2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Leonidae]

Some common criteria for measuring whether a car should be considered a supercar include the following:

Design

Many supercars have a rear mid-engine (RMR), rear-wheel drive layout, which allows for better distribution of weight. By moving mass towards the middle of the car, its moment of inertia is reduced. The result is often sharper, more agile handling. Some supercar makers have started building all-wheel-drive supercars as new engines are producing more power than a rear wheel drive car using street legal tires is able to take advantage of. For an example, see Bugatti Veyron or Lamborghini Murcielago.

GT-R has Nissans new Premium Midship platform, in other words, engine is in between the axles.

Weight to power ratio

Most supercars have high engine power and low vehicle mass, for the sake of high acceleration (see Newton's Second Law) and good handling dynamics. For example, the 2004 Porsche Carrera GT masses just 3 kilogram per kilowatt (5 lb/hp). GT-R has PWR of 3.625 ( 1740/480= 3.625)

Acceleration

Supercars, by the usual definition, offer extremely high acceleration compared to most vehicles, including ordinary sports cars. Some current expectations are as follows:

* 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): Under 4 seconds for virtually all supercars today. GT-R reaches 62mph in 3.5 seconds.
* Standing quarter-mile (400 meter): Under 13 seconds is arguably a requirement, as is a trap or terminal speed of at least 175 km/h (110 mph).
GT-R has reached 1/4mile result of 11.7s @ 115mph+

Handling

A popular benchmark is a lap time around the Nürburgring of under 8 minutes. There are also other tracks where supercars are being tested. GT-R lapped 'Ring at 7'38.54, video proof has been shown earlier.

Other criteria

In addition to performance, the following criteria are also cited in determining if a particular sports car or exotic car deserves the supercar moniker:

* Rarity: Supercars do not necessarily have to be rare. A very limited production run of a sports car would classify it as an “exotic” and not a "supercar" by default. Some might consider this controversial as it opens a host of other vehicles to the “supercar domain” For example, the Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z06 meets the 0-100 acceleration, handling, speed, weight:hp ratio, and Nordschleife times to be considered in the supercar territory.

 

[Joey D]

Since when did they start calling Nobles Supercars? They always have been sports cars, just the same with TVR as well. Sure, they attempted to make the M15 a supercar, but it just isn't it.

Sports Cars:

Nissan GT-R, Porsche 911, Ferrari F430, Corvette Z06, Viper SRT-10, Lamborghini Gallardo, Audi R8, Aston Martin V8 Vantage, etc.

Supercars:

Nissan R390, McLaren F1, Porsche Carrera GT, Ferrari Enzo/FXX, Maserati MC12, Lamborghini LP640, Pagani Zonda, Koooeingsssseggggg CCX, Gumbert Apollo, SSC Ultimate Aero, Bugatti Veyron, etc.

Great post as well, more +Rep given.

Seriously though supercars mean different things to different people, yes I agree with McLaren and YSSMAN on their definitions, but I still think this is a rather gray area.

 

[Omnis]

No, it's not. Being an Exotic is only part of a supercar. A supercar is NOT defined by track performance.

LOL!

 

[McLaren]

Some common criteria for measuring whether a car should be considered a supercar include the following:

Design

Many supercars have a rear mid-engine (RMR), rear-wheel drive layout, which allows for better distribution of weight. By moving mass towards the middle of the car, its moment of inertia is reduced. The result is often sharper, more agile handling. Some supercar makers have started building all-wheel-drive supercars as new engines are producing more power than a rear wheel drive car using street legal tires is able to take advantage of. For an example, see Bugatti Veyron or Lamborghini Murcielago.

GT-R has Nissans new Premium Midship platform, in other words, engine is in between the axles.

Engine location means nothing alone. Does the engine perform at the Veyron or Murcielago's level? No.

Weight to power ratio

Most supercars have high engine power and low vehicle mass, for the sake of high acceleration (see Newton's Second Law) and good handling dynamics. For example, the 2004 Porsche Carrera GT masses just 3 kilogram per kilowatt (5 lb/hp).

GT-R has PWR of 3.625 ( 1740/480= 3.625)

You left out other parts though.

