Trade M3 for GT-R!!!

[QUOTE=dmaninphx;14946915]If you want to talk about the "history or soul" of these cars you have to go back in the model years. The R33 and R34 version of the GT-R has a backing of loyal enthusiasts. These vehicles were NEVER made available for retail sale in the United States. Think before you speak and READ what was spoken about. The NEWEST model GT-R is the ONLY version that has been made available for RETAIL sales in the United States, period.

Perhaps you should consider reviewing what was written before you respond. The issue raised by the OP involved trading his M3 for a 2010 GT-R. This is the car that is being discussed, not previous versions. You said, "THIS" car has never been available in the United States. We were never discussing the previous Skyline-based coupes, which admittedly were not sold here.

I don't have any problem with the GT-R. It is a remarkable engineering achievement, and well worth the asking price on the basis of its performance. I do take issue with attempts to characterize it as a supercar, even though its performance surpasses that of many cars that can be so characterized. It is much like the Corvette ZR-1. Massive performance that will better many cars priced at a substantially higher premium. But a supercar? No. For what it's worth, I don't consider the Porsche GT3 to be one either.

Originally Posted by DSilk56

Perhaps you should consider reviewing what was written before you respond. The issue raised by the OP involved trading his M3 for a 2010 GT-R.

I have read every post in this thread and I was commenting on the statements regarding the "history and soul" of said vehicle. These comments are DIRECTLY taken from YOUR posts.

"THIS" is a statement on the Model Nissan GT-R which is EXACTLY what I have commented on. You can not go back on comments that have been addressed througout this thread. YOU made the comments and someone has addressed them accordingly. YOU decided to speak on a situtation and a car that A... You do not own nor have driven and B... You personally and directly questioned someone else's experiences with who IS an owner. YOU decided to make comments questioning the "SOUL" of this car comparing it to a Ferrari Daytona! Then getting into specifics about company A and Company B etc etc....

I like to base decisions and comments off FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. How can you base your opinions off something you do not own?? There is a difference between owning something and driving something. Owning something allows you to get to know and understand that eccentircities of an item. With this knowledge and appreciation for an item you can most certainly give others HONEST AND FIRST HAND information and not a personal thought or more simply a personal opinion.

Originally Posted by DSilk56

I do take issue with attempts to characterize it as a supercar, even though its performance surpasses that of many cars that can be so characterized. It is much like the Corvette ZR-1. Massive performance that will better many cars priced at a substantially higher premium. But a supercar? No. For what it's worth, I don't consider the Porsche GT3 to be one either.

Performance is a key component to a "supercar". Availibility is also a common component to classifying a car as a "supercar".

Let's not get into who's is bigger or opinions based on personal feelings.... Let's agree to disagree..... One man's trash is another man's treasure.... Apparently YOUR definition of a Supercar and mine are different.....

We will have to agree to disagree. Ownership of a vehicle is not a prerequisite to knowledge about it, however. Neither is it a prerequisite to holding an opinion about it. Keep in mind that our difference of opinion is really quite minor. There is no question but that, with regard to costs and experiences of ownership, ownership gives you a better perspective than I could have. It does not, however, make your opinion about the appearance of the car or the intangibles that add up to "soul" any more or less valid. If we all had the same tastes, we would all aspire to the same cars. We don't, which is why there is such an interesting array available.

I think this "GTR is not a supercar" argument is really all about the hate for Japanese cars. I assume you also think that the $400,000 Lexus LFA is not a supercar??? I mean it's just a Lexus right? What about the McLaren MP4-12c? It's a very technologically advanced car but you can't slide it, and does not feel as engaging as a Ferrari 458... It's still a supercar because of the McLaren name though...

