2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[kikie]

I read somewhere on a Dutch site.

http://www.hln.be/hln/alg/pag/hln_i...rm=1&p_artid=633191&&wt.bron=hlnDossierTeaser

and a Belgian site

http://www.hln.be/hln/alg/pag/hln_i...rm=1&p_artid=633191&&wt.bron=hlnDossierTeaser

I hope everyone is intelligent enough to find the specs in these Dutch texts. Numbers are the same in Dutch and English.

 

[Leonidae]

AFAIK, Nissan says 480 net-hp from wheels, 588nm of torque, top speed of 193mph and quarter at 11.7s. althought, it is possible that these values are underrated.

 

[///M-Spec]

AFAIK, Nissan says 480 net-hp from wheels, 588nm of torque, top speed of 193mph and quarter at 11.7s. althought, it is possible that these values are underrated.

According to the US English version of the official GT-R site, the engine is rated at 480 hp @ 6,800 rpm. 430 lb-ft torque @ 3,200–5,200 rpm. That would be a crank number, since manufacturers almost never publicize whp in official media.


M

 

[Jim Prower]

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...

I guess the GT-R is still the top vehicle, at least when compared to the Carrera 4.

My reasoning...

The Corvette, no matter how good it gets, will still have my hate for beating the Viper. and the local Chevy dealers move way too many of them. I saw a brand-new Z06 in the bad part of town yesterday.
The Viper's not civilized enough. Maybe a trackday car, but then I get harrassed by less powerful Corvettes...
If I'm getting a 911, it's a GT3. Probably the RS. No cushy Carrera 4 for me. But that blows our $100K Budget.
TVR? Reliability? Livability?
R8....Never been into MRs.
M6...It's a BMW. I don't wanna look like a rich snob.

and my main reason for the GT-R? well, It's still a 4-place(-ish) midsize coupe. That keeps up with a 996 Turbo. I can deal with an "ugly" dash. (I own an '88 Nova.) It'll have more power than I'd even need, good winter traction without a heavy engine in the back, (Note: both of the other AWD offerings have the engine behind the driver) and something that'll be fairly civilized as a daily, and still have $20-30,000 left (If i had $100,000) to have NISMO massage it a little.

Or maybe get a Lancer Evo. or a 1969 Dodge Charger project car, with a 318.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

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/

Thanks Joey, unfortuntely they don't offer much in the way of specs or the Proto... which I understand may be very hard to come by as it was just a prototype.

Seeing as even the GT5 demo has the 2005 GT-R Proto in the game, clearly PD was given specific spec info on the car for the purpose of having it in the game, but like with many of the concept cars in GT4, they don't list any specs for the car. 👎

I read somewhere on a Dutch site.

http://www.hln.be/hln/alg/pag/hln_i...rm=1&p_artid=633191&&wt.bron=hlnDossierTeaser

and a Belgian site

http://www.hln.be/hln/alg/pag/hln_i...rm=1&p_artid=633191&&wt.bron=hlnDossierTeaser

I hope everyone is intelligent enough to find the specs in these Dutch texts. Numbers are the same in Dutch and English.

Thanks, but I'm trying to get specs for the 2005 GT-R Proto model that's included in the GT5 demo.

Also, Nissan has already released official specs for the new GT-R model.

What I can't seem to find is similar info on the 2005 GT-R Proto.

 

[Omnis]

I wonder how the reliability is with that dual-clutch system.

 

[YSSMAN]

Hard to say really, as its still a pretty "new" technology. As far as I know, Volkswagen hasn't had much of a problem with their system, and now that Mitsubishi will have it ready for the Evolution, you've got to see some level of promist I suppose. The thing is, if it does break, it isn't going to be cheap... Honestly, thats part of the reason why I was surprised when GM said they were doing it too.

Change the fluids at the correct intervals and don't do a Launch Control start every time and my guess is that it should hold up pretty well.

 

[kikie]

Hard to say really, as its still a pretty "new" technology.

Actually, it's an "old" technology. I can't remember, was it Porsche or Audi that used that kind off technology in their race cars.

 

[forza2.0]

Actually, it's an "old" technology. I can't remember, was it Porsche or Audi that used that kind off technology in their race cars.

Porsche had the system first, and its sorta co developed with VAG.

 

[Freddie]

I skimmed through the last 80 posts and only saw arguing if the GT-R was a supercar or not, and did a search and couldn't find anything. So I hope this isn't a repost:

Nissan GT-R Super GT Racecar.


Looks awesome, even if it at first reminded me of the 350Z racer from the front - not that it really matters. There's no mistaking the rear-end for anything else than a GT-R.👍

 

[Joey D]

Yup it's a repost but probably got lost in the shuffle so it's a justified repost.

