In the July issue of Car and Driver, the BMW M3 coupe beat the Nissan GT-R in a comparison test. I couldn't understand how this happened, or even why they'd be comparing the two, until I found a copy of this letter:
Dear Nissan,
You may have noticed (we hope someone does) that BMW's M3 beat your GT-R in our recent "Vision Quest" comparo. We want to apologize for this. Please don't feel bad. The GT-R really is a great car, as witnessed by the fact that we rated it higher than the Porsche 911 Turbo. But as BMW is secretly our parent company, they demanded that their M3 win any and all comparisons. As we are contractually obligated to have a BMW win at least four comparisons a year, well, it was your turn.
We did give Nissan the inside back cover and wrote a nice one-year update on the Altima. There are also a couple of complimentary articles about the Infiniti G35xS and the FX50S. Oh and by the way, that FX50S is an impressive ride, but you really need to do something about the silly "bionic cheetah" moniker that you've attached to it.
Anyway, rest assured that we feel very badly about placing the GT-R behind the M3. Even though the M3 is slower in the quarter mile, 0-60 and around a track, the BMW does have a bigger back seat and more usable trunk space.
Again, please take solace in the fact that your GT-R totally demolished the Porsche 911 Turbo, which is a worthless car. By "worthless" we mean it's an OK enough car, but Porsche doesn't spend enough money advertising in our magazine. When was the last time you saw a two-page ad for a 911 or an inside cover ad for the Boxster? I wish we could stop covering their lame cars altogether, but they've weaseled themselves into an important position in the automotive industry with all of their performance, history and heritage. So try as we might, we can't ignore them.
Enough about the third-place finisher, the over-powered 911 Turbo. We are here to apologize for that first place finish awarded to the M3.
If we were really honest, the M3 wouldn't have been in the comparison. It's in a totally different class than your GT-R. The thing is, our comparo is the first in a new series with cars competing out of their league. We think our advertisers (that's you!) will love this new marketing plan. It will give prestige to the lower end cars. Next month, a Nissan Rogue will beat the Porsche Cayenne. Just think how Nissan salesmen all over the country will be able to promote the Rogue as the "SUV that beat the Cayenne!"
The month after that, the Nissan Sentra will win against the Lotus Exige. Of course, we need to keep our journalistic integrity. So we'll use the base Exige vs. the Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V. The little Lotus won't stand a chance. I mean have you seen the back seat in an Exige? No, you haven't, because there isn't one. The trunk? Tiny! Rear doors? Nada! The Nissan Sentra is obviously the superior car. A lot of automotive reporting outlets don't have the courage to compare an Exige to a Sentra, but we think it's time–once again– to put your money where our mouth is.
If you think about it, this will work out better for Nissan in the long run. The GT-R can withstand a second place finish to the benchmark BMW M3. (Sorry, we're contractually obligated to put the word "benchmark" at least once every time we write about BMW, and technically we are writing about them.) Anyway, as the first year supply of your GT-R is sold out, what do you care? It's not as if someone's going to say, I WAS going to buy a Maxima, but now that the GT-R got beat by a Bimmer I'll buy a high-mileage 3-Series.
Bottom line (our first and only concern): we're truly sorry for the second place finish to the M3. We wanted to write it as a tie, but the Germans have no sense of humor. (Just imagine if we'd written "Every other manufacturer should give up on building their own cars and just make GT-Rs instead.")
But we don't want this article to damage our mutually profitable relationship. And if you want to be mad at someone, have you seen what that "The Truth About Cars" web site is saying about the GT-R's record around the ‘ring? The nerve of some people. Adiosu!
Yours sincerely,
Car and Driver Magazine
76 Comments on “Scoop! Letter from Car and Driver to Nissan Leaked to TTAC...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I’m not really sure why C&D even bothers with comparison tests. The results are as predictable as the sunrise. When I see one of their comparos on the front cover, I like to guess the order of finish before I look at the article. I’m usually damn close.
