Cross Shopping an e92 M3 and a R35 GT-R

I'm privileged in the sense that I've owned both an e92 M3 and R35 GT-R, one after another. Maybe I can provide an objective review of both vehicles and help calm the waters that seem to be bubbling in the forums these days on people cross shopping the two.

I stepped into the world of BMW after a stint in the Audi scene (2005 S4 to be exact), an extremely costly maintenance stint. Being a little short-sighted, fueled by Audi frustrations, I honed in on the M3 without doing much cross shopping. I didn't bother looking at anything resembling an automatic which threw out Mercedes (c63 AMG) and Lexus (IS-F), both extremely sexy cars, which were really the only competitors in that price range. The BMW 335is had just come out, which I was allowed to test drive but the fact that regular 3-series cars are everywhere in the north east, swayed my decision to go with a loaded M3. Well, that and the price difference between the 335is and a loaded M3 was on the order of $10,000 - something I was very willing to spend knowing the ///M racing heritage and aggressive, yet sleek styling on the M3. That's not the whole truth, a guy I worked with just picked up a 335i and I wasn't about to get the same car as him!


The M3 was my first new car buying experience and boy was it informative. Hours spent searching online, gathering details on how I could squeeze every cent out of that dealer and get the best price. When I showed up at the dealer, I came prepared with invoice pricing sheets, offers from internet dealers, even my fancy pad folio and $50 pen to seal the deal. I was a little turned off by this specific dealer because it was obvious that I knew more of the technical details concerning the car than he did, often misquoting product details or flaunting their dealership's "Gold Sales Status" or some other fake sounding award. It's a little weird, only because every BMW dealership I have ever been to brags about how they are the best one around in sales and service - give me a break, not everyone can be the best. One demerit

Flip the tides and start talking about the Nissan dealership that I bought my GT-R from. The salesman claimed to be one of three people at the dealer that were allowed to move GT-R's around on the lot - the other two were the owner of the dealership and the tech, which is apparently pretty standard. Knew everything there was to know about the car. Extreme low-pressure sale and limited negotiating required to close the deal. I followed a similar approach with other available cars in the area, pricing, etc. Other than the difficulty in finding a mint GT-R, the entire process was painless.

With BMW came an extremely personalized run through of all the cool gadgets, gizmos, pressure switches, and buttons found through out the cabin. Details that would all require a run through of the user manual to get back to the same screens.

Just by glancing at the interior you see two different pictures, that of a refined German sports car with extensive attention paid to detail, the fit-and-finish contrasted against a raw, clunky feeling interior littered with cheap buttons and knobs found in the Nissan, even the abnormally large 'Bose' emblem plastered directly below the CD area wreaks of cheap style. I have to give the leg up in terms of electronics to the GT-R, real-time customizable sensor readings (really just a cool factor), and lets not forget the time saving touchscreen which is eons ahead of iDrive's knob twisting. The fatty ///M steering wheel is something that I found missing after heading to the dark side. Forget about trying to use the backseats of the GT-R for any adult - I'm 6'3'' and there is literally 2inches of leg room directly behind me when I'm all setup, good thing it's my car and I'm always the one driving it! Cabin noise seems to be a common complaint for GT-R passengers but when you're going for speed you need to skimp on sound proofing and go for big tires to keep sending power to the pavement consistently.

The s65 motor in the M3 is an awesome, high revving V8 that sounded like pure sex at the 8,300 redline but lacked any real killing power on the streets, especially in a younger area riddled with STI's, Evo's, and bad ass modded 335i's making more power than you. Hell, I got beat up on by a turbo Integra one night. The 0-60 of 3.9 is what is published everywhere but can't confirm as I  had the 6 speed and those numbers where for the DCT version. In terms of modifications, there isn't much room to play in the engine bay limiting your options. Sure you could do a full exhaust, tune, and a few other little things but you'd be hard pressed to make more than 400rwhp (stock cars will dyno at around 300-340rwhp). Yea, there is always the blower option which would put you into the 550ish range and lots of people have had great success going that route. It's a fight to get any sort of real power out of the car without heading down the supercharger road. It was the fastest car I had ever been in - that is until I took the GT-R for a spin

What the GT-R lacks in luxury items it makes up for in raw performance, even in porker status (3,800 curb weight - so figure 4,200 after fuel and a passenger). In stock form, you'll find most R35 GT-R's making 400-430awhp for the 2010 model year (that's the year that I have). Certainly nothing to sneeze at, especially with the quoted 0-60 time of 3.5 which I have found to be extremely consistent (it's an 'automatic' remember). Pump a little bit of money into her, figure $4,000 if you do your own labor and this beast is quickly at the 550awhp mark (93oct, y-pipe, downpipes, tune, intake, 1000cc injectors) which turns the car into a high 10 second beast (just like in 'fast and the furious') - fast enough to embarrass almost anything on the road. Of course you can get really crazy and go with different turbos and supporting mods and beat up on 'busas on the highways but I'm not going to go there because of costs (figure another 15-30k depending on how crazy you want to get).