Acceleration

Supercars, by the usual definition, offer extremely high acceleration compared to most vehicles, including ordinary sports cars. Some current expectations are as follows:

* 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): Under 4 seconds for virtually all supercars today. GT-R reaches 62mph in 3.5 seconds.
* Standing quarter-mile (400 meter): Under 13 seconds is arguably a requirement, as is a trap or terminal speed of at least 175 km/h (110 mph).
GT-R has reached 1/4mile result of 11.7s @ 115mph+

So, where does the GT-R hit these that you just so happened to leave out?

-0 to 160 km/h (100 mph): Under 9 seconds is generally recognized as the standard, with undisputed supercars being significantly faster.
-0 to 320 km/h (200 mph): Under 30 seconds. McLaren F1 28 seconds, Saleen S7 23 seconds, Bugatti Veyron 22 seconds.

As for the QTR mile, notice where the Enzo & CCR go beyond the "requirements", not barely. Again, performance does not define a supercar alone.

I like how you left out top speed too.

Handling

A popular benchmark is a lap time around the Nürburgring of under 8 minutes. There are also other tracks where supercars are being tested. GT-R lapped 'Ring at 7'38.54, video proof has been shown earlier.

On cut-slicks, therefore, it's as valid as poop. Put it on the same level tires everyone else did.

Other criteria

In addition to performance, the following criteria are also cited in determining if a particular sports car or exotic car deserves the supercar moniker:

* Rarity: Supercars do not necessarily have to be rare. A very limited production run of a sports car would classify it as an “exotic” and not a "supercar" by default. Some might consider this controversial as it opens a host of other vehicles to the “supercar domain” For example, the Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z06 meets the 0-100 acceleration, handling, speed, weight:hp ratio, and Nordschleife times to be considered in the supercar territory.

The problem with everything you just listed is that the GT-R does not meet all those points. Go back and look at the examples listed for each criteria, and you will see they are all supercars, not sports cars.

The Weight to Power examples were the Carrera GT, Koenigsegg's, & the Veyron.
The Acceleration examples were the Veyron, S7, Enzo, and CCR.
The Top Speed was the F1 and Veyron.
The Handling only depicted the Nurburgring & 8 seconds. Notice how all the previous examples hit that easily.
Look at styling. "Supercars like the Enzo.
Look at Focused design. "Supercars are not designed to be practical transportation devices, with functionality varying widely between different examples. Many car body styles make inherent tradeoffs of performance potential for utility"

There is a reason those examples were listed countless times & not Corvettes, 911 Turbos, or Aston Martins which is where the GT-R is. Why? Because they don't fit all the standards.

There are certain standards for supercars, and guess what. Cars like the Enzo, CCX, and Veyron, hit them all. Not a few, all.

 

[McLaren]

LOL!

Why don't you just leave the discussion then unless you can show me where a GT-R hits every single standard a supercar does.

 

[Dave A]

Will everybody just shut up arguing the definition of supercar, it's a pretty damn open definition, there's is nothing set in stone. A large part of it is based on opinion, to some people the Toyota Supra was a supercar. To others the Ferrari 360 CS wasn't. How can you argue so violently against something largly definied by opinion.

 

[YSSMAN]

Seriously though supercars mean different things to different people, yes I agree with McLaren and YSSMAN on their definitions, but I still think this is a rather gray area.

Agreed, but there are very basic limitations to each defining term as well. If I'm not mistaken, didn't CAR Magazine coin the term "supercar"? It would be interesting to see what their stance on the issue would be... Their list last year made absolutely no mention of the (R34) GT-R, anywhere, despite its class-leading performance.

 

[Joey D]

Agreed, but there are very basic limitations to each defining term as well. If I'm not mistaken, didn't CAR Magazine coin the term "supercar"? It would be interesting to see what their stance on the issue would be... Their list last year made absolutely no mention of the (R34) GT-R, anywhere, despite its class-leading performance.

Wikipedia says this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar

Origin of the term

The designation supercar was first applied to the Lamborghini Miura in a review by legendary British motor journalist L. J. K. Setright.

