 425-horsepower, 406-lb-ft of torque, 3.0-liter, twin-turbo inline-six BMW weighs only 3,498 pounds, whereas the 503-horse, 516 lb-ft of twist C63 pushes down on the scales with 3,936 pounds. As such, both cars hit 0-60 mph in 4 seconds flat. The AMG manages to just pip the M3 in the quarter mile, 12.2 seconds at 119.5 mph versus 12.3 at 118.1 mph. The Caddy? Well, friends, the 3,788-pound ATS-V with its 464-hp, 445-lb-ft of torque, twin-turbo, 3.6-liter V-6 hits 60 mph in a remarkable 3.7 seconds. That's as quick as a Corvette Stingray (though the first C7 Z51 we ever tested took 3.9 seconds) and quicker than a Camaro Z/28 (4.0 seconds). The American speed demon wins the quarter-mile battle, too, doing so in 12.1 seconds at 116.2 mph. Note the trap speed, as the Caddy is out of breath at the end of the race. Still: winner! The ATS-V also stops in a hurry. With nothing but steel rotors, the ATS-V goes from 60 mph to zero in just 99 feet. That's equal to a Ferrari 458 Italia, though the Corvette Stingray does it in 95 feet. As for the two Germans? The AMG with its $5,450 carbon-ceramic front brakes (rears are steel) requires 101 feet from 60 mph, and the M3 with its $8,150 full carbon-ceramic brake package needs 104 feet. As you can see, in a straight line, America wins. But when you start turning the wheel … USA still comes out on top. The Cadillac dusted the competition, running around our figure-eight course in 23.7 seconds, whereas the two Germans both required 24.1 seconds. To illustrate just how phenomenally all three cars handle, that Corvette Stingray needs 23.5 seconds to lap the figure eight, while a Porsche 911 Carrera 4S requires 23.9. Ferrari 458 Italia? 23.6 seconds, all of which should give you a clear illustration of how ludicrous the Caddy's handling prowess is. The conclusion from our test team is that if performance is all you care about, buy the Cadillac. However—and I sound like a broken record here—numbers only tell one part of the story.

Read more: 

 

Motor Trend

[cp-the-nerd]

I'll take a V coupe with a stick shift. Please and thank you.

 

It was actually an enjoyable article. I'm glad they didn't spend a bunch of time griping about the back seat and interior like C&D in that total fail comparo. I don't know whether the AMG truly deserved the win with a $15,000 higher price, but they were very kind to the ATS in the performance review. It was good press for Cadillac.

[smk4565]

A good article.  The C63 is pricey, it is almost E63 money. It would be nice if they could get that price down by $5,000 or so.  For me, the only other area for improvement on the C63 would be to get about 100 lbs of weight out of the front end, then they'd be more near a 50/50 weight balance.  Interestingly enough the C63 is about 4 inches longer than a standard C-class because they had to make the hood longer to fit the V8.  So I am sure that adds to the weight, maybe a carbon fiber hood would neutralize that.

 

As far as the other guys go...

Edited August 3, 2015 by smk4565

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

Any power advantage the AMG has over the M3 is mitigated by lard. The 425-horsepower, 406-lb-ft of torque, 3.0-liter, twin-turbo inline-six BMW weighs only 3,498 pounds, whereas the 503-horse, 516 lb-ft of twist C63 pushes down on the scales with 3,936 pounds. As such, both cars hit 0-60 mph in 4 seconds flat. The AMG manages to just pip the M3 in the quarter mile, 12.2 seconds at 119.5 mph versus 12.3 at 118.1 mph. The Caddy? Well, friends, the 3,788-pound ATS-V with its 464-hp, 445-lb-ft of torque, twin-turbo, 3.6-liter V-6 hits 60 mph in a remarkable 3.7 seconds. That's as quick as a Corvette Stingray (though the first C7 Z51 we ever tested took 3.9 seconds) and quicker than a Camaro Z/28 (4.0 seconds). The American speed demon wins the quarter-mile battle, too, doing so in 12.1 seconds at 116.2 mph. Note the trap speed, as the Caddy is out of breath at the end of the race. Still: winner! The ATS-V also stops in a hurry. With nothing but steel rotors, the ATS-V goes from 60 mph to zero in just 99 feet. That's equal to a Ferrari 458 Italia, though the Corvette Stingray does it in 95 feet. As for the two Germans? The AMG with its $5,450 carbon-ceramic front brakes (rears are steel) requires 101 feet from 60 mph, and the M3 with its $8,150 full carbon-ceramic brake package needs 104 feet. As you can see, in a straight line, America wins. But when you start turning the wheel … USA still comes out on top. The Cadillac dusted the competition, running around our figure-eight course in 23.7 seconds, whereas the two Germans both required 24.1 seconds. To illustrate just how phenomenally all three cars handle, that Corvette Stingray needs 23.5 seconds to lap the figure eight, while a Porsche 911 Carrera 4S requires 23.9. Ferrari 458 Italia? 23.6 seconds, all of which should give you a clear illustration of how ludicrous the Caddy's handling prowess is.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1507_bmw_m3_vs_cadillac_ats_v_sedan_vs_mercedes_amg_c63_s_comparison/viewall.html#ixzz3hojjmoY4

