2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Tornado]

Do you honestly believe that when independantly tested this car will do the 'ring in 8 mins 22 secs or anywhere near there?

Well, based on your own silly "compare things based on competitors PWR" logic, it is about as fast as it should be.

The 997 GT3 RS is faster around the ring than the 997 Turbo.....
The 996 GT3 has been out for years and over the years some people have managed to really get to know that car and hence post such a fast lap time round the 'ring that is just as fast as that of the 997 GT3. However im certain the 997 GT3 will soon beat that.

1. No, it is not. The 997 Turbo does a 7:40 lap time. The 997 GT3 is slower. The GT3 RS may be faster, but it hasn't shown yet. And if you seriously think the 996 GT3 is faster than the 997 GT3, let alone the 996 GT3 RS and GT3 Cup, you need to get something checked.

1.Older in what way as they both run the same generation chassis.

2. Not in europe its not. Sport auto regards such tires as the michelin cups as semi racing tires. Goodyear eagle f1's are pretty much regarded as the best high performance tire, anything much better than that is regarded as semi racing.

3. Another typo

1. The BMW M3 came out in 2001. The RS4 came out 4 years later. Therefore, one is older. Especially since the RS4 was Audi's second salvo at the BMW M3.

2. Hmm, Department of Transportation, or some magazine. Tough choice.

Go look at the 'ring list, oh and blowdog himself is proof, although hes unique as he got a spanking in his highly no expenses spared tuned R34 by a Rear engined rear wheel drive car, round the outside in the snow

Translation: I found it on a Subaru forum.

We dont know "full well" anything about this car until its independantly tested/slated.

Based on your logic and Holdenhsvgtrs' proof of former Skyline speeds, we can easily guess with a high degree of certainty that the car would be much faster than 7:30 with full slicks. Based on my logic, I'm sure it would be faster simply because Nissna would improve the car over its previous iterations.

Secretly porsche is ashamed of the 997 turbo. The marketing department won that battle when it came to the design briefing. They made up for it though with the GT2.

Ah, lets make up stuff without proof to cover our own asses now, yes?

And what about the Z06, lighter, more powerful, better center of gravity etc and yet beaten by some lardy GTR?

Ah, the Corvette Z06. The car that was only fast if you knew exactly how to drive it because of its hilarious foibles that you ignore, such as vaguely connected to the front wheels power steering, or difficult to understand the limits suspension. That is why cars with half the horsepower can beat it at track with more turns that straights. Something that really doesn't apply to the 'Ring.
​

Basically what im getting at is that for a porsche the 997 Turbo is not very good.

Actually, all the Audi R8 shows is that the 997 Turbo suffers from being a rear engined car when compared to mid engined cars. Which is something Ferraris', Lotuses, Hondas and the Porsche Cayman had already told us years ago.

Just to let you know the new M3 also does not manage to beat the 8 min barrier around the 'ring.

Which actually goes to great lengths to disprove your argument, because your PWR is everything logic should say it would be faster or as fast as the M3 CSL. But it isn't, because it is a lardy car with a comfort suspension compared to the M3 CSL.

Corvette C6 Z06 ------------------------------------------ 7.49 min
Lamborghini Murciélago -------------------------------- 7.50 min
BMW M3 CSL -------------------------------------------- 7.50 min
Ford GT -------------------------------------------------- 7.52 min
Lamborghini Gallardo ----------------------------------- 7.52 min
Mercedes SLR ------------------------------------------- 7.52 min
Porsche 997 Turbo ---------------------------- 7.54 min (semi-R-tires)
Mercedes CLK-DTM ------------------------------------- 7.54 min semi R tires
Ferrari F430 ------------------------------------------- 7.55 min
Ferrari 360 CS ------------------------------------------- 7.56 min
Aston Martin V8 Vantage --------------------------------- 8.03 min (R-tires)
Lamborghini Diablo GT --------------------------------- 8.04 min
Audi R8 -------------------------------------------------- 8.04 min semi racing tires
Porsche Carrera S (997) -------------------------------- 8.05 min semi racing tire
Ferrari 575M --------------------------------------------- 8.05 min
Ferrari 550M --------------------------------------------- 8.07 min
BMW M6 -------------------------------------------------- 8.09 min
Ferrari 360M --------------------------------------------- 8.09 min