 

[McLaren]

Will everybody just shut up arguing the definition of supercar, it's a pretty damn open definition, there's is nothing set in stone. A large part of it is based on opinion, to some people the Toyota Supra was a supercar. To others the Ferrari 360 CS wasn't. How can you argue so violently against something largly definied by opinion.

How is it an open definition.

Look at a supercar today. What does it have? A high price, a high performance engine, a high build quality, a huge presence, and a low build count.

People don't get the fact that supercars are not defined from a specific lap time. If that was even remotely true, then if a tuned Supra could be one. But it isn't.

Think people. Why do folks not consider the GT-R a supercar like the others?
Maybe it's because it doesn't hit 200Mph like those.
Maybe it's because it'll be built in high numbers unlike those.
Maybe it's because it does cost as much as those.

The only thing it does have is performing on the same level, but with cut-slicks.

 

[Leonidae]

How is it an open definition.

Look at a supercar today. What does it have? A high price, a high performance engine, a high build quality, a huge presence, and a low build count.

that's the mainstream supercar for badge-blind rich people.

People don't get the fact that supercars are not defined from a specific lap time. If that was even remotely true, then if a tuned Supra could be one. But it isn't.

then why SLR's laptime matters and GT-R's doesn't?

Think people. Why do folks not consider the GT-R a supercar like the others?
Maybe it's because it doesn't hit 200Mph like those.
Maybe it's because it'll be built in high numbers unlike those.
Maybe it's because it does cost as much as those.

then why was NSX considered as a supercar when it came out?

The only thing it does have is performing on the same level, but with cut-slicks.

show me a video that proves this claim, cut slicks under the car as it gets on track and I'll believe you. the video that has been posted here already clearly shows stock tyres. and what makes you believe that those supercars didn't have some extra trickery in them or cut slicks? hmm?

 

[Greycap]

Maybe it's because it doesn't hit 200Mph like those.

Throw in a longer gearing and that's it. But is there any point in sacrificing acceleration for top speed that can never be used?

Maybe it's because it'll be built in high numbers unlike those.

Now this is the second most ridiculous thing I've heard in this thread. How does it make the car less of a supercar if it's built in high numbers? Because it isn't only for the richest elitistic scumbags anymore?

Maybe it's because it does cost as much as those.

I assume you mean "because it doesn't cost as much as those", which makes this the single most ridiculous thing I've read on this thread. For the same reason as the previous one.

The only thing it does have is performing on the same level, but with cut-slicks.

So? The Nissan guys have said that it can be ordered from the factory with those tyres. Do you have something against factory fitted high performance tyres?

This thread is getting out of hands, fast. People put in opinions as facts, argue about the only thing in the world that shouldn't be argued of - opinions - and publicly abuse the rep system because someone said something that was nothing valuable but what they agree with. I'm out of here.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

already clearly shows stock tyres.

erm no it doesnt,looking at the pictures from the motorshow i didnt see white writing on the sidewalls,did you?

 

[Leonidae]

are going to start tyre speculations again?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

are going to start tyre speculations again?

nope but you are stateing that you can clearly see they are stock tyres when you clearly cant.

 

[Dave A]

How is it an open definition.

Look at a supercar today. What does it have? A high price, a high performance engine, a high build quality, a huge presence, and a low build count.

People don't get the fact that supercars are not defined from a specific lap time. If that was even remotely true, then if a tuned Supra could be one. But it isn't.

Think people. Why do folks not consider the GT-R a supercar like the others?
Maybe it's because it doesn't hit 200Mph like those.
Maybe it's because it'll be built in high numbers unlike those.
Maybe it's because it does cost as much as those.

The only thing it does have is performing on the same level, but with cut-slicks.

Then you tell me this...

What is the starting price point for a supercar?
What is the benchmark maximum speed a supercar must beat?
What is the maximum number of cars produced before it's disqualified form being a supercar?
What limit must there be to the creature comforts before it's disqualified as a supercar?
What materials must the car be built from to qualify as a supercar?

There's a bit more you can throw in there too, my point is, it is open to opinion. No one can come out here and say this is the definition of a supercar, it must cost at least £150k, if must not have more than 3000 examples built, it must hit at least 200mph, it must only have 2 seats, it must make extensive use of carbon fibre, it must not have sat-nav etc. Why would it be that, becuase someone on here has said so. I don't tihnk so, the definition of supercar is to a large degree open to interpretation and opinion and no matter how much someone bitches and moans to the contrary, that IS the fact of the matter.