To any idiot out there who believes that what comes out of Germany is superior.. I say.. keep breathing in those fumes.. so U can out and out die and go away.

[ccap41]

Damn that Caddy performs! 99ft from 60-0. 12.1 in the quarter.. Nearly mirroring the 458 Italia in the figure eight!

 

For me personally.. If money wasn't a concern, and at these prices it probably isn't THAT much of an issue, it would still be tough to get me away from the C63. A lot of that is because of my driving style and V8. I'm not an agressive street driver. I'm not going to be taking on ramps at 150mph because the car can. I just want to stand on the "go" pedal whenever I want and hear the V8. And that is also because all of these cars are still wickedly fast. a measly [email protected].. I can handle that compared to the quickest at [email protected]. But it does seem to have a little EcoBoost issue with the soft top end..

[smk4565]

The C63 had the best passing time, granted by .1 seconds.  But I bet if they did a 100-150 mph acceleration test, the C63 would win because of the V8.  Unless you drive on the Autobahn that isn't going to matter much.  I think with all 3 cars the performance is so close you couldn't tell the difference, so it comes down to styling, interior, and which brand of car you want.   Plus some cars are great on a track and not good to live with everyday, seems like they thought the C63 was the best car to live with everyday, and you get the V8 noise,

[balthazar]

What's would make anyone pony up $15 grand more for a slower, worse handling, worse braking, worse driving performance sedan??

[ccap41]

^ first, I wouldn't get the ceramic brakes.. Second.. The odds of it hitting a road course would be slim to none. Third, I guarantee all of these cars performance well out does my skill level so I couldn't extract the performance out of them anyway.. Plus the "slowest" in this group is one heck of a car!

[smk4565]

^ first, I wouldn't get the ceramic brakes.. Second.. The odds of it hitting a road course would be slim to none. Third, I guarantee all of these cars performance well out does my skill level so I couldn't extract the performance out of them anyway.. Plus the "slowest" in this group is one heck of a car!

True to all that.  And the C63 has the best interior, best turning circle, largest trunk and somehow the best EPA fuel economy rating, best passing power.  I also would skip the carbon brakes and save $5,400.

 

The Nissan GT-R can hammer a Corvette in a 0-60 sprint and beat it on a race track, yet I doubt the Corvette fans here would buy a GT-R just because it is has a good Nurburgring time and video game launch control.

 

Cadillac has put the performance in the ATS-V, but all three of these cars are basically the same (imagine if the Lexus IS-F was in that test, it would be have been embarrassed).  But the same issues the base ATS has with interior space, interior trim, CUE, etc are all still there.   Really I think all 3 of these cars are $5-10,000 over priced, the base models of all these are like $35,000 and these cars are near $80,000. 

[oldshurst442]

*SIGH*

 

This trio of vehicles is not where I am from and my way of thinking.

 

The BMW M3. My my has she grown to be a big lady. And I dont mean that in a good way. As much as I always hated a BMW 3 Series/M3...I do respect them for what they are...and what they are...is certainly NOT what they have become. That is why I prefer and actually do like the BMW 2 Series. The previous 1M is what I prefer over the latest couple of M3/M4 generations...

 

On to the M-B.  If it had not been for the AMG badge and that V8...I dont think I would even waste my time writing about this car. For one thing...in my eyes...she is one ugly girl....unfortunately for me...she is quite the success story up here in Montreal. The new gen. regular C Class is  everywhere to be seen up...and everytime I seen one...I turn away in disgust.