Purist seem to hate the GT-R because of the gear box, claiming "the car has no soul" as you effortlessly fly through a corner with instant shifts and practically point-and-shoot mentality. These fan boys associate the difficulty in driving a vehicle to how 'pure' a car is which to me is stupid. If technology progression is a bad thing, we wouldn't have cars with turbos or limited slip differentials or air conditioning while running down a track at 120mph on a 100 degree day. What a lot of these fan boys don't understand is that the GT-R's transmission *is* essentially a manual transmission that is computer controlled. Gear selection is a breeze and while there are some disconcerting noises when stopped or in slow traffic from the rear located tranny, it functions better than any human could control.

Ok, ok I know every car magazine and review out there talks about how fast of a car the GT-R is, I certainly agree. What they never talk about is the attention the thing gets by the general public. I rocked the M3 for just over a year, getting a few thumbs up by car guys on the road and general 'nice car' comments at local car meets. What the M3 lacked was any sort of recognition for the race heritage behind the ///M brand. Sure, car nuts knew the difference and what it was, but at the end of the day the general public is just ignorant to an M3 being any different than a 3-series. It has the stigma of being an executive hauler, an 'old man car' as one of my less informed friends put it (being as only older males are typically seen driving them).

The GT-R was a completely different beast. Driving around town you get the stares and the attention of an uber-exotic. On the highway, in parking lots, basically anywhere you can find people, there will be people taking pictures of it. Car meets are even better with comments like "this is my dream car" or my personal favorite "why didn't you get a lambo or a ferrari instead". Ok, I know the second comment came from a guy that had no understanding to the cost of cars but the image was still there - that the GT-R possesses the same image as high end exotics on the road.  Even people that know nothing about the car will approach and ask questions about it. It's always a new adventure being in public with the GT-R.

All in all, your decision to cross shop an M3 and a GT-R is purely an artificial one. The M3 is highly refined, overall luxury car with a little bit of pep when you need it while the GT-R is an attention grabbing performance beast. If I had to choose one car for a daily driver, it would be hands down the M3. But being that I'm young and reckless (owning a second vehicle helps too), I'll keep the GT-R in my stable for a long time.

Diablo 3: Magic Find Debate

I was a huge fan of Diablo2:LoD back in my high school days. Some friends from school got me hooked and I couldn't stop playing, even while I was at school. Having gotten rushed to hell by friends and countless hours in the Secret Cow Level, I had nearly an ultimate account:

• Lvl 99 Whirlwind Barb with enough life leech to heal almost instantly
• Lvl 99 Breath of the Dying Hydra bow Amazon with crazy IAS to mow down them cows
• Lvl 99 Breath of the Dying Hammerdin that was doing 5k 1 hand damage
• Lvl 99 MF Sorc with over 1000mf+

I'll admit, I was a bit obsessed over the game. Heck, the one day I found 2 Windforces and a Grandfather - hardest items in the game to find. I didn't get to the 'top' of the food chain by playing fair or being nice to people. I'll admit that I used less-than-admirable means when the occasion presented itself:

• Joined a game where someone was using his friend to transfer items to another character. Waited for the one guy to leave. Went up to his friend and said "ok, im ready" to have his friend give me all the other guy's stuff. Social engineering at its finest
• .08 Unidentified vamp gaze (not really one, had found with 28 durability and sold it as one) Buyer not happy!
• Botted nearly all day while I was at school. 
• Even got in on the dupe'ing bandwagon while it was working

So now that I've taken a trip down memory lane, let's look at the new controversial magic find changes that Blizzard has made for Diablo 3. Rather than using personal magic find, magic find is now averaged across the group. At first, this really annoyed me, afterall I loved my magic find runs! But what annoyed me even more were the people that were talking down to people who pursued magic find, often saying that people who focus on magic find somehow have 'nerfed' DPS - total lies.