Corvette C6 Z06 - A car with vague steering and arguably more power than the chassis/tires can handle. Also FR to a AWD car.
Lamborghini Murcielago - Another car in a long series of vehicles that are far slower on the track than anyone would think, because they aren't designed for the track. Clumsy inputs, very hard to turn at low speeds, very, very wide.
BMW M3 CSL - A car with comically lower torque, much lower BHP and not enough lower weight to make up for it. And a car that is still astonishingly fast for what it is. FR to AWD car.
Mercedes SLR McLaren - A gussied up grand touring boat that weighs even more than the GT-R, yet has less traction. And FR to a AWD car.
Porsche 997 Turbo - A speed you probably pulled out of your ass to support your statement that the 997 Turbo is a terrible car that is slower than the GT3 in every way. Also RAWD to FAWD.
Mercedes CLK-DTM - A similar story to the SLR McLaren. but with less power and weight.
Ferrari F430 - A car that beat a Honda NSX by 1 second.
Ferrari 360 CS - A car that tied a Honda NSX.
Aston Martin V8 Vantage - An Aston Martin, and thus automatically not a car you want to bring up when discussing lap times since the 1950s.
Lamborghini Diablo GT - See Murcielago but subtract power.
Audi R8 - A surprisingly slow lap time, especially for the claim of it having "semi racing tires." I wouldn't be surprised if it was capable of much faster times at the track.
Porsche 997 Carrera S - A rear engined car down by a hundred horsepower on a track that celebrates horsepower.
Ferrari 575M - A car based on a grand touring platform that was introduced in 1992.
Ferrari 550 Maranello - Same for this one.
BMW M6 - A gussied up touring car that has slightly more horsepower, way less torque and shockingly similar weight. That is also limited to 155 MPH and is only 2WD.
Ferrari 360 Modena - See 360 CS or F430.

Except there are some members around here that will tell you that you can not compare the Viper to the Vette .

Oh shut up. There is no particular reason to bring that up 2 weeks after the argument was settled, nor does it have to do much with the topic at hand. For someone so quick to wag the finger of disapproval, you go into some pretty ironic tirades when you think you have lost an argument.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Based on your logic and Holdenhsvgtrs' proof of former Skyline speeds, we can easily guess with a high degree of certainty that the car would be much faster than 7:30 with full slicks. Based on my logic, I'm sure it would be faster simply because Nissna would improve the car over its previous iterations.

sorry but point me in the direction in which i said it was on full slicks i think i missed that.

Corvette C6 Z06 - A car with vague steering and arguably more power than the chassis/tires can handle. Also FR to a AWD car.
Lamborghini Murcielago - Another car in a long series of vehicles that are far slower on the track than anyone would think, because they aren't designed for the track. Clumsy inputs, very hard to turn at low speeds, very, very wide.
BMW M3 CSL - A car with comically lower torque, much lower BHP and not enough lower weight to make up for it. And a car that is still astonishingly fast for what it is. FR to AWD car.
Mercedes SLR McLaren - A gussied up grand touring boat that weighs even more than the GT-R, yet has less traction. And FR to a AWD car.
Porsche 997 Turbo - A speed you probably pulled out of your ass to support your statement that the 997 Turbo is a terrible car that is slower than the GT3 in every way. Also RAWD to FAWD.
Mercedes CLK-DTM - A similar story to the SLR McLaren. but with less power and weight.
Ferrari F430 - A car that beat a Honda NSX by 1 second.
Ferrari 360 CS - A car that tied a Honda NSX.
Aston Martin V8 Vantage - An Aston Martin, and thus automatically not a car you want to bring up when discussing lap times since the 1950s.
Lamborghini Diablo GT - See Murcielago but subtract power.
Audi R8 - A surprisingly slow lap time, especially for the claim of it having "semi racing tires." I wouldn't be surprised if it was capable of much faster times at the track.
Porsche 997 Carrera S - A rear engined car down by a hundred horsepower on a track that celebrates horsepower.
Ferrari 575M - A car based on a grand touring platform that was introduced in 1992.
Ferrari 550 Maranello - Same for this one.
BMW M6 - A gussied up touring car that has slightly more horsepower, way less torque and shockingly similar weight. That is also limited to 155 MPH and is only 2WD.
Ferrari 360 Modena - See 360 CS or F430.

did i miss that thread in about you being in/driven all those cars on a track to know what your talking about?