 

[a6m5]

I skimmed through the last 80 posts and only saw arguing if the GT-R was a supercar or not, and did a search and couldn't find anything. So I hope this isn't a repost:

Nissan GT-R Super GT Racecar.


Looks awesome, even if it at first reminded me of the 350Z racer from the front - not that it really matters. There's no mistaking the rear-end for anything else than a GT-R.👍

I must've missed it, too. All I can say is WOW. 👍

 

[SagarisGTB]

Damn, hell of a great looking race car. Though itll still get spanked by my beautiful NSXs.

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...

Im sure you would put the GT-R last, as its Japanese and not American, British or German. Not hard to pick up on this.

As for me, I would take the 911 S. Nothing to do with the badge either, its just the car, in this category, I wouldnt be able to turn it down. GT-R is second on my list. I cant stand the look of the R8, nor would i consider the M6 for similar but more in depth reasons(though id still take one over the R8). A viper is just a rubbish car, so no way. Last on my list is the corvette, as I would not want the image. No offence, but it would make me feel "american" and thats the last thing I want.

Sagaris is out of the question, the budget would need to be expanded as there is too much complication involved in trying to acquire one in my current situation. If I was living in Britain, or even Japan, then yes, but not as it is right now. Not as the only sports-car I would be buying.

 

[Jim Prower]

ooh....that's a Black Beauty.....Can't wait to see her as the #12.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

ooh....that's a Black Beauty.....Can't wait to see her as the #12.

Agreed! Something tells me this might be one of the "New Black Beauties" in GT5 similar to the hidden Black Beauties in GT4.

 

[YSSMAN]

Im sure you would put the GT-R last, as its Japanese and not American, British or German. Not hard to pick up on this.

Actually you may be surprised that it would be incorrect!

I'd likely choose the GT-R over the M6, and possibly even the Audi R8 (I'd need to drive one first). But as always, the Corvette sits on top, the Porsche 911 right behind, probably the Aston Vantage and then the Viper.

 

[Omnis]

You'd rather own a Corvette than an R8? Are you mad?

 

[forza2.0]

You'd rather own a Corvette than an R8? Are you mad?

Was thinking the same there. Many magazines and car journos say the R8 is better than 911's, and so far around the racetracks one thing is for certain in that it is the faster car!

 

[Joey D]

Different strokes guys, a Corvette in Michigan is what just about every male dreams about.

 

[Onikaze]

I'd rather have a Corvette Z06 than an R8, looks are very important to me though, and the Audi just doesn't do it for me.

A black Z06 though, that's gorgeous, and a raucous hellishly fast beast, sign me up!

 

[Omnis]

Different strokes guys, a Corvette in Michigan is what just about every male dreams about.

Indeed. I love the 'Vette, but I could not pass up an R8 for one.

 

[Lotrzyna]

http://stage6.divx.com/user/pikechan/video/1803192/nissan-GT-R

Some interesting episode, enjoy

 

[Tornado]

was yours? no it wasnt. mines was from an interview with the test driver at the motorshow which i would prefer to believe rather than leaked information which you have no way of verifying.

I posted a link to an Edmunds thing also taken at the car show. And quite technically, you have no way of verifying the interview for your guy either.

Im sure and looking at the video it was very damp/wet in a few places which would no doubt cause it to aquaplane if it was on full slicks.

Standing water causes hydroplaning. A damp track does not. There was no standing water in that lap.

why are you so deadset on drying to say im lieing and should believe that this car can do 7:38 "off the showroom floor".

It is 5 seconds faster than a 911 Turbo. On a track that is nearly 14 miles long. Those 5 seconds could have passed on any number of the very long straightaways that the 'Ring has simply because of the GT-Rs better coefficient of drag. We don't even know the downforce numbers in comparison to those on the 911 Turbo.

cant you see something might not add up about the time,as i said during testing the drivers are getting in the 7:50's,even as you say they could make mistakes,driven several thousand miles off the track would lead me to believe that the driver would know his way around the track pretty well and how the car can handle it.

And once again you are confusing "average lap time" (which is what the 7:50-ish laps are) with "best."

In fact if you watch the BMI videos(not the nurburgring ones but others) the Japanese cars always seem to be wearing slightly more stickier rubber than standard.

Something you 100% cannot prove from low resolution video taken at speed.

Rich coming from the guy who makes such a great emphasis on weight distribution, claiming thats one of the main reasons why the GTR is posting (misleading) porsche beating laptimes.

That is hilarious because it shows me that you pay no attention at all. At no point did I argue that the PWR of the GT-R is what makes it faster. In fact, only when I applied your incorrect reasoning that PWR does matter and showed you why it doesn't did I even bring it up.
Get your argument right: You say PWR is everything. I say it is very little in the grand scheme of things.

News flash being that some of the fastest cars in the world have a weight distribution that is all over the place.

