Skyline GTR34 vs E46 M3

HI guys, im new here. i was reading the forums for wuite some time an decided to register.
hwo do you think would win in the comparison ive made? has these 2 cars ever gone head to head in a shoot out? im talking track and road. which is faster?
thanks

In my opinion there is no question which car is the superior track car, and that is the Skyline. The Skyline has AWD, handles better, and accelerates quicker. The Skyline also has boat load of more potential. Now if the question is which the best all around car, then I'd go with the M3. But purely on performance, I have to say the Skyline.

Yup, as much as I dislike the Skyline, it's gonna out-perform an M3 pretty soundly.

thanks for the response. do you have any urls where they were tested at teh same track for instance? some people here on a south african BB are convinced that the M3 will wip the skyline. i am talking standard production cars here

First of all I would like to say that this is an interesting comparison. Both the M3 and Skyline GTR are two of the most dreamed about cars from their respective countries.

Stock vs. stock?

Tell me if im wrong becuase i'm an American and therefore don't have much experience with this car except the very rare and modified versions that I have seen, but the stats I've found online say the Skyline has 276hp, weighs 3,670 lbs, does 0-60 in 5.2, and a 1/4 mile in 13.7. So in a straight, the BMW M3 already has the advantage (333hp, 3460 lbs, 5.0sec, and about 13.3) and trust me, a straight line isn't where the M3 was designed to shine. The BMW is lighter and has bigger breaks then the Skyline GTR, and is considered by many to be the best handling coupe in existence. Its hard for me to compare the two since the Skyline GTR isn't even in America and I'm biased towards the M3 since I own one, but I'll need to see times from a few different tracks before I can accept that the Skyline is faster, but for now it looks to me that the BMW M3 is faster.

As a daily driver I think theres no competition. Even the best Nissan/Infiniti interior and driving manners struggle when compared to BMWs.

I've heard wonderful things about the Skyline's ability to be tuned into amazing cars, I've seen 1000hp+ R34 GTRs, and over $10,000 put into my car hasn't increased my performance THAT much, so I'll give the Nissan that.

the weight of these two cars are pretty close.

if its on a track with lots of turn, id say the skyline definately wins. the skyline is quicker than the 350z track, and the 350z is comparable to the e46 m3. in a straight line, i think they re pretty close, but the skyline can easily gain more power. as a daily driver, i think it would be pretty close, the m3 being a little better.

the R34 weights 3500 lbs, its true output is around 300whp all on 4 wheels, it also does 0-400m ( 3 feet shorter then a 1/4 mile ) in 12.9 seconds repeatedly stock. which is about right for its power to weight ratio. the 13.7 you saw were from road and track, and those are from used R33's and R34's from motorex with like 30-40K miles on them. so its not fair to compare the times of a used vehicle compared to a new one that was just broken in.

there is a video on BMI that shows the E36 M3 vs a S2000 type V, vs a 350Z track, and the R34 was the camera car.

pretty much the stock R34 was right behind the 350Z to observe the handling characteristics. the 350Z was also ahead of the M3. this was a 5 lap battle in tsukuba circuit in japan. after the 3rd lap, they told the skyline to go all out. in just 2 laps, it was about 3 seconds faster then the M3 and the 350Z track. it wasn't even close. as each lap went by, the R34 was pulling farther and farther way from the Z and the M3. the M3 was gaining on the Z really slow on the straightaway in that track, but the R34 passed the Z like it was nothing, ( this was when the GT-R over took it on the 3rd lap right when they told the driver to actually put the foot all the way down ) so this means all it takes is for the GT-R to drive at around 7/10th to be as fast as a E36 M3. this is all done with a bone stock R34 V-spec II by the way. to further prove this, i have another issue of BMI where they put the stock R34 against a 996 turbo. and guess what? the R34 was only .2 slower around sugo circuit. which proves that it will easily crush a E36 M3 since the M3 is not even in the same class as a 996 turbo. luckily i have this video on my comp. if your curious someone host it up for me.

you can't just look at the GT-R specs to have an idea of how fast it is, because the specs are soo off its not even funny. there was a discusion waaay earlier that was a Z32 300ZX TT vs. a stock R32 GT-R. and the Z on paper made more power then the R32. however i have a original 1989 BMI video on my comp which redneck hosted up for me showing the R32 owning the Z soo bad that it was one whole straight away behind or ( 3 seconds slower ). before i showed the video, everyone said the Z is faster becuse of its power advantage. not true. the R32 raped it.

it m3 vs 350Z video is on the import version of BMI ( Bestmotoring International ) video the in the November 2002 issue. if your curious about it, buy the video. i can't show it to you unfortunatly because its on DVD and i don't have it ripped to my comp.

there is a video on BMI that shows the E36 M3 vs a S2000 type V, vs a 350Z track, and the R34 was the camera car.