MF cannot appear on weapons, something already data mined by various other sites.You will notice that MF can appear on everything else, meaning that one of the attributes will be consumed by magic find, in each slot on a true magic find character. While, in the early game, characters will need to choose between items that increase DPS versus increase MF, late game this will become moot. Think about how many items that you have found or heard about in the beta that are things like + health from globes or +Gold pickup radius that could easily be swapped out from an MF attribute (assuming you put in the time locating items to replace it).

Ok, so we've proven that MF gear is the same as non-MF gear atleast in the end game. What about the shared aspect of it? What will happen is, that characters looking to perform MF runs will start their own games together and go on their merry way. Bottom line is, MF sharing won't matter if you find friends with similar interests to play with (MF) since it will be beneficial in the form of more/better item drops by having more people in a game together.

The results

Compare with my predictions...

Washington--Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich (67% correct)

Alaska--TBD
Georgia--Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Paul (100% correct)
Idaho--Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich (100% correct)
Massachusetts--Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich (100% correct)
North Dakota--Santorum, Paul, Romney, Gingrich (83% correct)
Ohio--Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul (100% correct)
Oklahoma--Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Paul (83% correct)
Tennessee--Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Paul (100% correct)
Vermont--Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich (83% correct)
Virginia--Romney, Paul (100% correct)

That's 92% correct overall. If you just count Super Tuesday states, I was 94% correct. A/A- seems fair.

Note also that these contests could've played out in one of over 2.6 trillion different ways. Come on...fives.

Super Tuesday Forecast

I issued private forecasts for Arizona and Michigan, but forgot to post them on the blog. Needless to say, I nailed both. Now, onto Super Tuesday...but first, Washington (on March 3rd): Santorum, Romney, Paul, Gingrich

Super Tuesday contests (on March 6th)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska: Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich
Georgia: Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Paul
Idaho: Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich
Massachusetts: Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich
North Dakota: Santorum, Romney, Paul, Gingrich
Ohio: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul
Oklahoma: Santorum, Gingrich, Romney, Paul
Tennessee: Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Paul
Vermont: Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich
Virginia: Romney, Paul

Enjoy.

The contraception mandate and you: the religious debate

President Obama has gotten more than he bargained for with the fire fight he is facing with religious groups over a mandate that even religious organizations include birth control as part of their insurance coverage. What was originally framed as a step in the right direction for woman's rights and universal healthcare quickly turned into a constitutional debate over the president's ability to force specific coverage onto everyone, including religious groups.

The president's so called 'accommodation' was nothing but a shell game: the mandate still requires religious organizations to subsidize and authorize conduct that conflicts with their religious principles. The very first amendment to our Constitution was intended to protect against this sort of government intrusion into our religious convictions. (Texas Attorney General)

The Texas Attorney General's argument is weak at best and I call into question his understanding of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The mandate is not directed at religious groups, but rather the insurance companies themselves. Are religious groups affected? Sure they are but then again they are also part of the greater population so any decision that applies to the United States as a whole affects them. Greg Abbott, as are religious groups, are linking the idea that insurance companies offering contraception methods as part of insurance plans somehow "authorize(s) conduct that conflicts with their religious principles" but I beg to differ. Something like 42% of women use contraception methods for something other than preventing pregnancies (the real reason religious groups are up in arms) - let's just ignore that for the time being since the religious groups are.

Let's take a tangent real quick before we continue and look at my experiences with sex and religion. I was raised a Catholic. Went to Catholic school for 10 years of my life and have a pretty good understanding of the mindset utilized by similar groups. Since sex education was a required thing growing up, we were taught three basic ideas:

1. Only way to not get pregnant is to not have sex. Actually was told numerous time:  "the use of any contraceptive is a sin"


2. You need to wait until you're married to have sex


3. If you have sex with more than one person, you will get a STD for life

Pretty grim stuff if you ask me, but the reality was that it was only part of the truth. If you read into these ideas a little, you sense a fear factor rather than that of love and compassion. Why is that? Why was the church pushing a harsher reality onto students in their early years? Plain and simple - they have always done it. My interpretation of the church is that if the general public were left to their own devices, morality would not exist and the integrity of people would be that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Since the church has little physical influence over the personal lives of their employees (free will), another avenue of control is required - making birth control somewhat fiscally out of reach through not providing it in insurance plans. You won't find any studies published on the cold, hard number of people who classify themselves as religious and their use of contraceptives but I'll go out on a limb and say that more than 80% of married couples practice it in some form.