 

[Leonidae]

it's opinion against opinion, and Youtube's low quality certainly doesn't help.

 

[///M-Spec]

How can you argue so violently against something largly definied by opinion.

Thank you, Dave. +rep. I wouldn't have told everyone to 'shutup', but +rep nonetheless.

I think some of you guys need to take a step back from this, take a deep breath and ask yourself why you are going through the trouble of arguing so strongly over something that is, at the end of the day, open to personal interpretation and, frankly, pretty damn trivial.

If you absolutely MUST go 12 rounds over this, take to this thread, at least.


M

 

[McLaren]

that's the mainstream supercar for badge-blind rich people.

Wow, when will you get it through your thick skull that is what a supercar is today. Nothing below that has ever been called a supercar.

then why SLR's laptime matters and GT-R's doesn't?

Who said anything about the SLR's time? The SLR is a supercar because it fits all the standards of a supercar. It's time at Nurburgring only helped it more.

then why was NSX considered as a supercar when it came out?

It was called the "Ferrari of Japan" because it beat a 348. Neither that nor the NSX were supercars.

show me a video that proves this claim, cut slicks under the car as it gets on track and I'll believe you. the video that has been posted here already clearly shows stock tyres. and what makes you believe that those supercars didn't have some extra trickery in them or cut slicks? hmm?

What on god's earth did the engineer say? "We used cut-slicks". Then he went back on it by saying they could.
The only thing helping the supercars is that they were A) set by magazines, & B) didn't have a conflicting engineer.

Then you tell me this...

What is the starting price point for a supercar?
What is the benchmark maximum speed a supercar must beat?
What is the maximum number of cars produced before it's disqualified form being a supercar?
What limit must there be to the creature comforts before it's disqualified as a supercar?
What materials must the car be built from to qualify as a supercar?

Look at Murcielago, Enzo, Veyron, Zonda F, & the Carrera GT. Those all answer your qustion.

There's a bit more you can throw in there too, my point is, it is open to opinion. No one can come out here and say this is the definition of a supercar, it must cost at least £150k, if must not have more than 3000 examples built, it must hit at least 200mph, it must only have 2 seats, it must make extensive use of carbon fibre, it must not have sat-nav etc. Why would it be that, becuase someone on here has said so. I don't tihnk so, the definition of supercar is to a large degree open to interpretation and opinion and no matter how much someone bitches and moans to the contrary, that IS the fact of the matter.[/QUOTE]
The definition of a supercar is not open like you're trying to make it. There is an unofficial specific standard each of those cars have met to be called supercars by reviewers. They have not met 1 of those, they have met all of those.

And I'm done with this. It may be my opinion, but the classifications of those cars rule in my favor. Those are supercars for a reason, and I specifically listed why. If you think the GT-R is a supercar, you must think a lot of cars are supercars such as the 911 Turbo, Noble, Z06, F430, Gallardo, Viper, etc. because that is exactly who Nissan is competing with, and I guarantee you that people will think you're stupid if a Viper is a supercar like the Ferrari Enzo.

There are specific reasons why reviewers call those supercars. It's because they're the best of the best, and to create the best of the best, you have to do extensive testing. And the only way to get that development money back is to include a great build quality, high performance, & charge for a high price. Rarity comes into play because a company can not simply keep developing in high numbers as there are too many expensive materials to buy. That is why the Veyron is $1.4 million. That is why the Carrera GT was the fastest production car on the 'Ring. That is why Lamborghini keeps order numbers low.