If its a E36 then sure a R34 should take it, the E36 M3 is much weaker then the E46 M3. What I would really like to see is N-Ring times for both of these cars.

And just so you know, the maximum horsepower a car is allowed to be rated in Japan is 276 HP. Since the R34 is putting 300 to the wheels, the true HP rating must be in the high 300's.

If its a E36 then sure a R34 should take it, the E36 M3 is much weaker then the E46 M3. What I would really like to see is N-Ring times for both of these cars.

oops i mean a E46. i missed the number on the number key. and yes i would be very interested in seeing the track times on the ring with these two cars. but my dibs is on the GT-R. its soo much better suited for real roads like hte ring. you can power out of the corners with bumps in the road without lifting off the throttle. you can't do that with the bimmer. the GT-R also has more power, and has a much broader power band, and much more tq then the M3, so for the elevation changes such as uphills and such won't slow down the GT-R as much as it would to an M3. remember, the programing for the AWD system was done extensivly on the ring. so it would be right at home there.

a E46 M3 is really around the same speed as a u.s spec NSX ( 3200 lbs and 290hp ) in straight line and in cornering prowess. however the j-spec NSX such as the NSX type S zero weights only 2800 lbs, and makes 290hp ( and runs 12.8's in the 0-400m dash ) and stops shorter because of less weight, lighter rims, sticker tires, and stiff suspension, yet hte GT-R will beat it around a race track repeatedly again. a S zero would run circles around a E46 M3.

I have that Video too. The Skyline did kill the E46 M3 pretty badly....anyway i think is argument is useless...is always hard to except that ur own car is slower.

Yeah I've got that on DVD. The reason the Skyline killed it was because it was a wet track. Out of the cars actually being tested, the M3 did the fastest lap time. If they really had've gone all out, the M3 would have won, not counting the GTR cam car. He spent a lot of time hanging back and watching, and going sideways:)

No offence, but a wet track in Japan is about as favorable towards the GTR as you can get. I want n-ring times records. Ill admit if im wrong, but for now im skeptical.

the track wasn't wet, their wipers wasn't even on, the track was just damp from a humid day. the S2000 and the 350Z hand no problems with it, and neither did the porsche boxter. only the M3 was slide happy, however even you stated earlier is that the M3 was tuned to slide around alot. so there was nothing truely wrong with the track, as the S2000 was known to oversteer at the limit too, and the S2K showed no signs of over steer on that track. as i stated earlier, the M3 would be beaten by a NSX S zero. and the GT-R beats the S zero 4 out of 5 times.

you can be skeptical all you want, but the GT-R is much much faster then the M3 even in the dry. the R34 has the M3 beat in aceleration, in handling, and in stops just as well if not better. they have very similar weight as well, and the GT-R definitly makes more power then the M3.

the R33 GT-R did it in 7:59 and the R34 is much faster, for some reason i cannot find a time for the R34 this lap time was achieved in 97 by Autocar magazine.

here is the link to the site if you want to look, i'll try to find more sites to get the time for the R34

http://speed.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=3&fID=0&tID=10073

here is some the story that relates to that same R33

http://www.caterham.force9.co.uk/ring.htm

a journalist wanted to try replicating the record himself so he thought out a 911 carrera, and a bone stock R33 GT-R.

the R33 GT-R driven by him posted a 8:28 second lap time with a supposed 276 bhp

the 911 carrera posted a 8:38 second lap time with 296bhp and lighter weight.

remember that particular GT-R had worn down its rear tires on the pratice runs, so it was oversteering alot, so the driver wasn't even tryin as hard as he did in the carrera and hitting the 155mph speed limiter repeatedly.

and he was not a pro driver, his car was not in top condition yet his lap time rivals that of a E46 M3 more then 5 years later running in top condition. not to mention that the R34 GT-R V-spec II laps an average of 1 second faster per lap compared to a R33 GT-R on Tsukuba Circuit.

