Historically, that is exactly what most Porsche enthusiasts have done. They have lived and breathed the ring times for a long time. Maybe the casual secretary or hairdresser that buy's the Boxter or Cayman wouldn't consider ring times but most of the Porsche friends I have know exactly what their doing at the ring.

 

That is absolutely not true.

The average Porsche buyer can't drive a manual gearbox anywhere close to "sports car" proficient, doesn't have a clue about how to corner the car, and has never heard of the "Ring". They are scary to ride with on a test drive. The will likely never take their Porsche to ANY track and if they do they will never max perform the car other than flooring it on the straights.

 

I was at the Rennsport Reunion at Laguna Seca a year and a half ago and there were hundreds and hundreds of Porsche track fanatics.

 

So?

 

Maybe you have under estimated the historical importance of track performance that Porsche has placed on itself. That's all they have talked about for the last 40 years when trying to boost their image.

 

I am very aware of Porsche's history, and I know that their racing successes simply point to great handling sports cars that are built to last. The vast majority of people who buy Porsche sports cars never intend to race their cars, and again, if they do they certainly know that the 911 they bought neither represents the purpose built stripped down race car that won some race nor represents a car that they can take to a track and extract out of it anything close to what a race driver can.

 

So it was already rebadged as a Chevrolet in other countries, yet GM did not sell it here as such. Thanks for proving my point: GM already had it badged as a "Lumina" elsewhere, but didn't bring it to market here. Why? Because it would have failed miserably. (Not sure if it's even the Lumina you're talking about; I've seen an Australian Caprice being used here in the States, but shorn of its uniform, it'd be any other boring as crap sedan that wouldn't hold a candle next to a Charger, Mustang, or 300C, cars with real visual impact.)
I'm surprised you haven't divulged your real reason for choosing the BMW, but your silence tells all: You're one of the badge snobs that you pretend to detest.
Great point about the dipstick and proves my theory further (and this highlights the myth of the relevance of 'Ring times to today's average Porsche customer): Today's M3 is not seen as a product derived from motorsport which the original E30 M3 was (5000 minimum for FIA homologation, went on to sell 17k+ units). BMW's former director of the M division, Gerhard Richter, related to Britian's Car Magazine that 85% of CSL customers "wussed out and piled the weight (of AC/stereo/options) back on" to the car that was originally designed to have it deleted (similar figure for ACR buyers who did not want to live with the "hardcore" package). Richter knew the demographic had changed from what it originally was. Gone are the days of guys twiddling with Weber carburetors on their 2002s and lamenting the passage of round taillights for square ones (hello, C7!). In the States, "M is seen as simply the pinnacle of the range, not a motorsport-derived product."

In other words, people want a luxury car first and foremost. They don't give a crap about lap times on some track that they, you, and 99.9% of other drivers will never experience. And BMW gives them what they want (including M behemoth SUVs with AWD). I know, the nerve, huh? A car company that actually reflects what its customers want! What is the world coming to??
Today, M also manages BMW's customization program, Individual. Through this program, one can choose a variety of custom colors, leathers, and woods not found in the standard brochure:


Or if that's not sufficient, one can supply one's own raw, unfinished wood to be built into an ordered car:
http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/10/19/ve...gold-metallic/

Or have a cigar case embossed in matching leather:


They do vehicle bulletproofing and other modifications that high-risk customers might desire:


Audi, Mercedes, Jaguar, Ferrari, and Porsche all have their own variants of this. This is part of what it means to be a premium marque. So to narrow an M3 or Cayman down to an objective bang/buck case is as pointless as to ask why a GT500 doesn't have all the refinement and amenities of an M3 (going to hide behind the cost "excuse"?). Duhhrrr....because it was never meant to, just like the BMW was never designed to deliver the highest objective bang-for-the-buck! And let's be serious for a moment: a Mustang GT or GT500 isn't exactly a slow car, now is it?

 

Hundreds and hundreds...out of how many hundreds of thousands sold? Going to visit a historic racing event, or turning some fun laps, is one thing. Actually using your own bone stock car for lap times on a closed track is quite another.

I'm pretty sure you're right. With only a planned production of 2500/yr (and only 1000 for the US), this sounds more like a Lotus competitor, if not just a marketing exercise to get into this segment. Pretty car, though. Looks a little bit like an Enzo mixed with a 3rd gen MR2.


Inside is like a slightly upscale Elise. Seatback adjustment looks tight.