 

[Keef]

Yeah, are you just making excuses for why these cars get the times they do?

 

[Joey D]

Oh shut up. There is no particular reason to bring that up 2 weeks after the argument was settled, nor does it have to do much with the topic at hand. For someone so quick to wag the finger of disapproval, you go into some pretty ironic tirades when you think you have lost an argument.

I was merely talking about car classifications in general and since many people jump on one another over that on these boards I thought it was a prime example. Nothing against you or anyone else, please do not jump to conclusions.

I would also like to ask you to please refrain from personal attacks as well since that is against that AUP. It's just a car, this is just the internet, and we are just giving our opinions on it.

 

[Sage]

I have no idea what the arguing is about, but deep breaths everybody… calm thoughts… flowers and butterflies…

Spirited debate is fine, but there’s no sense in flinging mud over lap times.

 

[Tornado]

sorry but point me in the direction in which i said it was on full slicks i think i missed that.

You were not the one who said it.

did i miss that thread in about you being in/driven all those cars on a track to know what your talking about?

I merely stated the commonly known foibles about some of the cars the forza2.0 listed as being so obviously faster than the GT-R before he even knows how it drives. I can find articles that express nearly all of those sentiments from people who have driven them if need be, with only a couple being personal opinions.


To Joey D: I am sorry.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I merely stated the commonly known facts about some of the cars the forza2.0 listed as being so obviously faster than the GT-R. I can find articles that express nearly all of those sentiments from people who have driven them if need be, with only a couple being personal opinions.

it isnt commonly known facts though,youve never driven them or even been in most of them.You also said in several listings or at least made it appear that FAWD is the better than FR,RAWD or 2wd when its just not the case.I might not follow much motorsport apart from touring cars but if AWD is so amazingly great why doesnt series such as F1(argubly the top level of motorsport) use it,same with drag racing,lemans and most touring and GT race series,In fact with some series most company convert them to 2WD from 4/AWD.

shame you didnt say sorry to me with your personal attacks....

 

[Tornado]

it isnt commonly known facts though,youve never driven them or even been in most of them.

You want the articles, then? If we were to base our opinions on merely what we personally knew from firsthand experience, then none of us would have any business in this topic whatsoever.

You also said in several listings or at least made it appear that FAWD is the better than FR,RAWD or 2wd when its just not the case.

Lets see:
RAWD has understeer from being AWD enhanced by understeer from being rear engined.
AWD obviously has better traction than RWD.
RR is just odd.
However, if you can find where I said that AWD is better than any of those other options all the time, be my guest. I certainly never even implied it.

I might not follow much motorsport apart from touring cars but if AWD is so amazingly great why doesnt series such as F1(argubly the top level of motorsport) use it,same with drag racing,lemans and most touring and GT race series,In fact with some series most company convert them to 2WD from 4/AWD.

Well, it is banned from most series because of how amazingly great it is. In fact, I'm pretty sure it is banned from most major racing series either directly or indirectly (and they do use it in drag racing). The only major racing series that it isn't banned from that I can think of off the top of my head is WRC and SCCA rallying. Which is obvious.
Besides, racing cars generally want reliability above anything else, and AWD is inherently more complex than 2WD and thus more prone to failure. With the amount of traction most race cars have, the extra amount afforded by AWD would probably be disadvantaged against the amount of rules levied against it to keep everything competitive.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Lets see:
RAWD has understeer from being AWD enhanced by understeer from being rear engined.

no it doesnt it tends more to want to oversteer from the weight swinging around at the rear as there is very little at the front

AWD obviously has better traction than RWD.

only in a small amount of cases,if that was true then how can a Z06 and viper have roughly the same 0-62mph time as a 997Turbo?

RR is just odd.

not really,i thought RR would be rubbish but after having been several porsches on the limit you would be amazed at the mount of grip and traction there is having an engine over the rear wheels.

 

[Tornado]

no it doesnt it tends more to want to oversteer from the weight swinging around at the rear as there is very little at the front

On lift throttle. When accelerating, RAWD is a lot less neutral than a good FAWD or MAWD set up, as the Audi R8 shows. You need to get off the gas to get a RAWD (that is fun to say) to turn well most of the time.

only in a small amount of cases,if that was true then how can a Z06 and viper have roughly the same 0-62mph time as a 997Turbo?