i also have that video of BMI called Skyline GT-R the prodigy. it shows the both of them lapping the same track, and the R33 was no match for the R34.

this is the best i can find on a R34 GT-R

"An R34 is definitely quicker across a track than an R33, and why not, with better suspension, more torque and considerably improved aerodynamics. Japanese road tests have suggested a sweeter, more adjustable handling balance. The R34 has already run the famous Nurburgring at 7'52, eight seconds quicker than the best standard R33 can do. Although the road car has only just been released, an N1 production class racer was unveiled at the same time, and a wild looking GT-Class racer, with all carbon bodywork, and huge boxed flares has already been seen undergoing testing in Japan."

the website is down though the link to it was

http://www.agma.btinternet.co.uk/heritage/heritage-r34.htm

here is another link showing the R34 added to the list with a unofficial 7:52 seconds

http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49455

here is another site showing a R34 Nur spec doing a 7:58 second on the ring

http://www.dscr.net/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=005038

as you can see most of the times you see for the GT-R are under 8 minutes even though they were unofficial this is the best i can muster up.

i'd have to go with the GTR on this. no i don't have personal experience with it, just goin with what i see, read, and hear and i believe i've seen that video Tat is talkin about, the M3 didn't look too comfortable around the turns compared to the rest. the M3 is a great car, but in this comparo at least, the GTR is winner.

No question the GTR is quicker around a circuit. It just is. Those times at the NR are all 'unofficial' because, in the case of the R33 squeeking in under 8 minutes, it was running on specially cut semi racing tires. The 911 GT3 holds the record for totally standard, off the showroom floor production car record (not including all-out supercars).

The thing with NR times is that they should really be used as a guide only and not a definitive measurement. Any car that gets under 8 mins is a bloody fast car. There are 911's tuned by Gemaballa and Ruf that can lap in the 7'30 bracket which is just insane for a road car. The reason that they vary so much is that the track consitions vary so much. From day tp day and even hour to hour, it can vary temendously. All who have driven it say no two laps are the same. This is why manufaturers use it so much as a test and developmnet venue. Also, some of those times that you'll see quoted weren't even done in a closed track, meaning there was normal traffic on there too:)

And no the M3 won't get anywhere near 8 minutes and below. But, when you add in the grin factor and forget about bare numbers for a second, I'm sure the M car still score very highly.

If its a E36 then sure a R34 should take it, the E36 M3 is much weaker then the E46 M3. What I would really like to see is N-Ring times for both of these cars.

well there are other sources where the 350z beats, or comes close to the e46 m3, and the r34 skyline beats the 350z track edition pretty easily. of course, it also depends on what track it is, but from what ive seen, i almost garantee you that the skyline will beat the m3 9 out of 10 times.

well the video i have the m3 wasn't sliding at all, but the fact that it is rwd made it hard to compete with the two winners
the skyline r34 spec II and the evo-7 gsr

i would say that the skyline is slightly faster all around

the r34 GTR is not putting down 330hp at the wheels, stock. it is putting down 290-300hp at the flywheel. the M3 has around 360hp. AWD is ultimately inferior, but it is piss easy to drive therefore most normal drivers would be quicker in the GTR. a good driver should be quicker in the M3.

i still like the skyline more.

the difference is this.

with only $4000 australian (US$3000) in mods; exhaust, ECU, etc. i have seen a R34 GTR turn out 370hp at the wheels. i repeat. stock + $3000 in mods = 370whp.

the r34 GTR is not putting down 330hp at the wheels, stock. it is putting down 290-300hp at the flywheel. the M3 has around 360hp. AWD is ultimately inferior, but it is piss easy to drive therefore most normal drivers would be quicker in the GTR. a good driver should be quicker in the M3.

i still like the skyline more.

the difference is this.

with only $4000 australian (US$3000) in mods; exhaust, ECU, etc. i have seen a R34 GTR turn out 370hp at the wheels. i repeat. stock + $3000 in mods = 370whp.

in this case, the skyline is still the faster car. the skylines suspension is just set up for more performance. if the regular m3 suspension was setup like the csl version, it might be quicker than the skyline. awd is still an advantage in certain areas for regular production cars though. all wheel drive cars dominate on the tsukuba circuit.