Journalists have usually called a car a supercar because it typically hits all of the following:
Fastest lap times on multiple tracks.
High top speed.
Top-of-the-line quality.
Fast Acceleration from multiple areas (0-60, 0-100, QTR mile, 0-200)

And the Enzo, Carrera GT, Veyron, etc. hit all of those without a sweat. But to hit all those, you need money to develop it, and creating a car that hits all those takes time and large amounts of money. That money must be regained by making the following.
1. Marking up a high price: This where the criteria of Price comes in. This is why the Veyron & McLaren F1 cost so much, & why supercars are generally over $250,000. Manufacturers want a chunk back from the car.
2. Rarity: Manufacturers can not continue to build the cars forever or in large numbers because the cost of materials becomes a problem. Either the numbers stay low, or the value goes. Either way, the criteria of a supercar being expensive & rare is met.
3. Build Quality: You simply can not charge $300,000 for a car, and offer AMC Pacer-quality. Thus, they add time into making sure the car is of the best standards. Time is money.

Do you see where this is going, and why Price, Rarity, & Quality are all included in the classification of a supercar?

To add superb build quality and testing along with the best performance, you need the best material. Material equals Money. You also need lots of development time, and testing after assembly. Time equals Money. To regain the money for Time & Quality, you must have a high price to regain money back. Therefore, you must generally charge $300,000. However, you can't regain every cent back, so you're going to be losing money for the time and development. To help this, you limit the amount of cars as you know you can't keep the development going forever b/c again, you're losing money.
This is why supercars are generally defined as Expensive, Rare, High Performance, Above superior quality, High Top Speed, & Perform like nothing else. Money is needed to do so, but to keep a steady flow of money, the car must be high dollar and rare. And lastly, the only reason people like Porsche & Ferrari are supercar builders are because they are the only ones with enough resources & history to do so.

Do you see how Top Speed, Best of the best track times, Acceleration, & Utmost Quality become mixed with Price & Rarity when journalists are defining a supercar? A Nissan GT-R just does not meet all those original 4 standards, simply because it is not developed enough. If it was, it'd be over $70,000 easily and then could become a supercar.

If you guys can not understand that, there's no point in trying. I've listed what defines a supercar, and now why the cars journalists call supercars are so expensive & rare.

Supercars are the best of the best, but are also Rare and Expensive to be so. The Brand just so happens to be logic as to why.

 

[Dave A]

You haven't listed what journalists describe as a supercar. I could quote many journalists describe the F430 as a supercar yet your definition rules that out. You've just described whay YOU think a supercar is and the fact that journalists opinions on what is what can differ greatly demonstrates that there is no set standard of what a supercar is or isn't that all must adhere to.

I'm not getting drawn into this anymore, if you can't accept that it is largely personal opinion as your posts demonstrate considering how different they are to other peoples, then thats nothing to do with me.

 

[McLaren]

You haven't listed what journalists describe as a supercar. I could quote many journalists describe the F430 as a supercar, you've just described whay YOU think a supercar is.

Every car considered a supercar by the general public & journalists (which is mainly the ones I've listed) hit all of those. When a journalist called a Zonda a supercar, notice how it hit all of those. When a journalist listed the Carrera GT a supercar, notice again, how it hit all of those. Calling a F430 a supercar is very strange, but in a way, it could be considered. Generally though, it isn't.

I'm not getting drawn into this anymore, if you can't accept that it is largely personal opinion as your posts demonstrate considering how different they are to other peoples, then thats nothing to do with me.

Sorry, but as I said earlier, my opinion is completely re-enforced by just looking at supercars today, and what makes them such. This is not a large personal opinion like you're saying. As I've said countless times, look at the cars journalists have called a supercar. Look at all the things it does in 1 package. The GT-R simply does not do all that in 1 package.
But if you can not accept what I listed & explained as to why a supercar's standards are a supercar's standards by certain means, then fine. Do not blame me when people think you're strange thinking a GT-R is a supercar like an Enzo.

 

[Dave A]

I never said they didn't, but I didn't say thoes were the only cars that could be and are classed as supercars either. Some people consider the F430 a supercar, some people don't, automotive journalists included. You don't, but this auto journalist does...
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/new_car_reviews/article431281.ece
As does this one...
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Ferrari-F430-4.3-V8/211164/

In fact here's an automotive journalist that's even calling the GT-R a supercar, explain to me how a guy on a forum is correct and his professional opinion iswrong...
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/208327/nissan_gtr.html



Secondly, I have not once said that I think the GT-R is or isn't a supercar, I am not debating that, I am debating the fact that what is or isn't a supercar is largly defined by opinion. I don't think people are odd if their opinion is that F430 is a supercar, nor do I think they're odd if their opinion doesn't, I think they're odd when they refuse to accept that it i just that, their opinion.