If a BMW product is in the running, it will win, period. C&D is required to keep doing these comparisons in order to fulfill their contractual obligation of ten 3-series articles per calendar year.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/coupes/2008_bmw_m3_vs_2009_nissan_gt_r_vs_2008_porsche_911_turbo_comparison_test
I’d love to see them compare the M3 versus an X6 and watch them blow their load on the ‘Gotta Have It Factor’.
So true!
C&D is so far up BMW’s rearend its not even funny.
That seems about right.
Sorry, we are also contractually obligated to put the word “benchmark” at least once every time we write about BMW
I lol’d. Great read.
Absolutely hilarious. I’m looking forward to the performance shootout between the Smart Fortwo and the Ariel Atom. The Atom will totally get trashed. I don’t think satellite radio is even an option on the Atom.
I don’t see the big deal. Has anyone here driven all three back to back? Or even at all?
I never thought C/D was really biased, even when I was a fan of domestic cars. I was just disappointed that the domestics didn’t do a better job of building their products.
This website, its writers and resident whiners have been pretty consistent about bashing Car and Driver, but not so much about the other titles found on the newsstand. Why is that?
Over the years Motor Trend has been worse at offending the sensibilities of any pistonhead (Caprice as COTY, anyone?). Is this because Road & Track at been more traditionally aimed at the wine-and-cheese set, or is it just because C/D had the nerve to fire Brock Yates? (Who also, BTW, didn’t last here.) Is it because TTAC has some sort of inferiority complex?
Bottom line: it’s just a magazine, not the Bible. Don’t like it, then don’t read it. Pretty simple, no?
I don’t find this letter funny, i find it silly. I never found C/D’s comparisons biased either. They give credit where it’s due. And sure there are a lot of things to hate about modern BMW’s, but driving them still feels special.
Who cares – maybe the M3 is a better car. What matters is that the letter is hilarious and gave me a much needed laugh. C&D does need some serious kick in the pants though – it used to be one of my favorite car mags. Now I have favorite car sites. Most of it now reads like one big “special advertising section”.
C/D may be somewhat mild in handing out the stick on bad cars, but I’ve never found them all that bad. I agree this comes off as childish, in some sort of “they’re a paper magazine so they MUST suck” sort of way, the way that teenagers think adults are wrong about everything.
Bashing C&D is important because it was the last big car mag with decent reviews and a sense of humor to go into that zombie haze of complacent mush that serves as automotive journalism nowadays.
We pick on it because we loved it and it cheated on us. We pick on it for the same reason we know a US version of Top Gear will fail to entertain us. It all has to do with honesty and where the money is coming from.
I long for the days that C&D cooked pizza and eggs on a Viper after performance tests. It really wasn’t that long ago.
They even fail to retain the photographic evidence on the website: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/american_performance/dodge_viper_srt_10_road_test/(page)/1
What is funny is that in a performance comparison, the weekest performing car won because it was a better daily driver. Download the fact sheets regarding the performance tests C&D did and you’ll understand the outrage over C&D’s conclusion. I think they did a fair test. However, the M3 gets demolished in every performance catagory by the GTR yet car and driver concludes in a performance comparison that the M3 is the better car for purely subjective reasons. I’ve never read a more biased conclusion then the one C&D makes in that article.
Aren’t the subjective reasons the ones that really matter? That’s why I don’t like these comparison tests. Everyone is so hung up on certain cars being “superior”, backed up by performance stats and road test quotes that don’t actually mean anything once you actually get behind the wheel.
Stats and comparos are fuel for the worst kind of auto enthusiast. The obnoxious arrogant fellows who spend all of their time flaming and arguing over what car is “the best in class”. Every time I hear one say the word “skidpad” I just want to die.
Reading the review, I see among the M3’s highs: “The direct connection beween man and machine”. Then among the lows: “somewhat light and numb steering”
um, right.
Haha, I just read that test last night. While I normally love C/D’s comparison tests, no matter how unconventional the matchups, this one was ridiculous. Surely the M3 is a great car, but it does not belong in that test, and having it win like that was slightly ridiculous. No matter how old/young the test drivers, C/D is starting to get Buick elderly in its mentality. The slower cars have been winning too many tests. What happened to their reverence of horsepower?