Originally Posted by Rockyminator

While I agree 100 percent that Ferrari has more soul than a Nissan, especially the Ferrari F40 my favorite car of all time, the point I'm trying to make is that the GTR maintenance costs and intervals are going to be similar to a supercar because of all the engineering that's gone into it. In order to outperform all of those expensive, emotion filled supercars, it has to be properly maintained. If people think a 300 dollar oil change is absurd... an oil change for an E46 M3 will run you $120 in just parts... Add another $100 on top of that to have the dealer do it, and that's just for a 6 year old M3.. So the $300 GTR oil change seems a little more justifiable now...

I get my oil changed done for me at the shop, with 10w-60, for 85bucks.

I have no hatred for Japanese cars. The Toyota 2000 GT was spectacular, as were the original Datsun 240Z and third-generation Mazda RX-7. I also have to say that the Subaru WRX and Mitsubishi Evo series cars are great as well, while the 1970 Datsun 510 offered BMW 2002 handling and performance for VW Beetle money. Japanese companies have shown that they are capable of building exceptional cars, and the Lexus LF-A is a prime example. But being spectacular is not the same thing as having soul. Most of our exotic supercars have been both spectacular and spectacularly flawed at the same time. The Lamborghini Miura, which was really the first "supercar", was extremely fragile (the story at the time was that Ferruccio Lamborghini had his engineers drill holes in the chassis to reduce weight) and nearly impossible to drive at speed due to aerodynamic instability. The original Countach was spectacular to look at, but completely unstable at speed, which is why later versions have aerodynamic tack-ons that spoil the lines. The Countach was also extremely uncomfortable, and impossible to see out of. The Ferrari 365 GTB-4 "Daytona" was an exotic, but wasn't really a supercar despite being the fastest car on the planet when it was introduced, and faster than the Miura SV against which it competed. The F40 clearly was a supercar.

Is the McLaren a supercar? The F-1 certainly qualifies, but the current offering seems to be too much of a built-to-a-price piece to really qualify. While McLaren lacks a long history of building road cars, it does have a storied history in racing, which is where Ferrari got his start. Lamborghini has no race history, but it began in the 1960's as the producer of high dollar exotics, and its history and reputation expanded from there. Does the LF-A qualify? I am not yet sure, but am open to the possibility that it does, although it may be closer to the Daytona than it is to the Miura.

Originally Posted by DSilk56

I have no hatred for Japanese cars. The Toyota 2000 GT was spectacular, as were the original Datsun 240Z and third-generation Mazda RX-7. I also have to say that the Subaru WRX and Mitsubishi Evo series cars are great as well, while the 1970 Datsun 510 offered BMW 2002 handling and performance for VW Beetle money. Japanese companies have shown that they are capable of building exceptional cars, and the Lexus LF-A is a prime example. But being spectacular is not the same thing as having soul. Most of our exotic supercars have been both spectacular and spectacularly flawed at the same time. The Lamborghini Miura, which was really the first "supercar", was extremely fragile (the story at the time was that Ferruccio Lamborghini had his engineers drill holes in the chassis to reduce weight) and nearly impossible to drive at speed due to aerodynamic instability. The original Countach was spectacular to look at, but completely unstable at speed, which is why later versions have aerodynamic tack-ons that spoil the lines. The Countach was also extremely uncomfortable, and impossible to see out of. The Ferrari 365 GTB-4 "Daytona" was an exotic, but wasn't really a supercar despite being the fastest car on the planet when it was introduced, and faster than the Miura SV against which it competed. The F40 clearly was a supercar.

Is the McLaren a supercar? The F-1 certainly qualifies, but the current offering seems to be too much of a built-to-a-price piece to really qualify. While McLaren lacks a long history of building road cars, it does have a storied history in racing, which is where Ferrari got his start. Lamborghini has no race history, but it began in the 1960's as the producer of high dollar exotics, and its history and reputation expanded from there. Does the LF-A qualify? I am not yet sure, but am open to the possibility that it does, although it may be closer to the Daytona than it is to the Miura.

I LOVE how all of your clarifications and opinions are on cars that you do not own, nor have even been in! Anyone can READ what someone else says about a car to gather their opinions but frankly until you own a car and learn it, appreciate it and care for it you can not have a legitimate guage of its relativity! It is all rubbish at this point.....