Because they both make it to 60 in first gear. It is also insanely easier to light up the rear tires like a Christmas tree with the Corvette and Viper (despite the fact that the rear tires on the Corvette and Viper are much wider than those on the Porsche), and it is comparatively easy to pull fast 100 km/h times with the Porsche.

not really,i thought RR would be rubbish but after having been several porsches on the limit you would be amazed at the mount of grip and traction there is having an engine over the rear wheels.

I understand that, but you need absurd talent to bring it out without killing yourself, and there are situations where RR is far less than ideal (such as when you need to brake in a turn).

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

On lift throttle. When accelerating, RAWD is a lot less neutral than a good FAWD or MAWD set up, as the Audi R8 shows. You need to get off the gas to get a RAWD (that is fun to say) to turn well most of the time.

you would have to lift off the gas for any car to turn in or you will just power understeer.

Because they both make it to 60 in first gear. It is also insanely easier to light up the rear tires like a Christmas tree with the Corvette and Viper (despite the fact that the rear tires on the Corvette and Viper are much wider than those on the Porsche), and it is comparatively easy to pull fast 100 km/h times with the Porsche.

not entirely true with the Z06( i have a friend that owns a C6 Z06) and ive seen it in doing a fair amount of 0-60 runs and due 1st being such a long gear its very easy to get a decent launch but 60mph is right on the rev limiter so it depends on how much you want the limiter to hate you.would be interested to see how many standing starts the GTR can do before the clutch goes though.

I understand that, but you need absurd talent to bring it out without killing yourself, and there are situations where RR is far less than ideal (such as when you need to brake in a turn).

no you dont most people just dont know what the pedal in the middle does and think they are jim richards(btw you brake before a turn )

 

[Tornado]

you would have to lift off the gas for any car to turn in or you will just power understeer.

I understand that (but it is not necessarily true). But for RAWD cars (and RR cars) it is much more prevalent to need to lift off the throttle to get it to turn at all because of the weight transfer/

would be interested to see how many standing starts the GTR can do before the clutch goes though.

I've always wondered that for every performance car, honestly. Especially ones with launch control systems.

(btw you brake before a turn )

And not every turn is designed in a way that allows that. I can think of quite a few at the 'Ring alone that are like that.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I've always wondered that for every performance car, honestly. Especially ones with launch control systems.

from the videos ive seen of the GT-R ive yet to see it do a full bore standing start,they always get to rolling before flooring it(which can be true for an AWD car) maybe its to save the clutch or maybe nissan arent too keen on it holding up themselfs after a couple of launchs.

And not every turn is designed in a way that allows that. I can think of quite a few at the 'Ring alone that are like that.

but in the subject matter(an RR) you will wanna brake before the corner or youll end up driving an FF.

 

[Perfect Balance]

So what is the point everyone is trying to reach here? I wanna join in the debate.

 

[Tornado]

from the videos ive seen of the GT-R ive yet to see it do a full bore standing start,they always get to rolling before flooring it(which can be true for an AWD car) maybe its to save the clutch or maybe nissan arent too keen on it holding up themselfs after a couple of launchs.

Well, they do still only have a few prototypes. Maybe they don't want to have to replace the tranny in one until they have more cars to test. Then again, you may be right. I have heard some funny stories about Evo's suddenly lunching trannys because of overzealous starts. Of course, some Porsches are known for doing much the same thing after a while, so who knows?

but in the subject matter(an RR) you will wanna brake before the corner or youll end up driving an FF.

Or you will end up with the engine sitting next to you when you put the rear end into the wall, but I get your point. I'm just saying that isn't always possible.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

So since "the 'Ring list" keeps popping up, I am assuming we're all using this as a rough guide (obviously avoiding the shady entries or incompletes):

http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=3&fID=0&tID=10073

I noticed he only considers the Sport Auto times, but I wouldn't argue against Jan Magnusen (Z06) or Röhrl (CGT). What is so hard to believe that the GT-R could be nailing times in the low 7'40's in a state of tune you could get when it goes on sale? The argument it's underpowered is flawed; an SLR can't use it's 150hp advantage until it's hooked up, and it still has to deal with only two wheels having the power responsibility. Besides, that power advantage would only make itself known in high-speed sections, and the Merc's worse aerodynamics would have an affect on that. The fact the GT-R is being optimised at the track has a lot to do with getting a lower lap time; I'm sure if you took any car there and made changes that don't affect the PWR, you could see huge chunks of time lopped off. So why do some think this admittedly hefty car is just going to be a slow tank?