They would have been better off just doing the Porsche and the GTR…and maybe the Vette that they talked about in the intro.
There seem to be cars that C/D feels are “excellent machines” regardless of what their obvious mechanical faults might be. They do it all the time with the 3 series, M3, and the Honda Accord (which its jerky-upshifting 5 speed automatic apparently absent when qualifying a car for “mechanical refinement” … see the issue a few months ago) , and the bloody Acura TSX to boot. I’ve come to the conclusion that C/D’s subjective measurements are calibrated to these vehicles in comparison tests and they write accordingly, aka “The GTR posts superior numbers but it doesn’t “feel” like a BMW, so we’ll pick the BMW.”
(And the write-up on the Altima wasn’t all that flattering, they mostly spent their time whining how they thought the Accord was the benchmark .)
how about a the GTR the Turbo and an EVO-X. that would be something i would be interested in.
i can understand why the M3 would be a better buy in the sense that its the easiest to live with day to day and still be faster then 99% of the cars on the way to work. But the problem is, practicality shouldn’t even be in the equation for anything over 30k, let alone $70k sports cars.
Just because you can’t handle the results (and lack any kind of real “weight” in the field), isn’t it a bit pathetic to blast C&D?
OK, I am a GT-R fan and I also like the M3 a great deal, yet I have driven neither one and most likely will not until both of these cars a seriously old news. From a personal perspective I can understand that the M3 might be more fun to drive around on a open road compared to the MUCH MORE performance oriented 911 Turbo and GT-R.
Put another way, an MX5 is far more fun to drive around my neighborhood than a much more powerful Corvette could ever be. There is no room for a Vette to truly stretch its legs around my neck of the woods. But does that simple “personal preference” make the Mx5 a better performance car than a Vette? The simple answer is absolutley NO! The Vette will run circles around a MX5 all day long on a decent sized track, although the MX5 might have the advantage in an autocross. One does not buy an MX5 for super acceleration and high speed, just as one would not by a Vette for a parking lot autocross.
With that said, WHAT A BUNCH OF BS from Car and Driver! Now lets me guess there will also be another comparison soon where the M3 beats outs the RS4, LS-F, and CTS-V because these cars are not offered in 2 doors and the extra doors somehow make them less appealing than the M3.
Why not test an M3 against a base Corvette and see which car comes out on top. Oh, I forgot it C&D the outcome is a forgone conclusion.
So funny! So true! I love parody-ish comedic articles like this at TTAC. Enjoyable read!
I’m actually a big fan of BMW and have owned three BMW 3 series.
I’m also a long time subscriber to C&D and enjoy their magazine.
And now that the M3 has beaten the GT-R in a comparison I would really like to own the new M3.
Doh! I think the BMW/Car&Driver marketing message is getting to me.
I gotta say it… I really woundn’t mind an M3 in my driveway. There, I said it.
Over the years Motor Trend has been worse at offending the sensibilities of any pistonhead (Caprice as COTY, anyone?).…
Years ago, MT was always know for being easy on Detroit. You had to read between the lines for the real deal. For example, they would comment on the high quality of the Toyota in the comparison, but would ignore quality when talking about the Chevy. Wherever possible, a comparison would be make to a Corvette. In fact, I think C/D made parody called Motor Rooter: Why are all cars good? Today, MT is hyper critical to Detroit. I guess they figure mixing it up is good for business…
Three cheers satire!
Jason, Skooter, Ashkan, et al:
The whole point of TTAC is to be able to call out the big dogs on the bullshit. That’s exactly what this letter did. Clearly the C&D article was biased by advertising dollars; it’s inevitable that C&D isn’t going to bite the hand that feeds.
I think what happened here is that C&D wanted to test them both, but since it wasn’t a fair test they had to come up with the surprise conclusion to justify the comparison.
golden2husky:
Today, MT is hyper critical to Detroit. I guess they figure mixing it up is good for business…
Huh?