This is just silly talk at this point..... Someone PLEASE close this thread as it is getting so far off topic that it need not be discussed anymore....

From webster - Definition of SOUL 1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life

The GTR has been nicknamed Godzilla for how long?... There's your soul

Since there is no official definition of super car, each to their own. IMO, performance numbers rule car classification. But the GTR definitely has plenty of soul...

This is a dumb argument over semantics.

Oh get off of your high horse already. Your assertion that the only way to hold a valid opinion about a car is to have owned it is absurd. We all hold opinions about things we do not own. Indeed, in many cases our opinions about them are the very reason we don't own them. You have a very nice car in the GT-R. It's just not my cup of tea. If that upsets you, deal with it!

Originally Posted by DSilk56

Oh get off of your high horse already. Your assertion that the only way to hold a valid opinion about a car is to have owned it is absurd. We all hold opinions about things we do not own. Indeed, in many cases our opinions about them are the very reason we don't own them. You have a very nice car in the GT-R. It's just not my cup of tea. If that upsets you, deal with it!

Just because you read a book about a rocket does not make you a rocket scientist.

Let's not compare educations unless you are prepared to be embarrassed.

all the gtr owners i know ******s except 1 guy

This thread is ridiculous. Who gives a crap about a GT-R in a M3 forum? Seriously, wtf?

Nope. Wouldn't do it.

Originally Posted by Tarmac_E46_M3

This thread is ridiculous. Who gives a crap about a GT-R in a M3 forum? Seriously, wtf?

lolwut. Why the hell not, i have an M3 and would trade for a gt-r if the right deal came my way. Anyone here will do it if they have the dough. I love my m3 but a gt-r is better than both e46 and e9x m3 combined . Affording one might be a problem tho. Anyway we never made a deal with this guy cause he wanted alot of cash plus my M3. At least its not a thread about trading my m3 for a vw or suped up buddys supra...

Originally Posted by DSilk56

I have no hatred for Japanese cars. The Toyota 2000 GT was spectacular, as were the original Datsun 240Z and third-generation Mazda RX-7. I also have to say that the Subaru WRX and Mitsubishi Evo series cars are great as well, while the 1970 Datsun 510 offered BMW 2002 handling and performance for VW Beetle money. Japanese companies have shown that they are capable of building exceptional cars, and the Lexus LF-A is a prime example. But being spectacular is not the same thing as having soul. Most of our exotic supercars have been both spectacular and spectacularly flawed at the same time. The Lamborghini Miura, which was really the first "supercar", was extremely fragile (the story at the time was that Ferruccio Lamborghini had his engineers drill holes in the chassis to reduce weight) and nearly impossible to drive at speed due to aerodynamic instability. The original Countach was spectacular to look at, but completely unstable at speed, which is why later versions have aerodynamic tack-ons that spoil the lines. The Countach was also extremely uncomfortable, and impossible to see out of. The Ferrari 365 GTB-4 "Daytona" was an exotic, but wasn't really a supercar despite being the fastest car on the planet when it was introduced, and faster than the Miura SV against which it competed. The F40 clearly was a supercar.

Is the McLaren a supercar? The F-1 certainly qualifies, but the current offering seems to be too much of a built-to-a-price piece to really qualify. While McLaren lacks a long history of building road cars, it does have a storied history in racing, which is where Ferrari got his start. Lamborghini has no race history, but it began in the 1960's as the producer of high dollar exotics, and its history and reputation expanded from there. Does the LF-A qualify? I am not yet sure, but am open to the possibility that it does, although it may be closer to the Daytona than it is to the Miura.

source for drilling holes in the chassis? All that I can find, is that earlier chassis on the p400 had thinner steel.

Also, the new McLaren is most definitely a supercar. I think you have a relative understanding, yet fundamentally flawed idea what a supercar was/is.