 

[Tornado]

I've never seen that list in my life. It does raise some rather hilarious questions towards the credibility of some of the arguments, though.

 

[niky]

This is ridiculous. If Ferrari claimed they have run 7'40 in a car that weighs 1700+ kg and has around 500 bhp, would anyone doubt it? No, because everyone knows Ferraris are fast. The same applies to Aston Martins. But because this is a Nissan, it must perform like the stereotypical driven to death Micra or it's a lie.

I think this, and this:

what about the car being a prototype and not a production car

Sums up the answer to the past seven pages... can we get off this damn topic, already?!?

and iirc lotus did the aeros so nissan cant claim that credit

And Porsche can't claim credit for the flat-engines, since they basically stole them from VW... and the Ferrari 599's suspension is cheating because GM basically did all the work for them... and don't get me started on the Zonda and the McLaren F1...

Whoever supplies the components, the company that puts all the parts together owns the car, from concept to production, which means credit should go to them, anyway.

The old GT-R is overhyped, yes, but it doesn't deserve a lot of the flak thrown at it, either. The whole point of the old GT-R was that Nissan took what was basically a vanilla, mid-sized taxi-cab and turned it into a fire-breathing sportscar that you could mention in the same sentence as Porsche.

And the reason it gets so much flak is that a lot of people have issue with that... Oh, come on, yes, the Porsche 911 is a sharper car... RWD and great weight balance see to that... but the GT-R is a good car in its own right, and the AWD system gives it a couple of tricks that not many cars of its time had, and that only later Mitsubishi Evolutions would mimic.

-----

But you can't say "if R34 GT-R = Y, then new GT-R = Y, too."

It'd be like saying "if original 911 = X, then new 911 = X."

There's a lot of progress between models, and there's bound to be a lot of progress (and regress... maybe an additional 100kgs of airbags? ) between this car and the production units.

Which means... let's wait for tests of production versions!

what about the car being a prototype and not a production car

That sums up our entire problem. We're arguing about a time set by a prototype. Let's just drop this topic until we get lap times from other sources?

Yeah, as if...

 

[forza2.0]

Well, based on your own silly "compare things based on competitors PWR" logic, it is about as fast as it should be.


1. No, it is not. The 997 Turbo does a 7:40 lap time. The 997 GT3 is slower. The GT3 RS may be faster, but it hasn't shown yet. And if you seriously think the 996 GT3 is faster than the 997 GT3, let alone the 996 GT3 RS and GT3 Cup, you need to get something checked.


1. The BMW M3 came out in 2001. The RS4 came out 4 years later. Therefore, one is older. Especially since the RS4 was Audi's second salvo at the BMW M3.

2. Hmm, Department of Transportation, or some magazine. Tough choice.


Translation: I found it on a Subaru forum.


Based on your logic and Holdenhsvgtrs' proof of former Skyline speeds, we can easily guess with a high degree of certainty that the car would be much faster than 7:30 with full slicks. Based on my logic, I'm sure it would be faster simply because Nissna would improve the car over its previous iterations.


Ah, lets make up stuff without proof to cover our own asses now, yes?

Ah, the Corvette Z06. The car that was only fast if you knew exactly how to drive it because of its hilarious foibles that you ignore, such as vaguely connected to the front wheels power steering, or difficult to understand the limits suspension. That is why cars with half the horsepower can beat it at track with more turns that straights. Something that really doesn't apply to the 'Ring.
​

Actually, all the Audi R8 shows is that the 997 Turbo suffers from being a rear engined car when compared to mid engined cars. Which is something Ferraris', Lotuses, Hondas and the Porsche Cayman had already told us years ago.


Which actually goes to great lengths to disprove your argument, because your PWR is everything logic should say it would be faster or as fast as the M3 CSL. But it isn't, because it is a lardy car with a comfort suspension compared to the M3 CSL.