 

The ATS...she is one fine piece of a$$...however...she is too tiny...and in my eyes...Cadillacs are not supposed to be that small...I am grateful that she exists though. However...I think Id prefer a Camaro over an ATS(just to stay in the GM family, because its the Mustang GT350 that I would rather have ...if we are talking about coupes...but this is about sedans...in which case...I would rather a Hellcat from Dodge...preferably a Challenger...if we are talking about the sedans...yes...I did say Challenger...and no...I do not mean Charger...)

In this market niche of small RWD sports car coupes/sedans...pony car is what I dig...and the Challenger is a pony car when I need her to be and a midsized muscle car when I see fit...

 

What would I buy from this trio?

Sorry Cadillac...I think Id buy the AMG.

 

Why?

V8.

And slightly bigger.

Its the slightly bigger part that actually wins me over and not the V8 over the TTV6.

Yup...space would trump looks in this case...because like I said...had space not been a factor, Mustang GT350/Camaro/Challenger Hellcat is where Im at.

Edited August 5, 2015 by oldshurst442

[cp-the-nerd]

 

^ first, I wouldn't get the ceramic brakes.. Second.. The odds of it hitting a road course would be slim to none. Third, I guarantee all of these cars performance well out does my skill level so I couldn't extract the performance out of them anyway.. Plus the "slowest" in this group is one heck of a car!

True to all that.  And the C63 has the best interior, best turning circle, largest trunk and somehow the best EPA fuel economy rating, best passing power.  I also would skip the carbon brakes and save $5,400.

 

The Nissan GT-R can hammer a Corvette in a 0-60 sprint and beat it on a race track, yet I doubt the Corvette fans here would buy a GT-R just because it is has a good Nurburgring time and video game launch control.

 

Cadillac has put the performance in the ATS-V, but all three of these cars are basically the same (imagine if the Lexus IS-F was in that test, it would be have been embarrassed).  But the same issues the base ATS has with interior space, interior trim, CUE, etc are all still there.   Really I think all 3 of these cars are $5-10,000 over priced, the base models of all these are like $35,000 and these cars are near $80,000. 

 

 

One point of contention: a $100k Z06 would DESTROY a $100k GT-R on a track. In fact, Motor Trend ran a 1:25.00 at willow springs with a Z06 manual and a 1:25.7 with a $150,000 GT-R Nismo.

[Frisky Dingo]

Let me preface my post by saying you can't really go wrong with any of these cars.

 

But the AMG is the least desirable to me. It puts up the numbers sure, but I just doubt it's ability to stand up to repeated tracking like the other two. The V8 is great and all, and the interior (minus the stuck-on tablet) is gorgeous, but it takes more than that to captivate me. The C63 seems like it was built more to the next-class-up's criteria. And I find it somewhat funny that they had to release a higher strength model right from the get go to compare favorably to it's rivals. For 90K, I'd expect it slaughter the other two, and it doesn't. I'd love to see how the standard car would fare.

 

Moving on to the Caddy, I give props to GM for making such a focused car. They obviously labored over the driving dynamics, and it shows. Unfortunately, I think they may have compromised in other areas because of that. There's nothing wrong with the interior per se, but I still don't think it's quite on the level of the Germans'. And they definitely are a bit behind in terms of overall powertain aspects. If all you value is outright performance, this is admittedly your car. I'd only want one in 7MT form, though. No interest in the 8AT.

 

That leaves the BMW. To nobody's shock I'm sure, it'd still be my pick by a long shot. Numbers and subjective criteria within spitting distance of the Caddy, and more room, nicer interior, and richer heritage/tradition to go along with it. For pretty much the same coin. I like it's looks better, I'm positive you'll have better dealership experience, and it has a tremendous amount of aftermarket support already. Add to that the enthusiast owner's base, and it's a package deal imo. I still think it's the bar for the segment in terms of incorporating everything so well into one package. In short, I think it's the best small sport luxury sedan for TODAY.

 

But I couldn't fault anyone for preferring something else. It'd be a boring world if we were all the same. Besides, we can all agree Lexus sucks.

 

 

^ first, I wouldn't get the ceramic brakes.. Second.. The odds of it hitting a road course would be slim to none. Third, I guarantee all of these cars performance well out does my skill level so I couldn't extract the performance out of them anyway.. Plus the "slowest" in this group is one heck of a car!

True to all that.  And the C63 has the best interior, best turning circle, largest trunk and somehow the best EPA fuel economy rating, best passing power.  I also would skip the carbon brakes and save $5,400.

 

The Nissan GT-R can hammer a Corvette in a 0-60 sprint and beat it on a race track, yet I doubt the Corvette fans here would buy a GT-R just because it is has a good Nurburgring time and video game launch control.