The reason why the miura was called the first supercar, was because it was radical, it was different, and made other cars from Ferrari seem pale.

You mention the McLaren being built to a price, well so was the Miura, if converted into todays cash it would cost a pale, 114k. Not to mention, engineers worked off the clock to keep the costs down, it was never a, screw it here is the check see what you can do project.

I think what people have a hard time doing with the GTR, is moving from the modded community to a true car that is borderline GT/Supercar.

As well, the McLaren was not just a supercar but an exotic as well because of its price tag. Going by your comments of built to a price, look at the f40 vs the McLaren f1, or the jag xj220, or the Porsceh 959.

Anyhow, you make valid points, but a lot of them are heavily undertoned in this idea of 'supercar' that excludes cars just because, and for no other merit.

Originally Posted by Bemwe_03i

lolwut. Why the hell not, i have an M3 and would trade for a gt-r if the right deal came my way. Anyone here will do it if they have the dough. I love my m3 but a gt-r is better than both e46 and e9x m3 combined . Affording one might be a problem tho. Anyway we never made a deal with this guy cause he wanted alot of cash plus my M3. At least its not a thread about trading my m3 for a vw or suped up buddys supra...

Right and I totally get that; I think it's a bad ass car. I had a E46 M3 too and still have an E36 M3.

But this is a E46 forum... and this thread got ridiculous!

To be fair, I think the money that a GT-R costs, you could easily make the E92 out perform it, dollar to dollar. Pay 70k for a used GTR, pay 40k for a used E92 M3, use 30k and make the E92 M3 unstoppable! Just sayin'

Originally Posted by elitewolverine

source for drilling holes in the chassis? All that I can find, is that earlier chassis on the p400 had thinner steel.

Also, the new McLaren is most definitely a supercar. I think you have a relative understanding, yet fundamentally flawed idea what a supercar was/is.

The reason why the miura was called the first supercar, was because it was radical, it was different, and made other cars from Ferrari seem pale.

You mention the McLaren being built to a price, well so was the Miura, if converted into todays cash it would cost a pale, 114k. Not to mention, engineers worked off the clock to keep the costs down, it was never a, screw it here is the check see what you can do project.

I think what people have a hard time doing with the GTR, is moving from the modded community to a true car that is borderline GT/Supercar.

As well, the McLaren was not just a supercar but an exotic as well because of its price tag. Going by your comments of built to a price, look at the f40 vs the McLaren f1, or the jag xj220, or the Porsceh 959.

Anyhow, you make valid points, but a lot of them are heavily undertoned in this idea of 'supercar' that excludes cars just because, and for no other merit.

The following is a quote from European Car:

At the Turin auto show in 1965 Lamborghini exhibited the first Miura chassis. Created by Gianpaolo Dallara, Paolo Stanzani and Bob Wallace, the body-less package had the look of a racing-car-in-the-making. Sheet steel, liberally drilled for lightness where possible, was welded into a box-section structure that carried a slightly modified version of the V12 engine originally designed for the 350/400 GT. Here, however, the powerplant was laid out transversely behind driver and passenger and was connected to the gearbox by helical gears.

As for price, you cannot do a strict inflation-derived computation. In 1969, the Miura sold for $20,000 in the US. By contrast, the 1969 Porsche 911 sold for $5,995, while the 1969 Mercedes Benz 280 SL sold for about $6,800. The Lambo cost approximately 3 times what those other cars cost, nearly equivalent to the price of an average home. The Ferrari Daytona was priced at just over $19,000 when it came out. Today's 911 and SL Benzes cost north of $100,000, and the top Ferrari is around $300,000, while an average house is closer to $250,000. So the Miura was not really equivalent in price to a $114,000 car today.

The other thing to remember is that lending rules have been greatly liberalized since the 1960's. In those days you could not borrow more than 60 to 70% of the car's value, and there was no such thing as leasing cars. You had to have at least one-third of the sale price in cash or in trade in value. Today people can finance 100% (which is absurd).