the r34 GTR is not putting down 330hp at the wheels, stock. it is putting down 290-300hp at the flywheel. the M3 has around 360hp. AWD is ultimately inferior, but it is piss easy to drive therefore most normal drivers would be quicker in the GTR. a good driver should be quicker in the M3.

i still like the skyline more.

the difference is this.

with only $4000 australian (US$3000) in mods; exhaust, ECU, etc. i have seen a R34 GTR turn out 370hp at the wheels. i repeat. stock + $3000 in mods = 370whp.


you obviously you know nothing about the GT-R. the ATESSA ETS Pro is nothing like a convential AWD such as a EVO or a Audi or a Subaru. the Skyline GT-R uses a reactive style center differential. which means the computer uses sensors from each corner of the car, and in the diff's taking samples at 1000 times per second to monitor which wheel needs traction the most.

on the top end, the GT-R is completely RWD which means it doesn't have the handicap of needing to drive all 4 wheels. which means the M3 has nothing on it up top. also the M3 does not have 360hp. not even the CSL makes that much hp. the M3 makes 333hp and waaay less tq then a R34 GT-R.

and you think the R34 honestly make 300 crank hp? lets use some logic now. a R34 weights 3500 lbs, a U.S spec STi weights around 3300 lbs.
the U.S spec STi puts down 260whp at all 4 wheels. yet it only runs a 13.3- 13.2 on average. even at 260whp at all 4 wheels, given the typical AWD drivetrain loss being 25% its making a good amount more then 300 crank hp which the STi is rated at.

now the GT-R weights 200 lbs more, yet it runs 12.9's on average. so logic serves that it makes even more then 260whp at all 4 wheels. by running 2-3 tenths of a second faster, it needs atleast to add another 20-30whp, now it also happen to weight 200 lbs more which would require another 20whp to moviate the extra weight.

so in total it logical to have around 40-50 more whp then a U.S. spec STi. however since the ATESSA ETS Pro does not behave like a typical AWD drive train, expect it to trap a few mph higher then the STi by using less power since its only RWD after first gear on take off. so i'll be nice and say its rated on the lower end of the spectrum which is around 40 more whp. this makes it right at around 300whp.

Skyline All The Way!!!!

OK, what im having problems with is this "it runs 12.9's on average." Heres quite a few sites, including a pro-skyline one, that are saying 13.7ish. I havn't seen a 12.9 time once, anywhere from a stock GT-R on my google search.

http://www.jbskyline.net/R34/GTR/Specs/

http://www.supercars.net/cars/1999@$Nissan@$Skyline%20GT-Rx.html

http://www.conceptcarz.com/view/vehicle.aspx?carID=2744

http://www.engine-power.com/nissan/skyline_gtr_r34.html

You also mentioned that 13.7 is from R&T magazine too, so what I've found is that numerous sources, including respected journalists say that the Skyline GT-R does mid to high 13s, which is what one would expect from the kind of hp and weight numbers the Skyline has. I'm not trying to bash this car, the more I read about it the better it sounds, but it really isn't this unstopable car that people build it up to be. The AWD system is great, and the RB26 is a great engine, far more modable then my M3, but stock v. stock I still havn't seen actual evidence of the 12.9 times you've found. Give me some links, and make sure were talking about a GT-R, not the NUR, a Nismo, or the V-spec.

sure i have 3 videos of them on a road test by BMI running 12.9's and they are standard V-spec models that are bone stock. feel free to PM me, i'll send it to you via aim.

one was a bone stock V-spec I racing a 996 turbo. it ran a 13.0

one was a R33 GT-R racing a RX-7 R2 it ran a 13.0

one was a R34 V-spec I racing a NSX S zero, it ran a 12.8

one was a head to head battle between a V-spec I and a V-spec II,

both ran 12.9's.

these were all done on BMI and all the test were done with radar and all cars racing each other are stock vs stock.

if you want these videos i'll gladly send them to you. just remember to PM me, i'm very anxious to prove you wrong :smile:

i'll even throw in a video of a R34 V-spec II goin heads up against a 996 turbo around Sugo circuit to show its stock handling and braking abilities :smokin:

and by the way, the only difference between a standard GT-R and a v-spec is that the standard GT-R doesn't have the advanced aero system, along with a less aggressive AWD and AWS programing. in the earlier GT-R's such as the R32, the standard GT-R's HICAS is mostly mechanical. the V-spec I and V-spec II was a upgrade to make the AWD behave better by making it completely computer and electronic controlled. it really doesn't effect 1/4 mile times, mostly in time attack times it will effect the greatest.