 

Cadillac has put the performance in the ATS-V, but all three of these cars are basically the same (imagine if the Lexus IS-F was in that test, it would be have been embarrassed).  But the same issues the base ATS has with interior space, interior trim, CUE, etc are all still there.   Really I think all 3 of these cars are $5-10,000 over priced, the base models of all these are like $35,000 and these cars are near $80,000. 

 

 

One point of contention: a $100k Z06 would DESTROY a $100k GT-R on a track. In fact, Motor Trend ran a 1:25.00 at willow springs with a Z06 manual and a 1:25.7 with a $150,000 GT-R Nismo.

 

 

That's a stretch. First off, because the average owner isn't going to come anywhere near to duplicating that time as they would the GT-R's, and because the Z06 can only do it for one or two laps, anyway.

[ccap41]

 

 

 

^ first, I wouldn't get the ceramic brakes.. Second.. The odds of it hitting a road course would be slim to none. Third, I guarantee all of these cars performance well out does my skill level so I couldn't extract the performance out of them anyway.. Plus the "slowest" in this group is one heck of a car!

True to all that.  And the C63 has the best interior, best turning circle, largest trunk and somehow the best EPA fuel economy rating, best passing power.  I also would skip the carbon brakes and save $5,400.

 

The Nissan GT-R can hammer a Corvette in a 0-60 sprint and beat it on a race track, yet I doubt the Corvette fans here would buy a GT-R just because it is has a good Nurburgring time and video game launch control.

 

Cadillac has put the performance in the ATS-V, but all three of these cars are basically the same (imagine if the Lexus IS-F was in that test, it would be have been embarrassed).  But the same issues the base ATS has with interior space, interior trim, CUE, etc are all still there.   Really I think all 3 of these cars are $5-10,000 over priced, the base models of all these are like $35,000 and these cars are near $80,000. 

 

 

One point of contention: a $100k Z06 would DESTROY a $100k GT-R on a track. In fact, Motor Trend ran a 1:25.00 at willow springs with a Z06 manual and a 1:25.7 with a $150,000 GT-R Nismo.

 

 

That's a stretch. First off, because the average owner isn't going to come anywhere near to duplicating that time as they would the GT-R's, and because the Z06 can only do it for one or two laps, anyway.

 

I think more importantly is that the GT-R is probably easier to go fast with. Ask an amateur to jump in a 650hp RWD car and race vs a 600(?)hp AWD car and it won't even be a competition. The GT-R will work its AWD magic.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

 

 

^ first, I wouldn't get the ceramic brakes.. Second.. The odds of it hitting a road course would be slim to none. Third, I guarantee all of these cars performance well out does my skill level so I couldn't extract the performance out of them anyway.. Plus the "slowest" in this group is one heck of a car!

True to all that.  And the C63 has the best interior, best turning circle, largest trunk and somehow the best EPA fuel economy rating, best passing power.  I also would skip the carbon brakes and save $5,400.

 

The Nissan GT-R can hammer a Corvette in a 0-60 sprint and beat it on a race track, yet I doubt the Corvette fans here would buy a GT-R just because it is has a good Nurburgring time and video game launch control.

 

Cadillac has put the performance in the ATS-V, but all three of these cars are basically the same (imagine if the Lexus IS-F was in that test, it would be have been embarrassed).  But the same issues the base ATS has with interior space, interior trim, CUE, etc are all still there.   Really I think all 3 of these cars are $5-10,000 over priced, the base models of all these are like $35,000 and these cars are near $80,000. 

 

 

One point of contention: a $100k Z06 would DESTROY a $100k GT-R on a track. In fact, Motor Trend ran a 1:25.00 at willow springs with a Z06 manual and a 1:25.7 with a $150,000 GT-R Nismo.

 

 

That's a stretch. First off, because the average owner isn't going to come anywhere near to duplicating that time as they would the GT-R's, and because the Z06 can only do it for one or two laps, anyway.

 

I think more importantly is that the GT-R is probably easier to go fast with. Ask an amateur to jump in a 650hp RWD car and race vs a 600(?)hp AWD car and it won't even be a competition. The GT-R will work its AWD magic.

 

 

The Z06 has its own brand of track hero wizardry in the form of the eLSD and performance modes. Reviewers comment that it exits corners like AWD. If MT beat the Nismo by .7 seconds on a short track, you're talking about a couple full seconds difference from the standard GT-R. The Z/28 beat the GT-R around a track as well.