The thing about C/D is that they were never particularly *objective* — that was not the point. What made it worth reading was that they had opinions and were not afraid to state them plainly. (For instance, I read a 1969 review the other day of the MGC, in which they suggested that somebody at British Leyland must have gotten a really good deal on used millstones and seen fit to attach them to the six-cylinder engine’s crankshaft.) It made it entertaining to read, and even if you didn’t agree with their biases or opinions, you could enjoy the chutzpah.
When I was a kid my mother had a favorite movie reviewer in a local paper. She said she didn’t usually agree with him, but she could always judge from his opinion what she would probably think of a movie. I felt the same way about C/D.
I’ve been a longtime subscriber to C/D, dating back to the days before the modern interweb. Or at least before websites like TTAC existed, if you want to get technical.
This latest comparo left me wanting to rip the magazine in half. “SHOCKER: GUESS WHAT BEATS GT-R?” reads the line at the top of the cover. Apparently they thought they’d be cute and leave out that this wasn’t a performance comparison, but instead “beats” refers to daily driverability.
I don’t doubt that the M3 would make a much more livable performance car for the daily commute, but in terms of sheer performance the 911 Turbo actually takes most of the acceleration awards. Ironic that it would end up last in this test, too.
I also understand that not every performance-car comparison will come down to trap speeds and zero to sixty, but this, from my perspective, is like naming the best-performing car as number one in a family sedan comparison. A feat that rarely occurs, considering the Maxima and Altima have, until recent years, wiped the floor with their typical number-one Japanese competitors in terms of acceleration and handling yet rarely top tests where a Camry or Accord is involved. But acceleration and handling are (usually) not the two main criteria for sedan shoppers – just as trunk and rear seat space aren’t for performance intender’s.
I’m pretty sure I wrote this fictitious letter, nearly word-for-word, in my head shortly after putting down the magazine in disgust.
You know what though? I think M3 vs. GT-R is still a better comparison than GT-R vs. 911 turbo. The M3 and GT-R are simply more similar… they’re souped up coupes rather than sports cars. They look the part (i.e. a bit awkward), share the same practicality bonuses, and are basically the ultimate iterations of their respective brands’ sport-lux cars.
(I’m tired of everyone expecting the GT-R to look as good as the 911 or Corvette – it’s not really a sports car!)
Carlisimo, you have to explain to me how the GT-R is a “souped up coupe” and not a sports car. It was designed from the ground up to be just that – a sports car.
Tell me – what, in your eyes, IS a sports car? Also, what coupe did Nissan “soup up” to make the GT-R? It’s based off a brand-new platform, frame, suspension, engine, transmission..
I’m no GT-R “fanboy” just a confused reader. On a side note, I would be more than willing to own any of the above-mentioned cars… ;)
There are actually people who haven’t comprehended the insanely-more-than-obvious bias at Car and Driver? Geez, I just don’t think that this could even be POSSIBLE. I am utterly DUMBFOUNDED.
Sheesh. C&D is the worst piece of trash in the whole “automobile journalism” business. They might as well put it in the racks at the checkout stands, just like the Star and the Enquirer.
Geez, people, GET A FREAKING CLUE.
I buy the POS at the newsstand every now and then, and it’s a damn good thing that I always read it in the bathroom. You bet, it hurts like hell, but I always wind up ripping out the pages, and doing the most appropriate thing with it — wiping and flushing it down the toilet.
Although I do agree that C&D is extremely biased towards BMW (there is absolutely no way that a car with the performance of the GT-R should lose to an M3, I don’t have to drive either of them to know this, just like I don’t have to drive a F430 to know that it shouldn’t lose a comparison test to a Boxster S) who really cares about the finishing order of a comparison test? Is there anybody out there that was thinking of buying a GT-R but read the article and thought: “Man, that GT-R can outperform pretty much any car under $200,000, can run the ‘Ring faster than almost any production car ever and can nearly match a McLaren F1 from 0-60 but since C&D placed it below the M3, I think I’ll spend my money elsewhere”? I highly doubt it
I learned that the finishing order of comparison tests were meaningless years ago. Back around 2001 or 2002, Motor Trend did a comparison test between the E46 M3 and the C5Z06. The Z06 absolutely destroyed the M3 in all performance aspects, but MT gave the M3 the win because it was more practical (it has a back seat for one). I was still in high school back then, so I wasn’t in the position to buy either car, but even if I was, the finishing order made absolutely no difference to what I would have purchased. Even though the finishing order was complete BS, the article still told me enough to let me know that the Z06 would have been the right car for me.