 

Being a Porsche owner myself all my life I too can vouch about this being true.And you should NOT waste your time arguing with a clown who claims that altering tire pressure renders the car no longer stock

:rof l:

 

First off anyone who opens this thread and gets pissed off that cars other than Vettes are being debated should reread the thread title then ask yourself why you opened it.

Now that that's established, I would state that any car purchased in the price range where the buyer even thought about a Vette IS a rival at least at the point of sale. Re- phrased, the C7 will be a rival for a great many more cars than the C6 was due to the fresh design, promising performance and elimination of most of the C6's percieved faults.

The bickering over car A having faster lap times than car B really is just forum fodder. While absolute limits provide bragging rights and a degree of relevence to the conversation (such as the recent ZR1 vs GTS comparison which reinforced the ZR1's off track dominance as well) most new car buyers consider a stack of attributes before making a decison. I will vouch that the Porsche owners group has the highest percentage of on track participation by a very large margin. PCA events dominate the HPDE schedules and are usually 95% filled with their own brand.

I would also state that attainable performance at the HPDE level is more relevent than Randy P's lap times at Laguna. In my experience, Vette's and 911's have this in common: skilled drivers can haul azz and lesser drivers of both are usually in the way. M3's are very well balanced and are much easier to drive fast for individuals new to the hobby (especially with DCT). Same for the Cayman S, I see many of them being among the fastest in the beginner and intermediate groups. My first "track car" was a DD C63 which most would dismiss as a poser but slight modifications turned it into an animal as I made the progression from instructed to advanced groups.

Point being nearly every car discussed in this thread has it's virtues and should not be so easily dismissed. In defense of the M3 ( I have a track specific E36 myself to compliment my non-track 427) I offer the following clip. This car belonged to Nate Cicio (Top Speed tuners) and is driven by Leh Keen who shows up and drives at HPDE's more often than you would think. Minor mods to the Bimmer and he is running 1:17 at Roebling Road. The car has more potential than most may believe (based on the previous posts). Additionally, the next gen M3 which will probably be an M4 in coupe form is arriving soon, will have transformational improvements just like the C7 has over the C6 and will most certainly be a rival.

Rivalry is a good thing people......it's how the industry pushes itself to everyone's advantage!

Be sure to read the driver's comments and consider the source (Rolex / ALMS)

 

You aren't making any sense.

You keep trying to claim the G8 was a failure and that's why it was "discontinued", while ignoring that GM axed Pontiac.

You claim the SS is not a G8, despite easily available information to the contrary.

You even claim the GTO was canceled for the same reason, yet that too is easily checked to be otherwise (not disputing it was a disappointment, but it was slated to die, by Holden, in 2006).

Both cars are built by Holden, not "GM", at least in the traditional sense. Holden has a world market, which includes foreign use by Chevrolet.

Chevrolet actually has been using a long wheelbase version as a police interceptor, here in the U.S.

You should check out used G8 GXP pricing, they are holding up in resale extremely well. Probably another reason Chevrolet wants to sell it.

None of which is important to this discussion. And you can't seem to keep track of what your point was, anyway.

And, I still don't understand why you care what I buy. The next generation (2016?) Holden will be a redesign, and the SS will then be based on that. That would be a car I'd like, from what I hear.

I bring up the dipstick issue (bmw's no longer have them, IIRC) because you seem concerned about oil filter placement on U.S. V8's. Obviously, if BMW doesn't see a need for customers to manually monitor their own oil in their cars, they know the typical bmw customer has no interest (and ability, it seems) to do their own maintenance. Kind of like that "badge snob" you keep bringing up (to, again, change the subject).

I will say this, I retract my assessment of the M3's engine performance after further study. Though, I'd rather have the turbo 6, since with a tune it's just as fast. And that's a big reason I like the E60.

The rest of your comments are irrelevant, I have no interest in ring' times, cigar cases or "M" suv's (what a joke). But, good on BMW for making money off goofs that think an suv is a performance vehicle.

I just find it funny that a run of the mill mustang gt can run door to door with bmw's M3. Which is more props to Ford than a slam on BMW, when you think about it.

 

Thank you for the perspective. I do agree on most and for certain parts I could relate as well.

In the curves on the Nurb. I have to admit I was mostly on the way but I came to realize rather quickly there isn't really a "Tourist day" there anymore...

