Chris Harris Drives: Merc-AMG GT R vs 911 GT3 RS vs BMW M4 GTS

[Bimmed Out]

Originally Posted by Fast4d

to me they are somewhat comparable.

the difference between a $140k and $170k car is less than a $15k vs $30k car

Not to be rude, but you obviously don't know either market. A new GT3 RS is over $200K easily. You can find new M4 GTS' at under $120K now. MSRP and real world selling prices are not necessarily the same thing. But even if we were using the incorrect index of MSRP, you got those wrong, as well.

[Questofthetune]

Originally Posted by ScottSinger

All I know is I want a GTS badly and I'd drive it seriously hard.

Oh I'd absolutely sell off a kidney for one at slightly above M4 pricing, but I wouldn't give a hand for one.

[rlmesq]

The GTS is basically a street legal version of the MotoGP Safety Car.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-rev...r-2015-review/

They're using an M2 as the main safety car this year.

[bmrwrld]

Cup cake.

[BarryB]

This is old news, but to be factual, a comparably equipped '16 GT3 cost more $ and is only 0.1's faster than the GTS on std length road courses (first hand experience), if that. The driver will make more difference than that. So with all the bashing it IS in the same league on the track as a GT3 overall, not faster but less expensive and more scarce, regardless of the base car it started from. Of course BMW could / should make a faster, lighter etc car but to my knowledge this is the first time they have been in the same league as the P car gt3's (and not RS's) with more creature comforts stock. I drive mine to and from the track in relative comfort. Of course all the personal prefs of "feel" are just that, prefs.
FYI, this is not to justify my purchase which I am 150% satisfied with, which is all I really care about, but to try to balance the bashing , a bit with other facts.
Flame suit on :-)

[jpdchicago]

Originally Posted by BarryB

This is old news, but to be factual, a comparably equipped '16 GT3 cost more $ and is only 0.1's faster than the GTS on std length road courses (first hand experience), if that. The driver will make more difference than that. So with all the bashing it IS in the same league on the track as a GT3 overall, not faster but less expensive and more scarce, regardless of the base car it started from. Of course BMW could / should make a faster, lighter etc car but to my knowledge this is the first time they have been in the same league as the P car gt3's (and not RS's) with more creature comforts stock. I drive mine to and from the track in relative comfort. Of course all the personal prefs of "feel" are just that, prefs.
FYI, this is not to justify my purchase which I am 150% satisfied with, which is all I really care about, but to try to balance the bashing , a bit with other facts.
Flame suit on :-)

Totally agree.
The gts is the most fun most connected to the road and raw (in a positive way) car that I ever owned (after two ferraris and 2 M3s). The sound, power and steering feel are incredible
I also agree that it is a stupid comparison. $230,000+ GT3RS (and that would be a used one) vs $135,000 gts?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by BarryB

This is old news, but to be factual, a comparably equipped '16 GT3 cost more $ and is only 0.1's faster than the GTS on std length road courses (first hand experience), if that. The driver will make more difference than that. So with all the bashing it IS in the same league on the track as a GT3 overall, not faster but less expensive and more scarce, regardless of the base car it started from. Of course BMW could / should make a faster, lighter etc car but to my knowledge this is the first time they have been in the same league as the P car gt3's (and not RS's) with more creature comforts stock. I drive mine to and from the track in relative comfort. Of course all the personal prefs of "feel" are just that, prefs.
FYI, this is not to justify my purchase which I am 150% satisfied with, which is all I really care about, but to try to balance the bashing , a bit with other facts.
Flame suit on :-)

That is not an accurate statement. The E46 M3 CSL was in fact marginally faster than the GT3 of its era while being significantly less expensive and more practical to boot. That was quite a feat to achieve . The M4 GTS now matches the 911 GT3's price tag, lost the practicality and cannot quite reach the GT3's track performance level.

But the review presented in the OP is not really a fair one either. Comparing the M4 GTS with the 911 GT3RS and AMG-GT-R is not fair, as the cars are not in the same price and performance bracket. The M4 GTS was made to compete against the base 991.1 GT3 and AMG GT-S (as explicitly mentioned in BMW's own material).

[BarryB]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

That is not an accurate statement. The E46 M3 CSL was in fact marginally faster than the GT3 of its era while being significantly less expensive and more practical to boot. That was quite a feat to achieve . The M4 GTS now matches the 911 GT3's price tag and lost the practicality but cannot quite reach the GT3's track performance level.

But the review presented in the OP is not really a fair one. Comparing the M4 GTS with the 911 GT3RS and AMG-GT-R is not fair, as the cars are not in the same price and performance bracket. The M4 GTS was made to compete against the base 991.1 GT3 and AMG GT-S (as explicitly mentioned in BMW's own material).

Thanks for the education and hence the "to my knowledge" qualification. (but the GTS still is less than the GT3 but maybe by not as much as before?)

[smh_amg_m4gts]

It's show business...doesn't matter what you say as long as people watch and subscribe!

[solstice]

I enjoy watching CH's reviews when he isn't drifting however I find that I seldom agree with him on the cars I've driven myself. It's great footage, beautiful exciting cars and often a decent amount of facts and what car fan doesn't like that but I don't take anything subjective he says as gospel, the last thing he said that made me personally cringe was when he reviewed the Fezza 488 and said that Ferraris like the 458 was perfect cars to turbo charge because the Ferrari NA flat crank V8 sounds so bad compared to for example AMGs.