A few years later after I graduated college, I bought a base C6 (which performs pretty similarly to the C5Z06) and it has been everything I had hoped for and more. The countless articles I have read about Corvettes (including that Motortrend one) were actually pretty accurate in describing the driving experience of a Corvette, and definitely helped me to make my decision, even though it hadn’t actually won all the comparisons it was involved in.
I guess my point is that even though comparison test rankings may be B.S., anybody educated enough and passionate enough about cars to be in the market for a $50,000+ sports car will be able to read between the lines and realize that the rankings should have no impact on buying the car that is best for them. So while it may be frustrating to see something like an M3 beating out a GT-R, in the big scheme of things it is irrelevant and will not make one iota of difference when it comes to a person’s buying decisions. Leave the debates over comparison test rankings to the teenagers on message boards
Sean, I don’t think BMW could/would outspend Nissan in buying C/D’s allegiance. And yes, C/D has always ranked BMW’s high in their comparos. But to me it never sounded like a bias: These fellas really love the way BMW’s perform. Also, this is not the first time M3 has been ranked higher than more expensive sports cars. A while back CAR from the UK ranked it higher than an Audi R8.
I myself for a while have been contemplating whether I am biased towards BMW’s, or I just have a deep admiration for them. Recently, I came to a conclusion: from the driver’s seat, BMW’s are extremely charismatic. I really can’t blame anyone for ranking them higher than ANY other brand at ANY given price point.
James2 :
This website, its writers and resident whiners have been pretty consistent about bashing Car and Driver, but not so much about the other titles found on the newsstand. Why is that?
You must be a fairly new reader. May I direct your attention here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here.
A lot of teenage journalists working at C&D then?
If only BMW would get rid of Bangle I’d like them better.
It’s about “credibility,” folks. If you choose to publish obviously foolish garbage, and do that so often on a consistent basis, you lose all sense of credibility. And then, hopefully, enough intelligent people will decide that it’s pointless to spend hard-earned money on your pure BS, and then hopefully you’ll go out of business.
That said, we are human beings, and we all have plenty of bias, one way or another. So, why do people pick on Car and Driver so much?
Because they have EARNED IT.
They have taken bias to a point beyond utter ridiculousness. If they ever had any credibility to begin with, they have utterly DESTROYED it through the years with bias so thick and obvious and ridiculous that it makes all of the other auto magazines look downright scholarly in comparison.
In the end, you just can’t believe one word that Car and Driver publishes. In a word: “Rubbish.”
i also think this letter is silly and below the standards set by TTAC. if you disagree with the comparison fine, but if you read the comparison objectively you’ll see why they made the ranking as they did. the GTR is a great track car but frankly sucks at most everything else; a sophisticated car enthusiast looks beyond 0-60 times at the entire package.
I’ve been complaining – or whining if you prefer – about C&D’s BMW bias for years. It seems that every time a car actually “beats” a BMW in performance, they find some intangible basis to award the needed points to bring BMW back into first place. There certainly have been instances where they have tested comparable models between companies – but this current comparo is just bizarre. I am confident that C&D would rate an M3 higher than a Murcielago, despite performance numbers, by pointing out that the M3 gets better gas mileage, is cheaper to insure, has better cargo room and because the sticker price is easier to justify.
Great letter!
phil:
To claim that it somehow takes a ’sophisticated’ car enthusiast to appreciate an M3 over a GT-R is asinine. The GT-R does not only have a vastly better 0-60 time (and the GT-Rs 0-60 time is not just marginally better, it is among the best ever), it is significantly better in pretty much any performance metric imaginable. The GT-R may be an overweight pig with a rough ride, but the new M3 is no Caddy in the ride department, and it is far from a lightweight car as well.