Corvette C6 Z06 - A car with vague steering and arguably more power than the chassis/tires can handle. Also FR to a AWD car.
Lamborghini Murcielago - Another car in a long series of vehicles that are far slower on the track than anyone would think, because they aren't designed for the track. Clumsy inputs, very hard to turn at low speeds, very, very wide.
BMW M3 CSL - A car with comically lower torque, much lower BHP and not enough lower weight to make up for it. And a car that is still astonishingly fast for what it is. FR to AWD car.
Mercedes SLR McLaren - A gussied up grand touring boat that weighs even more than the GT-R, yet has less traction. And FR to a AWD car.
Porsche 997 Turbo - A speed you probably pulled out of your ass to support your statement that the 997 Turbo is a terrible car that is slower than the GT3 in every way. Also RAWD to FAWD.
Mercedes CLK-DTM - A similar story to the SLR McLaren. but with less power and weight.
Ferrari F430 - A car that beat a Honda NSX by 1 second.
Ferrari 360 CS - A car that tied a Honda NSX.
Aston Martin V8 Vantage - An Aston Martin, and thus automatically not a car you want to bring up when discussing lap times since the 1950s.
Lamborghini Diablo GT - See Murcielago but subtract power.
Audi R8 - A surprisingly slow lap time, especially for the claim of it having "semi racing tires." I wouldn't be surprised if it was capable of much faster times at the track.
Porsche 997 Carrera S - A rear engined car down by a hundred horsepower on a track that celebrates horsepower.
Ferrari 575M - A car based on a grand touring platform that was introduced in 1992.
Ferrari 550 Maranello - Same for this one.
BMW M6 - A gussied up touring car that has slightly more horsepower, way less torque and shockingly similar weight. That is also limited to 155 MPH and is only 2WD.
Ferrari 360 Modena - See 360 CS or F430.


Oh shut up. There is no particular reason to bring that up 2 weeks after the argument was settled, nor does it have to do much with the topic at hand. For someone so quick to wag the finger of disapproval, you go into some pretty ironic tirades when you think you have lost an argument.

That list of track times is the official sport auto ones. So yes the 997T is not as fast you for some reason would like to think.

 

[Keef]

2. Not in europe its not. Sport auto regards such tires as the michelin cups as semi racing tires. Goodyear eagle f1's are pretty much regarded as the best high performance tire, anything much better than that is regarded as semi racing.

I just had to complain. First of all, this isn't Gran Turismo, and I have no idea what "semi racing tires". I assume they're massive and multi-ply in order to carry all of that weight...

Also, Goodyear makes 41 different types of Eagle F1 tires. They make so many that they've fooled other makers into thinking all tires should be called Eagle F1, so they now call their tires Eagle F1s too.

 

[forza2.0]

I just had to complain. First of all, this isn't Gran Turismo, and I have no idea what "semi racing tires". I assume they're massive and multi-ply in order to carry all of that weight...

Also, Goodyear makes 41 different types of Eagle F1 tires. They make so many that they've fooled other makers into thinking all tires should be called Eagle F1, so they now call their tires Eagle F1s too.

Fine Eagle F1 GSD3's then, although goodyear have made a new top dog tire called the goodyear assymetricals. Apparently they are much better than the GSD3's

 

[JohnBM01]

I never was really a Nissan guy. Not as excited about Nissan as I usually am with Toyotas. This car is about as "for real" as Nissan fans can get. The GT-R and Skyline models have been the ultimate offerings to Nissan fans for 50-something years. I'll be going on the pictures from this link in my discussion: < http://jalopnik.com/cars/tokyo-auto-show/tokyo-motor-show-nissan-gt+r-revealed-314347.php >.

My initial criticisms of the car related to how the roofline and doors are designed. I do wish the black portion around the grill would all be one color rather than looking like a vertically-elongated grill similar to recent Audis. The sort of front grill reminds me a bit of either the R32 or R33 Skylines. I must say that I've been used to the R34 Skyline and its design. I'm more used to that boxy, yet muscular, R34 Skyline. Some of the design lines are a little off for my taste, but it's otherwise a potent sports car. Say what you want about the GT-R. I think this is an amazing car. I'm perhaps hopeful this car will be an amazing car that [could] silence the I-hate-Japanese-car crowd. Or at least those who think Japan can't build decent or high-quality sports cars. I really value the bold lines. I have almost no complaints about the rear of the GT-R. Car looks wonderful from the rear.

It's a killer car and surely one to let GT-R fans love life. Despite my criticisms about its design, it does look amazing. It's the ultimate offering from Nissan right now. I wonder if their rivals at Toyota have an answer for this bad boy...