I'm going to pull the religious card here. I was always taught that people are tested while here on earth but every decision was yours, including the decision to sin or not follow the church. How is the abstinence from contraceptives offered by an insurance company any different? The answer is it's not.

Enough tangent, back to the argument. Religious groups can harp all day on moral issues of offering birth control as part of their insurance plans but the reality that they do not want to face is that, regardless of it being available in the insurance plan, their congregation would still practice contraception methods in some form. The other side of the argument, that some how they are subsidizing the use of contraceptives is totally crazy. The mandate specifically says that rates will not go up as a result of this. Let's look at the insurance company for a minute because this is the best thing that could have happened for them. The insurance costs of raising a child are enormous compared to providing birth control so it's a win-win for them.

Obama is not shoving contraception down the throats of everyone but merely making it financially available to everyone. That's it. It's the person's decision to take it or not. Because it is a free will decision, arguing that this mandate violates the First Amendment is absurd. Now if it was "crazy religious fanatics are required to take birth control every day" then you have something, but merely making something available to the greater public and arguing it violates your rights? Give me a break.

The contraception mandate and you: the religious debate

President Obama has gotten more than he bargained for with the fire fight he is facing with religious groups over a mandate that even religious organizations include birth control as part of their insurance coverage. What was originally framed as a step in the right direction for woman's rights and universal healthcare quickly turned into a constitutional debate over the president's ability to force specific coverage onto everyone, including religious groups.

The president's so called 'accommodation' was nothing but a shell game: the mandate still requires religious organizations to subsidize and authorize conduct that conflicts with their religious principles. The very first amendment to our Constitution was intended to protect against this sort of government intrusion into our religious convictions. (Texas Attorney General)

The Texas Attorney General's argument is weak at best and I call into question his understanding of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The mandate is not directed at religious groups, but rather the insurance companies themselves. Are religious groups affected? Sure they are but then again they are also part of the greater population so any decision that applies to the United States as a whole affects them. Greg Abbott, as are religious groups, are linking the idea that insurance companies offering contraception methods as part of insurance plans somehow "authorize(s) conduct that conflicts with their religious principles" but I beg to differ. Something like 42% of women use contraception methods for something other than preventing pregnancies (the real reason religious groups are up in arms) - let's just ignore that for the time being since the religious groups are.

Let's take a tangent real quick before we continue and look at my experiences with sex and religion. I was raised a Catholic. Went to Catholic school for 10 years of my life and have a pretty good understanding of the mindset utilized by similar groups. Since sex education was a required thing growing up, we were taught three basic ideas:

1. Only way to not get pregnant is to not have sex. Actually was told numerous time:  "the use of any contraceptive is a sin"


2. You need to wait until you're married to have sex


3. If you have sex with more than one person, you will get a STD for life

Pretty grim stuff if you ask me, but the reality was that it was only part of the truth. If you read into these ideas a little, you sense a fear factor rather than that of love and compassion. Why is that? Why was the church pushing a harsher reality onto students in their early years? Plain and simple - they have always done it. My interpretation of the church is that if the general public were left to their own devices, morality would not exist and the integrity of people would be that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Since the church has little physical influence over the personal lives of their employees (free will), another avenue of control is required - making birth control somewhat fiscally out of reach through not providing it in insurance plans. You won't find any studies published on the cold, hard number of people who classify themselves as religious and their use of contraceptives but I'll go out on a limb and say that more than 80% of married couples practice it in some form.

I'm going to pull the religious card here. I was always taught that people are tested while here on earth but every decision was yours, including the decision to sin or not follow the church. How is the abstinence from contraceptives offered by an insurance company any different? The answer is it's not.

Enough tangent, back to the argument. Religious groups can harp all day on moral issues of offering birth control as part of their insurance plans but the reality that they do not want to face is that, regardless of it being available in the insurance plan, their congregation would still practice contraception methods in some form. The other side of the argument, that some how they are subsidizing the use of contraceptives is totally crazy. The mandate specifically says that rates will not go up as a result of this. Let's look at the insurance company for a minute because this is the best thing that could have happened for them. The insurance costs of raising a child are enormous compared to providing birth control so it's a win-win for them.

Obama is not shoving contraception down the throats of everyone but merely making it financially available to everyone. That's it. It's the person's decision to take it or not. Because it is a free will decision, arguing that this mandate violates the First Amendment is absurd. Now if it was "crazy religious fanatics are required to take birth control every day" then you have something, but merely making something available to the greater public and arguing it violates your rights? Give me a break.