That said a car with a turbo charged 3 liter engine is starting out with a massive disadvantage to a 4 liter NA screamer and a 4 liter turbo charged V8 of different reasons. One is sharp as a scalpel the other generates brute force effortlessly.

I think BMW has done a good job with what they were stuck to work with but I also understand that it's appeal is questionable compared to cars with more purpose built platforms and emotional motors. It's one heck of a 3 series anyway you look at it and I'm glad they made the effort, now if they only offered it with a NA option as Porsche do with their GT cars.

[See5]

On this side of the pond the GTS would face off against the GT350R and ZL1 1LE. Would be an interesting comparison...

[BarryB]

Originally Posted by See5

On this side of the pond the GTS would face off against the GT350R and ZL1 1LE. Would be an interesting comparison...

Unless you plug "value" in then the bashing starts all over again .....

[minn19]

Originally Posted by See5

On this side of the pond the GTS would face off against the GT350R and ZL1 1LE. Would be an interesting comparison...

It kind of/sort of happened here.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mclar...t-drivers-car/

But as we know nobody can setup a M4 GTS correctly except for a few people here.

I'm pretty sure (100%) the ZL1 1LE would be the winner on track and the rest would be subjective.

[///M4ster Yoda]

Originally Posted by minn19

It kind of/sort of happened here.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mclar...t-drivers-car/

But as we know nobody can setup a M4 GTS correctly except for a few people here.

I'm pretty sure (100%) the ZL1 1LE would be the winner on track and the rest would be subjective.

Just out of curiosity. Are Ferrari and Lamborghini scared of these comparisons? Why would they "bow out"?

I'm guessing Its because cars that cost a fraction can outperform them on the street and track

[minn19]

Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda

Just out of curiosity. Are Ferrari and Lamborghini scared of these comparisons? Why would they "bow out"?

I'm guessing Its because cars that cost a fraction can outperform them on the street and track

From what I've read and watched online it is basically what you said. They really don't have anything to gain from doing them. All of their cars sell for great profit and there rep is what it is so why mess with it I guess. It's the same reason they don't do official ring time IIRC.

Edit: I guess Lambo did one a few years ago, but they were called out for it not being credible.

[///M4ster Yoda]

Originally Posted by minn19

From what I've read and watched online it is basically what you said. They really don't have anything to gain from doing them. All of their cars sell for great profit and there rep is what it is so why mess with it I guess. It's the same reason they don't do official ring time IIRC.

Edit: I guess Lambo did one a few years ago, but they were called out for it not being credible.

Aha. Kinda cheeseball IMO.

Makes sense but still lame. Could be pretty detrimental to their business if people were to see in black and white that performance per dollar just isn't there.

[///M4ster Yoda]

Originally Posted by minn19

From what I've read and watched online it is basically what you said. They really don't have anything to gain from doing them. All of their cars sell for great profit and there rep is what it is so why mess with it I guess. It's the same reason they don't do official ring time IIRC.

Edit: I guess Lambo did one a few years ago, but they were called out for it not being credible.

.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda

Aha. Kinda cheeseball IMO.

Makes sense but still lame. Could be pretty detrimental to their business if people were to see in black and white that performance per dollar just isn't there.

I actually agree with Ferrari on this one even though I think they are just making excuses. As has been talked about here many times there is no official sanctioning body and it is the worst kept secret that manufacturers bring ringers to the ring. Plus different conditions/drivers blah blah.

But yah, I definitely see your side of it and agree as well, Ferrari is one of the worst at letting people honestly review or compare their cars to the competition.

[jpdchicago]

Ferrari 488 GTB: 7:21.63
Ferrari Enzo: 7:25.72
M4 GTS: 7:27.88
Ferrari 458 Italia: 7:28

These are Nurburgring official times.

Also shows that comparisons based on track time only are stupid. A Ferrari 458 cost twice as much as an M4 Gts.
People buy cars based on a mix of quality, performance and exclusivity, not just 1/10th of a second quicker lap time around a track or even less 0 to 60 times.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by jpdchicago

Ferrari 488 GTB: 7:21.63
Ferrari Enzo: 7:25.72
M4 GTS: 7:27.88
Ferrari 458 Italia: 7:28

These are Nurburgring official times.

Also shows that comparisons based on track time only are stupid. A Ferrari 458 cost twice as much as an M4 Gts.
People buy cars based on a mix of quality, performance and exclusivity, not just 1/10th of a second quicker lap time around a track or even less 0 to 60 times.

The times you quote for the Ferraris are from the SA/AMS supertest. You therefore need to use the 7:34 AMS/SA achieved for the GTS for an apples-to-apples comparison and not the factory 7:28 time.

[jpdchicago]

Funny to see the difference from one review to the other...

http://www.bmwblog.com/2016/07/19/bm...he-911-gt3-rs/

That is just one example. A lot of rave reviews of the Gts within the last year.
The GT3 RS is still the better car but trashing the Gts like Chris Harris does? It is no longer car journalism...just bad reality TV.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by minn19

But as we know nobody can setup a M4 GTS correctly except for a few people here.

Now THAT was funny.