[Frisky Dingo]

 

Which really means nothing because-

 

1) Again, those times can't be duplicated by someone with even good driving skills, let alone the average owner.

 

2) The Z06 cannot sustain laps at that pace even if they could.

 

3) Most people will easily go faster in the GT-R, despite absolute capability.

 

4) Track events aren't pitting drivers against one another in a race anyway, so it's a moot point.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

^ first, I wouldn't get the ceramic brakes.. Second.. The odds of it hitting a road course would be slim to none. Third, I guarantee all of these cars performance well out does my skill level so I couldn't extract the performance out of them anyway.. Plus the "slowest" in this group is one heck of a car!

True to all that.  And the C63 has the best interior, best turning circle, largest trunk and somehow the best EPA fuel economy rating, best passing power.  I also would skip the carbon brakes and save $5,400.

 

The Nissan GT-R can hammer a Corvette in a 0-60 sprint and beat it on a race track, yet I doubt the Corvette fans here would buy a GT-R just because it is has a good Nurburgring time and video game launch control.

 

Cadillac has put the performance in the ATS-V, but all three of these cars are basically the same (imagine if the Lexus IS-F was in that test, it would be have been embarrassed).  But the same issues the base ATS has with interior space, interior trim, CUE, etc are all still there.   Really I think all 3 of these cars are $5-10,000 over priced, the base models of all these are like $35,000 and these cars are near $80,000. 

 

 

Oh yes.. because the ability to make a U-Turn is a huge concern to every buyer.

The EPA rating on the ATS-V is super conservative.  Take it out on the highway and drive it like your grandmother is in the back seat, you'll get into the mid-30s.

[ccap41]

 

 

 

 

That's a stretch. First off, because the average owner isn't going to come anywhere near to duplicating that time as they would the GT-R's, and because the Z06 can only do it for one or two laps, anyway.

 

I think more importantly is that the GT-R is probably easier to go fast with. Ask an amateur to jump in a 650hp RWD car and race vs a 600(?)hp AWD car and it won't even be a competition. The GT-R will work its AWD magic.

 

 

The Z06 has its own brand of track hero wizardry in the form of the eLSD and performance modes. Reviewers comment that it exits corners like AWD. If MT beat the Nismo by .7 seconds on a short track, you're talking about a couple full seconds difference from the standard GT-R. The Z/28 beat the GT-R around a track as well.

 

While I agree.. But once you dial those modes back because the average joe can't handle it, it then becomes slower. The car won't allow you to go bonkers(same with the GT-R). But the GT-R is just going to be a more amateur drivable car at a decent pace.

Like Frisky said "

1) Again, those times can't be duplicated by someone with even good driving skills, let alone the average owner.

2) The Z06 cannot sustain laps at that pace even if they could.(I think this would be a non issue for an amateur who can't/wont be running a true race pace.)

3) Most people will easily go faster in the GT-R, despite absolute capability.

4) Track events aren't pitting drivers against one another in a race anyway, so it's a moot point."

[cp-the-nerd]

I think you guys are oversimplifying. AWD = win? Despite the GT-R weighing 400 lbs more and lacking the tactile feel that is an important part of driving fast. The base GT-R is also down 100 hp and 200 lb-ft of torque. The whole argument is based on conjecture because the Corvette HAS won when the chips were down, but we're making a bunch of assumptions about average owners' lack of driving ability and how much that would affect each car.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

[ccap41]

No AWD doesn't equal a win but it will give an amateur a more confident corner exit knowing the rear end isn't going to whip out.

 

I can agree to disagree..

 

Funny this is where we ended up going from the original comparison test lol.

[cp-the-nerd]

No AWD doesn't equal a win but it will give an amateur a more confident corner exit knowing the rear end isn't going to whip out.

 

I can agree to disagree..

 

Funny this is where we ended up going from the original comparison test lol.

 

Don't forget the Z06 has carbon ceramic brakes vs the traditional disks in the GT-R. Brakes are a huge aspect of confidence in attacking a track. Just more gray area to try to figure out.

[ccap41]

 

No AWD doesn't equal a win but it will give an amateur a more confident corner exit knowing the rear end isn't going to whip out.

 

I can agree to disagree..

 

Funny this is where we ended up going from the original comparison test lol.

 

Don't forget the Z06 has carbon ceramic brakes vs the traditional disks in the GT-R. Brakes are a huge aspect of confidence in attacking a track. Just more gray area to try to figure out.