 

If the Z51 gets the GT2, and GT3 times at The Ring with a street car. Those cars are barely driveable on the street!

 

I checked and you didn't say how long it took to sell the RS so it probably ran into 2012. I mentioned the 2009 because I thought some software was putting them together without regard to year. Other then the fact that is a limited production car doesn't really matter anyway, since, don't owned these car companies, well, maybe a little GM!

You aways say the big money Porsche's (and Ferrari's) are immune to the market fluctuations, and they can't give away Corvette's! That is !

 

And who owns Holden, if not GM? My point is GM could have immediately transferred the G8 over to Chevrolet and easily as you claim it was already badged elsewhere as a Chevrolet. Did Holden really put that car on hiatus for 4 years, as it seems you are now claiming, or was there continuous production? I am claiming that GM did NOT resell the G8 as a Chevrolet here in the States, and that is a fact.
I never ignored that GM axed Pontiac. I said right in previous posts that did in fact happen, so quit lying. And why would they axe Pontiac? Here's a hint: In dire times, you don't cull your winners for the chopping block. The GTO was dying a death well before 2006:
"Unfortunately, replacing the grille made the rather-pricey GTO look like the Grand Prix or Grand Am that you could pick up at the Avis rental counter on your next business trip or family vacation. It never really stood out from the crowd. The car was also priced above expectations with a retail price above $33,000. Dealers also tacked on a surcharge for the first vehicles to enter the country, though that didn't last, and 2004 models were selling at deep discounts late into 2005.
Some considered the car overpriced at $33,000, but ultimately, with rebates and especially if you had a GM-branded credit card, you could drive one away for the price of the then-new Mustang GT.
The 2005 and 2006 models received a different hood that helped, and a new 6.0L V8 was made standard, but sales failed to live up to the 18,000 per year sales target. In 2004, 15,780 were imported, a little over 11,000 for 2005, and just under 14,000 for the last year of 2006, a sad end for the most revered nameplate in Pontiac history."
http://www.automotivetraveler.com/in...659&Itemid=336
Plenty of fodder there to consider why GM axed Pontiac.

Of course they would hold up. When you sell so few of them, values are bound to be solid.

I want to see your rationale for buying the BMW. You slag off the M3 as a gross underachiever and overpriced, yet you would be willing to part your own money for a vehicle that, so far, you cannot justify. If it's only for the badge, then you're being a little bit more than hyprocritical to be slamming the M3 as being overpriced, because the very same argument could be made with regard to the E60 vs a contemporary CTS, 300C, or Charger.

Why would they manually need to do it, when they can do it from the driver's seat? My point is that for a gearhead (which I'm assuming includes you and other self-professed "enthusiasts" participating in this thread), the maintenance is not outrageous compared to the Ford. There is nothing in BMW's warranty that states you must bring your car to the dealer for oil service, and there is probably law to prohibit that. So one can pick any number of independent shops for in-between changes, while the dealer services are already covered.

So your whole tirade against the M3 was unjustified after all. Duly noted.
There's nothing funny about the GT running door to door with the M3 on a relatively smooth track. Ford openly admits the M3 was a benchmark during Mustang development. Didn't you find it the least bit strange that Ford says the Boss 302 is a second quicker than the M3 at Laguna Seca? This suggests that, with regard to the Motor Trend test, the Boss would only have been about a second quicker than the Mustang GT. Meaning the GT is not slow to begin with. With more displacement, more torque (nearly 100 lb-ft more), and better tires, there was no guarantee the M3 would be faster.
The M3 was never about fast lap times on a racetrack. The E36 and E46 M3 sure as hell didn't win multiple car shootouts in magazines on the basis of lap times. As I've noted, BMW engineers spend more time where it matters the most: On the road. The E92 is a bloated luxury car with the bells and whistles that this part of the segment expects, yet offers the kind of delicate feedback and involvement you don't find in direct competitors (RS5, C63, IS-F). The Mustang delivers on neither of this, so of course it can excel within a much narrower scope of focus. Charge less because, let's face it, you have to. Voila.