Banking, in a nutshell

What do banks do? Two things. First, they maintain their customers' deposits, paying interest on them for the privilege. Second, they lend some of their customers' funds to creditworthy borrowers, charging them interest for the privilege. Banks make money, in brief, by taking a bit off of the top when transferring interest payments from their debtors to their depositors.

What is the economic value of what banks do? Banks perform the important tasks of liquidity & maturity transformation. In so doing, they play the role of financial intermediaries--institutions that match savers with borrowers, facilitating investment. Investment, in turn, is a critical driver of economic growth.

A depositor, in general, wants to invest in a short-term, highly liquid vehicle. That is, she wants to be able to, on a moment's notice (short maturity), convert her investment into cash (high liquidity). A bank deposit offers her just that. As long as her savings reside in the bank they yield her interest. Whenever she wishes, however, she may make a withdrawal, converting her investment into cash without warning.

A borrower, in general, wants to provide a long-term, illiquid vehicle. That is, he wants to be able to spend his borrowed funds over a long period of time (long maturity), without necessarily being able to convert his purchases into cash in the interim (illiquidity). For example, if he borrows from the bank to buy a house, he may not be able to fully pay off his mortgage until it matures (say, thirty years from now), because his stream of income prevents this. A bank loan offer him exactly what he wants. As long as he makes his payments on time, he need not fully pay for his purchases until his loan matures, which may be well into the future.

How do banks manage to match depositors with borrowers, then, given their divergent wants? They manage to do this thanks to the law of large numbers. The withdrawal behavior of each depositor is very unpredictable. Because the behavior of one depositor is independent of the behavior of others, however, the law of large numbers entails that the withdrawal behavior of many depositors is very predictable. A bank that enjoys a large number of customers may confidently predict aggregate withdrawals on a given day, even if it cannot predict how much each customer withdraws. As a consequence, banks keep just enough cash in their vaults (their reserves) to honor these predictable withdrawals, freeing up the remaining funds to be invested with long-term, illiquid borrowers. Banks, therefore, make possible productive investments that would otherwise not be possible, thereby contributing to economic growth.

Sounds too good to be true, doesn't it? There is, indeed a catch: Exploiting the law of large numbers is only possible because, most of the time, the behavior of one depositor is independent of the behavior of others. If withdrawals become correlated, the business model of banking breaks down. Suppose, for illustration, that a bank invests heavily in one sector of the economy (e.g., housing), believing that this promises the highest risk-adjusted returns for its depositors. Suppose further that many of these investments go belly up, with large numbers of borrowers defaulting on their loans. A depositor, observing this, worries about the ability of her bank to make good on her future withdrawals. Moreover, she knows that if she is worried about this, other depositors must be similarly worried. Even if the bank is in fact solvent, it is never in a position to make good on every deposit simultaneously, for some of the funds have been invested. Knowing that others will make larger-than-usual withdrawals, fearing that the bank is insolvent, it is in her best interest to beat them to it. If she isn't one of the first to get her money out of the bank, the bank may not be able to honor her deposits, even if it was solvent in the first place.

A banking panic (or bank run) is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fears concerning a bank's solvency trigger correlated withdrawals, rendering the bank insolvent regardless of its prior condition. Systemic banking panics occur for similar reasons. If many banks turn out to have exposure to lots of bad loans, uninformed depositors may play it safe, running on their bank regardless of its individual exposure. This pushes the entire banking system into insolvency, causing a complete breakdown of financial intermediation in the economy, severely undermining economic growth.

Most economists, therefore, believe it is part of the role of government to stem banking panics, but not to make every failing financial institution whole. It is also important to regulate banking, because if banks can count on the government to bail them out in a panic, that limits their downside, encouraging them to take excessive risks with their depositors' funds. The best way to do these things, however, is a matter of considerable debate. With the introduction of deposit insurance, depositors no longer monitor commercial bank's investments, which is why the government tightly regulates them (for better or for worse). In the recent financial crisis, there were runs on so-called 'shadow banks', which work similarly to commercial banks, but operate outside of ordinary bank regulations.

The most important lessons, going forward: (1) preserve the banking system, not individual banks; (2) preserve institutions--preserve neither the management, nor the shareholders; (3) the purpose of regulation is to force bankers to put their own money on the line, not just the taxpayer's--otherwise, keep it simple. The US definitely erred too much on the side of caution in '08-'09, for which it may be rightly criticized, but it is safe to say swinging too far in the other direction may have done even more damage to the economy. Pick your poison.