Actually, no. Barring insane horsepower Porsche tuning cars, most of the fastest cars in the world have either slight rear or front bias. Close to 50:50 usually. Something the 911 Turbo isn't even close to.

I cant belive some of you guys actually believe that this car is faster than a pagani zonda F

The Zonda F? The Zonda that did a lap of 7:32, that is somehow actually < 7:38? What are you on about?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I posted a link to an Edmunds thing also taken at the car show. And quite technically, you have no way of verifying the interview for your guy either.

show me where he says that they used RE070A's for that lap.From what you posted it says that in the dry it would have been faster and closer to 7:30.All we have is an admittence that they used cut slicks for a damp lap and that it would have been faster in the dry.He did NOT say that they DID use RE070A's.

 

[ND4SPD]

I skimmed through the last 80 posts and only saw arguing if the GT-R was a supercar or not, and did a search and couldn't find anything. So I hope this isn't a repost:

Nissan GT-R Super GT Racecar.


Looks awesome, even if it at first reminded me of the 350Z racer from the front - not that it really matters. There's no mistaking the rear-end for anything else than a GT-R.👍

Dear god yes.

 

[Tornado]

So now Nissan is guilty until proven innocent? So, let us see:

show me where he says that they used RE070A's for that lap.

I don't have to, because he said that there were not slicks on the car. You don't have to say something flat out to get the meaning across because of how logic works.

All we have is an admittence that they used cut slicks for a damp lap and that it would have been faster in the dry.

Wrong. He said that 7:30 could have been capable on a completely dry track. With the street tires on it already. To go faster than 7:30 in the dry is when slicks would be needed. Which both means he didn't have slicks for the 7:38 lap and that it would have been faster with a completely dry track alone. Not that he had slicks for the 7:38 lap and it would have been faster dry.

He did NOT say that they DID use RE070A's.

At the same time he also did say that they didn't have cut slicks on the car.

Oh, and by the way:

because im talking about this car not that one? for all i and you know that could have been on full slicks rather than cuts and as you said more grip therefore faster and a few other things done to it,but again i cant prove that it did but again you cant prove that it didnt.

Full slicks and cut slicks are on in the same, if I remember correctly, so your argument still makes no sense.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

So now Nissan is guilty until proven innocent?

they are guilty of nothing they admitted to it and im still waiting for you to provide proof that they used RE070A's as i have provided proof that they admitted using cut slicks.Surely if they didnt you can prove me wrong cant you?

At the same time he also did say that they didn't have cut slicks on the car.

No he didnt

Wrong. He said that 7:30 could have been capable on a completely dry track. With the street tires on it already. To go faster than 7:30 in the dry is when slicks would be needed. Which both means he didn't have slicks for the 7:38 lap and that it would have been faster with a completely dry track alone. Not that he had slicks for the 7:38 lap and it would have been faster dry.

he didnt say there was street tyres already on it and he didnt say it was slicks.

Full slicks and cut slicks are on in the same, if I remember correctly, so your argument still makes no sense.

there is a fair difference because theres less of a contact patch,at knockhill its around 3-5 seconds a lap difference between full slicks and cut slicks on an evo 7


waiting for that proof that he says that they were using RE070's and not cut slicks

 

[Tornado]

they are guilty of nothing they admitted to it and im still waiting for you to provide proof that they used RE070A's as i have provided proof that they admitted using cut slicks.Surely if they didnt you can prove me wrong cant you?

I have proven you wrong multiple times. The problem comes about with this proof simply because you don't understand how logic works. Until you figure out that him saying that the car would have needed cut slicks to go faster is the same as him saying "it was not on cut slick," you may as well just go away.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I have proven you wrong multiple times. Your problem is simply because you don't understand how logic works. Until you figure out that him saying that the car would have needed cut slicks to go faster is the same as him saying "it was not on cut slick," you may as well just go away.

he said cut slicks on a DRY track,he didnt say anything about a damp track.

and its not as he did not say it wasnt on cut slicks:idea:

 

[Tornado]

He said two different things:

1. The track was not dry. He can get 7:30 if the track was completely dry with the tires already on the car for the partially wet 7:38 lap.
   
2. He also said that the car could get under 7:30 with cut slick tires. This was said in comparison to him claiming the car could get around 7:30 without slick tires if it was totally dry.

So, a crash course in logic:
Let Under 7:30 with slicks equal "A"
Let 7:30 without slicks equal "B"
Let the 7:38 time be "C"

"A" would require slicks. "B" does not. B = C in this case based on the statement, so the 7:38 time was without slicks just as the supposed 7:30 dry time would be.



He only brought up slicks to say that 7:30 could be done without them if the track was totally dry, but to go underneath 7:30 would require them. The way his whole statement is phrased tells you that the 7:38 time had the same tires as the proposed 7:30 time, which dictates that they are not slicks because he said the 7:30 time could be done without slicks.