They are not irrelevant at all. They show the wide scope covered by BMW M. It's not all about objective speed. Far from it. It's about catering to customers' subjective needs.
Yes, good on BMW because we know Ford couldn't do it. That was their entire point of PAG, remember? Acquire via enough $ what you cannot build yourself. And don't think they aren't feeling the pinch. From the latest Motor Trend:
"Premium brands account for just 12 percent of global automotive sales, but 50 percent of global automotive profits.
Ford insiders can only watch helplessly as the Blue Oval's market share in Europe is squeezed by premium brands moving into smaller vehicle segments while value brands like Hyundai and Kia move up. More worrying for Ford are signs the same trend is emerging in the States..."
You have no interest in 'Ring times. Just Laguna Seca times (and a gross misinterpretation of the numbers themselves). Meanwhile, the guy in the G8 or CTS-V scoffs at your slower E60 badgemobile. It's a bit rich of you to deride the E39 for reliability, yet favor the turbo I6 in an even more complicated car.

 

According to this, just about all the GT2 RS allocations were filled within 2 months:
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-out-329000-/1

This doesn't mean that a few dealers may have had openings once some people backed out (a McLaren, Gallardo or 458 is not such a stretch). But I highly doubt they were languishing on dealer lots for over 100 days with massive discounts on them.

I never said they are immune. I even started an entire thread on it!:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/othe...the-pinch.html

I said Porsche and Ferrari have ridden out the global financial crisis better than Corvette, and the numbers bear this out. Last year, 911 sales came to 25k units, about 67% of their peak pre-recession year (37k in 06/07). Even if we leave out the new 991 and look at the previous year when people were holding out and waiting for the new one, they had retained 51% vs peak. Last year was an improvement for Corvette, but they are still only 38% of peak. Last year, Ferrari exceeded their peak, despite austerity measures designed to crackdown on the wealthy, a slowing Chinese market (their fastest growing market), and increased displacement taxes in Italy.

 

What does it tell you that they've brought back the Holden, aka "G8" as the new "SS"? Seems to me, if that car was the failure you keep claiming, they certainly would not bring it back. Besides the fact that, no, they did not stop producing that car, they just stopped importing it as the G8, since Pontiac no longer existed. You'll have to ask Chevrolet why they are wanting to resell this "failure".

None of which changes the fact that the Holden vehicle the GTO was based on was slated for extermination at the end of 2006. You'll have to ask GM about what would have happened if "they had sold a million".

You need to reconcile that with why the SS aka G8 is being brought back.


I've already told you. That's the extent of what you need to know. Why you believe I need to justify it to you is part of your problem.


Yeah, scrolling through 10 menus just to find out it's "ok", is just another, yet more complicated version of the "idiot" light.


The M3 is overrated. The rest I don't care about.

The E39 is known for being very unreliable and very expensive to fix. Don't take my word for it, it's a great design. Just not meant to be driven very far.

The E60 appears to not have those issues. It's not a matter of being more complicated, it's a matter of holding up under use.

I need to take a break, it feels like I've been arguing with a hormonal and irrational female. "Keep that target moving, miss!" lol

 

So Guibo, here we go again;

Let alone the fact that you are pitching Porsche and Ferrari as car manufacturers vis a vis a single car platform like the C6 family....

By which linear logic are you concluding Which numbers Guibo? Profit? Revenue, numbers of units?

By which logic are you using peak sales as an arbitrator and criteria for Why not total units sold?
Total profits?
Total revenue?

By your logic the higher the peak (the more car sold which Corvette did vis a vis the Ferrari and 911) the worse things look?

By that criteria if I peak with one car at 5 and next year I sell 3 (a 60% decrement) THEN that is better than if I sold 500 at peak and then the next year 320 (a 64% decrement)???

To that I say you need to send a MEMO to Porsche and Ferrari and let them know they are selling wayyyy to many cars!!!

 

It tells me that selling maybe 10k in the face of 150k Chargers/300Cs is better than selling 0. Is that the new success benchmark for GM, selling more than 0?
And I don't know about you, but my eyes tell me there is something different about the SS vs the G8. If the G8 were just fine, they should have just simply sold it as is with a Chevrolet badge...in 2010!

Yes, you are the badge snob that you claim to detest.
Educated reviewers and the buying public seem to disagree.

What detail changes made the E60 more reliable? How about specifics. I doubt it's the HPFP of the turbocharged-6 that you so admire.

 

You really keep track of this stuff!? I'm happy if I just understand what kind of tires they are putting on their beasts.

Anyway, the C7 was designed to be a game changer. Everything from the identity fostering Stingray Icon on in has obviously been well thought out. And proven superior performance will still be the Holy Grail. I think we already, more or less, agreed on most of what I just wrote.

Let the Ring Times roll!