these cars are far from unstopable. a Z06 would leave them for dead. and as you see in the videos i want to send you, the GT-R that ran a 12.8 still lost to a stock NSX S zero in the 0-400m. and the one that ran a 13.0 got rapped by the 996 turbo.

however for what it is, its a amazing machine. pretty much the best of its kind. the only japanese car that was faster then it was the limited production 3.2 liter NSX-R's. however then we can always throw in the limited production run Nismo 400R's or the R34 Nur-spec edition to level the playing field.

edit:
also the info on your links have some wrong info on it.

on one of the links its says that it has macpherson struts up front.

that is indeed incorrect. the GT-R uses double wishbone suspension up front. you should not trust these sites as they can't even get such a simple thing like that right.

i have a BMI video of a full walk around of the GT-R and it shows the front suspension component and it clearly shows the front steering knuckle found on those with a short arm long arm suspension setup, even the front shock body doesnt' look like the ones found on a mac pherson strut type suspension.

as you can tell from all these info that i learned from BMI its not a ghetto little video series but a very very in dept through japanese video series. if your curious to see that video too, i'll gladly show it to you as well.

dont BMI always equip the cars with semi slicks? ADVAN A048's usually sometimes the dunlop DJ01's. that would improve times heaps. and TAT the reason the GTR is faster is not because its peak HP is so high but because of its innovative AWD and extra 600cc (over evo & STI) and twin setup. here in aus we have heaps of skylines. stock R34 GTR's only dyno about 30-50hp more than the claimed 280hp.

BMI doesnt always equip ADVANS to the cars, and all of the races always state specs of the car (even when its stock) so you would know. and even if they did equip ADVANS to all their cars, they equiped ADVANS to ALL their cars so there is no advantage.

ps
also something i noticed, Takuya (Gan-sans kid) is the beest driver for the drags. he always gets the best takeoff and he set the record with the Type S Zero that ran 12.4 (fastest for stock NSX). but at the track, i would rather have Gan-san driving, hes an animal. he lead all but the last lap in the NSX-R vs both lambos and the 360 (and something else). BMI is gold to me.

dont BMI always equip the cars with semi slicks? ADVAN A048's usually sometimes the dunlop DJ01's. that would improve times heaps. and TAT the reason the GTR is faster is not because its peak HP is so high but because of its innovative AWD and extra 600cc (over evo & STI) and twin setup. here in aus we have heaps of skylines. stock R34 GTR's only dyno about 30-50hp more than the claimed 280hp.


they use stock tires on the cars. whenever they do a track battle, they always show you the tires they use and they are always the stock potenza's on the GT-R.

also you say its the AWD that makes the GT-R faster, however its also peak hp. how do you think it can keep it up with a NSX on the top end yet weights around 600 lbs more? a NSX will walk all over the EVO and STi on the top end like nothing. however the NSX barely inches on the GT-R up top. so where did all this magical top end come from? the AWD switching to RWD? then how did it over come the extra weight disadvantage?

also even with the AWD, the NSX will still out launch a GT-R sometimes at hte drags. so how does the semi slick on a AWD car allow it to lose to a MR setup?

also the GT-R is only .1 liter larger then the U.S. spec STi. here in the states the STi runs on a EJ25

another thing, the Twin turbo setup does not nessacarily mean its better, its not the sequential type that you see on a JZA80 supra or the FD3S RX-7. they actuall run in parallel instead of in series so that means there is really no top end advantage by running this setup other then the fact that it just makes straight up more hp then even the U.S 2.5 liter STi which happen to put down 260whp at all 4 wheels doing the calculations it has a true crank hp of 325hp. how is a car taht weights 200 more then a STi making same power run 4 tenths of a second faster?

you have gave me all your reasons, and i have gave you my reasons for doubting your reasons, i threw in counter logic and such. also most of the stats i get is from RazorGTR himself since i had to do a 15 page technical report on a Skyline GT-R for my class and i go to a automotive engineering school.

i saw the front suspension taken out of an r34 skyline, and it looked like a double wishbone design, but all these other sources online said it used macpherson struts, so i was confused thinking i didnt look at the suspension good enough. i knew there was something wrong with the info. i think the older r32 skylines used macpherson struts up front though, and multilink in the rear.

sure i have 3 videos of them on a road test by BMI running 12.9's and they are standard V-spec models that are bone stock. feel free to PM me, i'll send it to you via aim.

one was a bone stock V-spec I racing a 996 turbo. it ran a 13.0

one was a R33 GT-R racing a RX-7 R2 it ran a 13.0

one was a R34 V-spec I racing a NSX S zero, it ran a 12.8

one was a head to head battle between a V-spec I and a V-spec II,

both ran 12.9's.