The fact is that the GT-R destroys the M3 as a performance machine, and if other factors like ride and civility come into play, why get an M3 (with its sub 300lb/ft torque and 8000+ rpm redline) at all? Why not just get a 335i or a Honda Accord and call it at day?
C/D used to sell itself as magazine outlaws. Good ole boys that beat on every car a manufacturer was stupid enough to lend them and then spit in their face and get away with it. They were irreverant, controversial, and funny as hell. Their writing was so good that they got away with anything and people loved them.
Now? Now they have no balls and with that, no reason to exist. They are a shell of what they once were. Worse yet, they’ve sold out so obviously as to be insulting.
M3 better in a performance comparison than a GT-R? The M3 has never been better than a Skyline, no matter what year, and everybody knows it. To say otherwise is stupid.
This editorial is just silly. Who wants to only talk numbers when evaluating a car…hey I bet the new HHR SS is quick to 60. How does it feel doing it, does anyone want one? Automotive journalism requires subjective decisions, otherwise we would all be reading excel spreadsheets.
Saying that C&D is biased on BMWs is also silly. As a company BMW has been building the best enthusiast cars over the past 3 decades? Is anyone really disagreeing with that?
The way I like to think of a comparison test outcome is their opinion on how you should spend your money. And if you look at it this way the M3 does put up a strong fight. It can’t be all about numbers.
Here’s why the review reeks of bias. C&D set out to do a performance comparison between 3 cars. They collected all the performance data they could on the 3 whips in order to properly evaluate the cars. THEN, C&D decided to throw all their objective data out the window and proclaim the worst performing car of the lot the winner because it FEELS better according to their sophisticated automotive pallet. C&D could have saved face by saying the GT-R is the better performance car, but we would still buy the M3 if we had to choose a daily driver of the three. Instead C&D just gave us a “WTF” moment. Credibility, meet window.
You dig?
8rings :
You’re missing the point. The GT-R outperforms the M3 by a enormous margin. This is not a case of one car having slightly better numbers than the other, this is a case of one performance car doing nearly everything (performance wise) better than the other, and not costing significantly more (dealer markups excepted).
To put this another (slightly more extreme) way, I’m sure a Formula 1 car would not perform as well as a daily driver as an M3, but if a manufacturer could somehow sell an F1 car for little more than an M3, would its day to day comfort even matter?
@thetopdog
i think we’re taking apples/oranges. it’s not the performance numbers that make the difference to a lot of people (when buying their own ride). C/D drove three athletic sporting cars and overall felt that the M3 was the most desirable, admittedly based on subjective criteria. you may recall they chose an S4 over the M3 a number of years ago, so i don’t buy this BMW bias at all. i would personally choose the porsche over the other two, but it’s really a personal decision. if it were only about the numbers you wouldn’t need a comparo at all, you’d just publish the numbers and the fastest car would win. driving is a very personal experience, and having owned an older M3 i know how wonderful they can be to drive. i have not driven the Nissan but it sounds like it doesn’t have much to offer other than superb performance at a track.
if they compared the M3 to the Honda Accord their brains would explode… CANT…HAVE… TWO… FIRST PLACE… FINISHERS… or can we?
Unlike the author of this editorial and many of those commenting, I haven’t driven both the M3 and the GT-R, so I can’t say whether I agree with C&D. But if I were shopping for a fast car, the difference in performance between these two models would affect my purchasing decision much less than many other variables. If all I care about is my lap time around a track, why would I drive a street legal car when an actual race car would be far superior?
Then why buy an M3 at all? The 335i delivers 95% of the performance of an M3, and it is more comfortable as well.
There are certain sacrifices that have to be made in order for a car to perform as well as a GT-R, so why hold that against it when that’s the entire purpose of the car? Isn’t performance supposed to be the entire purpose of the M3 (and all “M” cars for that matter) as well?
Guilty secret: I still subscribe to C/D. I agree with those who’ve implied here that we hold C/D to a higher standard than the other rags because the others have ALWAYS been rags.
Motor Trend? Automobile? Road and Track? Autoweek? Come on.
It’s kind of like the world’s current disappointment with America. If America doesn’t do it, who else can?