 

Have you gotten to see one of these in person yet? My local Chevy dealer had one and i went to look at it to oogle it and holy balls those brake rotors are massive! The rear tires at 335mm...

[Frisky Dingo]

I don't think anyone who has any experience with either car, or even just track experience period, would disagree with the notion of the GT-R being considerably faster in the average owner's hands.

 

I can't believe any reasonable person would argue with that.

[ccap41]

^ That's how I feel but.. it doesn't really matter..

[cp-the-nerd]

I don't think anyone who has any experience with either car, or even just track experience period, would disagree with the notion of the GT-R being considerably faster in the average owner's hands.

 

I can't believe any reasonable person would argue with that.

 

Oh please, spare me the incredulous bullsh*t.

[Frisky Dingo]

 

I don't think anyone who has any experience with either car, or even just track experience period, would disagree with the notion of the GT-R being considerably faster in the average owner's hands.

 

I can't believe any reasonable person would argue with that.

 

Oh please, spare me the incredulous bullsh*t.

 

 

Me suggesting that an understeer-biased AWD car with loads of electronic aids is easier to drive to it's potential than a 650hp RWD one is incredulous??

 

Sure.

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't think anyone who has any experience with either car, or even just track experience period, would disagree with the notion of the GT-R being considerably faster in the average owner's hands.

 

I can't believe any reasonable person would argue with that.

 

It's mostly because the car does most of the driving for you.

[Frisky Dingo]

 

I don't think anyone who has any experience with either car, or even just track experience period, would disagree with the notion of the GT-R being considerably faster in the average owner's hands.

 

I can't believe any reasonable person would argue with that.

 

It's mostly because the car does most of the driving for you.

 

 

Well, I'm not oblivious to that fact. That's precisely why it'd be faster. Hell, that's what the GT-R was built for in the first place.

 

A GT3 may be able to beat the GT-R with a pro behind the wheel, but that doesn't change the fact that most people could go way quicker in the Nissan than the Porsche. Doesn't make me like the GT-R anymore, or the Porsche (or Z06) any less. I'd rather have a standard C7 Z51 over a GT-R, even a NISMO one.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

I don't think anyone who has any experience with either car, or even just track experience period, would disagree with the notion of the GT-R being considerably faster in the average owner's hands.

 

I can't believe any reasonable person would argue with that.

 

It's mostly because the car does most of the driving for you.

 

 

Well, I'm not oblivious to that fact. That's precisely why it'd be faster. Hell, that's what the GT-R was built for in the first place.

 

A GT3 may be able to beat the GT-R with a pro behind the wheel, but that doesn't change the fact that most people could go way quicker in the Nissan than the Porsche. Doesn't make me like the GT-R anymore, or the Porsche (or Z06) any less. I'd rather have a standard C7 Z51 over a GT-R, even a NISMO one.

 

I like the Stingray mostly for the fact that it doesn't have to be at Battle Stations all the time. If you just want to sit back and cruise, it is perfectly happy to do so. Aside from cargo issues, there is no reason one couldn't use a Stingray as a daily. The GT-R is much more trigger happy.

[Frisky Dingo]

Agreed. It's a car that you have to be pushing to enjoy it. That's a trait I've never liked in cars. It's also why I don't like crotch rockets.

[El Kabong]

I don't think anyone who has any experience with either car, or even just track experience period, would disagree with the notion of the GT-R being considerably faster in the average owner's hands.

 

I can't believe any reasonable person would argue with that.

Well, for starters, the Chevy has as much as 160 more hp than a GTR (they still offer the 480hp version, don't they?). It also weighs several hundred pounds less. It has a lower centre of gravity.

But most importantly, it has much more advanced performance management software and gonzo amounts of downforce. All of this goes a long way to negating the advantages of the Nissan's AWD system.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

I don't think anyone who has any experience with either car, or even just track experience period, would disagree with the notion of the GT-R being considerably faster in the average owner's hands.

 

I can't believe any reasonable person would argue with that.

 

Oh please, spare me the incredulous bullsh*t.

 

 

Me suggesting that an understeer-biased AWD car with loads of electronic aids is easier to drive to it's potential than a 650hp RWD one is incredulous??

 

Sure.

 

 

Re-read this: "I can't believe any reasonable person would argue with that."

 

Now go look up the word incredulous.

[El Kabong]

Uh, awkward.

...still, several years of software advances and a few hundred pounds of downforce make for surprisingly accessible performance.