 

[CodeRedR51]

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/14/la-2007-nissan-gt-r-newest-performance-bargain-at-69-850/

Starting at $69,850 or slightly more for the premium package, this 7:38 Ring lapper represents a true performance bargain. In fact, with its twin-turbo 3.8L V6 churning out a healthy 480 HP and 430 ft-lbs of torque...

 

[Joey D]

I personally wouldn't pay 70 grand for a Nissan but at least they priced it correctly to take on other sports cars. The Z06 starts at $71,000 and I personally would like that over one of these but like I said Nissan priced the car correctly.

 

[YSSMAN]

Nissan surprisingly did price it correctly, and thats a very good move on their behalf. I'm certain that the weak dollar helped that a fair bit...

Better than the Z06? We'll wait and see on that one, they still cost nearly the same. But even then, low price or not, people who want a Porsche are going to get the Porsche, nothing is going to take away the prestige on that "grown-up Beetle."

 

[Perfect Balance]

I personally wouldn't pay 70 grand for a Nissan but at least they priced it correctly to take on other sports cars. The Z06 starts at $71,000 and I personally would like that over one of these but like I said Nissan priced the car correctly.

I still never quite understood what you meant by "a Nissan"

So you'd jump all over it if it wore a Mini badge?

It seems you judge the car by who manufactured it. Great thinking.👍[/sarcasm]

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, its a pretty common issue. People have problems with sticker shock with every brand. People would have complained over the NSX as a Honda, people complained over the Passat W8 and Phaeton, not to mention all those folks with the Cadillac XLR-V.

Its going to happen. People who know what it is and want one will pay the price, others won't.

Considering that its only a bit shy of the Corvette, I'd rather support the boys down in Bowling Green. That, and I'd prefer to go without all the computer crap as well. May as well build a Superperformance Brock Coupe...

 

[Joey D]

I do not care for Nissan's and I personally couldn't justify paying $70,000 for one. It's got nothing to do with whether it's a good car or not just so you know. I can't argue that it's fast around a track, even if the Ring times are off they are still going to be somewhat close.

And I wouldn't buy a $70,000 Mini either, they aren't worth that, hell $40,000 is pushing it with them (yes there are $40,000+ Coopers out there).

People judge cars based on manufacturers all the time. Example being if it's from GM it's instantly crap. I just don't see Nissan as a great automotive company and I was in the market for a $70,000 I wouldn't be looking at one. It's just a personal opinion.

 

[Perfect Balance]

I do not care for Nissan's and I personally couldn't justify paying $70,000 for one. It's got nothing to do with whether it's a good car or not just so you know. I can't argue that it's fast around a track, even if the Ring times are off they are still going to be somewhat close.

And I wouldn't buy a $70,000 Mini either, they aren't worth that, hell $40,000 is pushing it with them (yes there are $40,000+ Coopers out there).

People judge cars based on manufacturers all the time. Example being if it's from GM it's instantly crap. I just don't see Nissan as a great automotive company and I was in the market for a $70,000 I wouldn't be looking at one. It's just a personal opinion.

I'm not talking about the price here. I wouldn't pay 70K for any type of car.

I'm just saying that just because you don't care for Nissan, you automatically dismiss the GTR. It's the badge that is the deciding factor in this case.

That's why I said if it had a Mini badge it would automatically cool? (I say Mini because that's the only Manufacturer I know for sure you like.)

And I know people judge cars on Manufacturer all the time, but don't you see it as a bit lame and ignorant? I've seen people judge cars on color, but you know a bit about cars to make a more educated opinion.

EDIT: You are knowingly making an assumption about a car based on something that doesn't effect it. Where is the logic, the common sense?

 

[Joey D]

It's not just the badge though, it's the car as well, I think it's a bit ugly...ok really ugly and it's just not my type of car. I, like everyone else here, can not comment on how it drives or feels inside since we haven't drive it.

And no having a Mini badge doesn't make it cool, I do not really care for the drop top Minis or even the new Clubman. A badge doesn't make a car cool, but I think it can seriously hurt a car's chance of being cool. Seriously how many of us would assuming something stunning from Daewoo?

I don't think it's ignorant, we all have our favourite manufacturers and our not so favourite ones. I personally do not care for Nissans for one reason or another but I do not say they aren't good cars. I don't like their styling or what they have to offer.