 

[McLaren]

In fact here's an automotive journalist that's even calling the GT-R a supercar, explain to me how a guy on a forum is correct and his professional opinion iswrong...
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/208327/nissan_gtr.html

AutoExpress from a preview? From May? That hardly counts as a valid opinion let alone a professional opinion seeing as he hasn't driven it.

 

[Perfect Balance]

What an arrogant post 👎.

How can my OPINION be wrong?


*snip*

There is such thing as a wrong opinion you know.

 

[Joey D]

There is such thing as a wrong opinion you know.

It's just a car, it's not like we are fighting over anything meaningful. My opinion isn't wrong nor is yours. Supercars are a very gray area, which I think I've made pretty clear throughout the thread. You are entitled to think what you like and I would like to have the same respect in turn, but if that is beneath you then suit yourself.

 

[Kent]

Any post regarding "what is a supercar" should go in the thread linked here (So well provided by M-Spec's Search).

 

[Joey D]

Any post regarding "what is a supercar" should go in the thread linked here (So wel provided by M-Spec's Search).

After this I'll be erasing "off-topic" post (as any other moderator may do).

Let's avoid that and keep things on topic.

I believe it is on topic though. We are debating whether or not the GT-R is a supercar, granted I can see where some of the posts are a bit off topic but while determining whether or not the car is classified as a "supercar" one must give their definition of it. Not to say that you are wrong and you are the moderator so you do have the final say in this, I just thought I'd give my 2 cents on the topic.

 

[Kent]

You're actually right to some extent...

My original post and my final post can often be different.
In this case, I had even posted the course of supercar discussion was on-topic due to the fact that we were discussing "is the GT-R a supercar." However, to keep it simple I posted something like what you saw and quoted, in the mean time I had already edited to a more simple statement (I think my final edit was about 1 minute before you posted).

In any case... My final thoughts were a thread already existed for "Is This Car A Supercar?"
This thread has always been a generalized "GT-R News" thread. Comparing this to that I felt quality argements regarding "whether or not the GT-R is a supercar" should go in the thread most appropriate for agruing that the GT-R is or is not a super car.

Also, a note to the side...
A single Moderator, or in this case, "Super Moderator" has only a final say if they have chanced a "final say" in the same way as any other member (or if we close the thread and post afterwards).
This is an open discussion forum (don't you know that ).

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Boy did I ever chose a bad time to try and ask some objective facts about a car's specs... My question seems to have gotten lost among a 100 or so posts of people butting heads over subjective personal opinions... which seems rather pointless as there is no agreed upon standard definition/rule on what constitutes "supercar" status, its all just a matter of personal opinion/preference/choice. You're all correct, as no one can be wrong unless of course they are also using false objective facts to support their opinion.


OK, so let me try this question one more time....

Does anyone have accurate specs for the 2005 Nissan GT-R Proto?

Thanks!

 

[Joey D]

According to Edmunds.com Nissan never released official specs on the car, other sites tend to agree since all the major car related website list a N/A in most of the spec boxes.

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/tokyo/2005/nissangtrproto.html

Honestly I don't know how complete the concept was when it was first made, I'm suspecting it had a off the shelf R34 GT-R engine in it or even the engine out of a 350Z. I am just speculating of course on this, but the link is there for you to read and see what Edmunds has to say about it.

**The press release didn't say much either:
http://www.nissangtrproto.com/the-gt-r-proto/the-press-release/

 

[YSSMAN]

Okay, so we don't agree on the supercar bit... Whatever, it really doesn't matter. I much prefer the discussion in which we compare it to other vehicles.

===

So, you've got $100K in your pocket and you're looking for a sportscar, what do you get? How high is the GT-R on your list? Are you more likely to go with the traditional Corvettes and 911s, go out on a limb and try a TVR Sagaris or an Audi R8? Maybe you tell them all to "piss-off" and get a BMW M6?

If the GT-R is the top vehicle, why? If it isn't, why not? Sure, opinions are opinions, but we are allowed to debate them...