All right, now I see why we were finding such different times, I have been talking about the standard GT-R, you've been talking about the V-Spec this whole time. I still stand by the M3 being faster then the GT-R, but the V-Spec is another story.

All right, now I see why we were finding such different times, I have been talking about the standard GT-R, you've been talking about the V-Spec this whole time. I still stand by the M3 being faster then the GT-R, but the V-Spec is another story.

A stock GT-R will still be faster since their only differece is the Aerodynamic part. Is like 323i and 323is

Yeah, the V-Spec package hardly does anything, a standard GT-R will still beat an E46 M3.

but doesn't the V-Spec package offer more downforce and hence more traction?

^ yea once it's already launched and going fast, but it won't affect it that much. GTR 34 > M3 by far

The V-Spec is going to make the R34 GT-R a tiny bit faster, but it's not enough to negate the considerable advantage that the R34 already has over the M3.

...but then again, isn't the V-Spec kit also that little bit heavier?
i do remember an old article taht tested the V-spec next to the standard GT-R and the V-spec is tidier on a track. Not sure if it would make that much of a difference when only going in a straight line though.

one thing though when talking about the GT-R and the M3.
in the uk, an official UK GT-R costs around £50,000 where as the M3 is about £44,000.
i can't quite see why i would choose the nissan over the bmw here.

i love both these cars!

i'd go the m3 even if it was slightly slower.

the GTR is a great car and they look really mean, but i can't see them being THAT much faster than the M3.. and i think the M# would be more rewarding to drive...

hmmm i thought the GTR would do better than 5.2 0-100... a couple of thoughts.

during N testing the e59 M5 reportedly passed the R34 on one of the straights at 310kph (obviously before they fitted the limiter to 250kph) the r34 beat it overall round N-burg but straight line had nothing on the 400hp 1800kg M5.

also in testing the M3 beat the M5, with a 0-100k time of 4.8, this was either detuned, or fudged to make it appear as though the (far more expensive) flag ship was quicker. the M3 demolishes the M5 on corners.

the power spread of the m3 vs the power peak of the GTR should make the M3 a lot more drivable and allow for "7/10th" driving, whereas the GTR requires 100% to get the performance (7000rpm drop the clutch launches and lots of gear changes)

on a track i'd give it to the GTR, and on the road 4wd is an advantage cause of surface variation, but the risk of being caught out of your power band and not having the grunt to make it work for you... hmm on road i'm giving it to the M3

hmmm i thought the GTR would do better than 5.2 0-100... a couple of thoughts.

during N testing the e59 M5 reportedly passed the R34 on one of the straights at 310kph (obviously before they fitted the limiter to 250kph) the r34 beat it overall round N-burg but straight line had nothing on the 400hp 1800kg M5.

also in testing the M3 beat the M5, with a 0-100k time of 4.8, this was either detuned, or fudged to make it appear as though the (far more expensive) flag ship was quicker. the M3 demolishes the M5 on corners.

the power spread of the m3 vs the power peak of the GTR should make the M3 a lot more drivable and allow for "7/10th" driving, whereas the GTR requires 100% to get the performance (7000rpm drop the clutch launches and lots of gear changes)

on a track i'd give it to the GTR, and on the road 4wd is an advantage cause of surface variation, but the risk of being caught out of your power band and not having the grunt to make it work for you... hmm on road i'm giving it to the M3

actually, the gtr has a lot better low end than the m3. the m3 actually has the peaky power band, it revs high to get its power like the honda s2000.

Yeah, the GT-R makes as much or more torque than it does horsepower, and almost all of it below 4000 rpm. The M3 doesn't get the brunt of its power until well past 5000.

Let's don't for get GT-R use Twin Turbos which kick's in quite early...