2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Greycap]

It also goes back to nissan credibility,in the past independent testers have got closer to manufacturers lap times (chevy,porsche,ferrari etc) yet with nissan noone can get closer to the "claimed" times?

Let me bring up one point that somehow miraculously went unattended the last time I posted it.

Let's put the Carrera GT with its trackday tyres on a cold wet track and see if it can do it.

The 7'28 of the Carrera GT was driven in the spring of 2004, in the 07/04 issue of AutoBild. By the company test driver. Does being German make it that much more legit than the Nissan's time driven by a company test driver?

Speaking of AutoBild a bit more, if there will ever be a GT-R vs. any German car test in it, the GT-R has no chance. Nothing has any chance against German cars. Even if they have to admit that the German car lost a comparison because it was significantly inferior, they bash some minor point in the winner and speak highly about the one that lost. Draw a conclusion about the creditability of that magazine then.

Oh, and one more thing. I just found the scenario I wanted, from the same list.

7:40* -- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)

Whoops. Pretty far behind of the manufacturer's time, don't you think? If the Carrera GT lost twelve seconds because of the cold and partially wet track, why is it impossible that the GT-R lost those seconds too? Because it is a Nissan?

Funny that because my predictions are correct. Going by the GTR's power to weight ratio I managed to predict exactly the time I thought it would do with one of the best ring drivers on the planet.

Funny indeed, you were completely sure that the car would struggle to run 7'50 on semi racing tyres. It turned out that it ran 7'50 on road tyres. You call that correct? Feel free to, the rest of us don't.

GTR boys are now grappling for excuses everywhere. There is much more evidence lined against nissan showing that they have yet again been misleading than their is proof that the car can actually do a 7 min 38.

And the anti GT-R boys are doing their best to shoot down every single thing that might indicate the Nissan to be able to do that. I just wonder what you're going to do if someone indeed drives that 7'38. Probably claim that the driver took a shortcut up the Steilstrecke while the camera man poured himself more coffee. Because it just isn't possible that a Nissan could be that fast.

 

[forza2.0]

Let me bring up one point that somehow miraculously went unattended the last time I posted it.

The 7'28 of the Carrera GT was driven in the spring of 2004, in the 07/04 issue of AutoBild. By the company test driver. Does being German make it that much more legit than the Nissan's time driven by a company test driver?

Speaking of AutoBild a bit more, if there will ever be a GT-R vs. any German car test in it, the GT-R has no chance. Nothing has any chance against German cars. Even if they have to admit that the German car lost a comparison because it was significantly inferior, they bash some minor point in the winner and speak highly about the one that lost. Draw a conclusion about the creditability of that magazine then.

Oh, and one more thing. I just found the scenario I wanted, from the same list.

Whoops. Pretty far behind of the manufacturer's time, don't you think? If the Carrera GT lost twelve seconds because of the cold and partially wet track, why is it impossible that the GT-R lost those seconds too? Because it is a Nissan?

You finns are funny.

Lets be truthfully. Germans make german cars the best, and the japanese make japanese cars the best. Different aims different results.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Oh, and one more thing. I just found the scenario I wanted, from the same list.

Whoops. Pretty far behind of the manufacturer's time, don't you think? If the Carrera GT lost twelve seconds because of the cold and partially wet track, why is it impossible that the GT-R lost those seconds too? Because it is a Nissan?

not in similar conditions though....this was.

7:28* -- 166.652 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, * company test driver Walther Roehrl (Autobild 07/04)
7:32.44 163.911 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, definitive time Horst von Saurma (sport auto 01/04)

 

[forza2.0]

Funny indeed, you were completely sure that the car would struggle to run 7'50 on semi racing tyres. It turned out that it ran 7'50 on road tyres. You call that correct? Feel free to, the rest of us don't.

lol I love how you keep bringin up the tyre classification as its irrelevant. I also thought that the cars that did the lap faster than the GTR were on semi racing tires but I was wrong about that so it doesnt matter. How does it feel that a 400hp NA 911 goes around the 'ring faster than your beloved GTR, and only 8 secs faster than a NA 420hp audi RS4

I just wonder what you're going to do if someone indeed drives that 7'38.

The whole issue is about nissan lying. Will I have a cry because the car can actually do it in that time (it cant)... errrrrr no. I couldnt care less. I have just said from day one that its pretty much impossible for nissan to get a porky 480hp car around the 'ring in the time they claim, especially considering their past record of lying.

 

[Greycap]

not in similar conditions though....this was.

Now I really missed something, I showed you a lap (7'40) of the Carrera GT driven in cold and wet conditions that was 12 seconds slower than the record time of that car (7'28). The point was to ask, why couldn't the GT-R shave 12 seconds off its time too on a warm and dry track?

lol I love how you keep bringin up the tyre classification as its irrelevant. I also thought that the cars that did the lap faster than the GTR were on semi racing tires but I was wrong about that so it doesnt matter. How does it feel that a 400hp NA 911 goes around the 'ring faster than your beloved GTR, and only 8 secs faster than a NA 420hp audi RS4

Irrelevant? Irrelevant? You call it irrelevant that you underestimated the car pretty seriously? Well, of course. It wouldn't be so irrelevant if I had said that it can do 7'50 on road tyres and it would have needed semi racing tyres to do it, though. And believe me, there were cars on real semi racing tyres in front of the GT-R.

It's not about the speed of the other cars. There are damn good cars out there. It's about that you were so sure that the car would struggle to run 7'50 even on semi racing tyres when it was able to do that on the road ones in unfavourable conditions. With the semi racings it would take at least ten seconds off that time. And even more on a dry track. The GT-R is seriously fast.

"My beloved GT-R" isn't quite the truth. I want to drive a Volvo wagon myself. But I don't want to see a good car being dragged down by people who want it to fail just because it's made by the wrong manufacturer.

The whole issue is about nissan lying. Will I have a cry because the car can actually do it in that time (it cant)... errrrrr no. I couldnt care less. I have just said from day one that its pretty much impossible for nissan to get a porky 480hp car around the 'ring in the time they claim, especially considering their past record of lying.

Is it really about that? Consider everything I've written and you'll see the GT-R may be able to do it. I won't say it is able because it's not certain, but it may be able. It's definitely not completely impossible.

 

[Jim Prower]

What exactly makes it more practical than a 911 Turbo? Because of all the computers it's going to be running?

1: Better weight balance in inclement weather
2: More cargo space
3: Yeah, the computers might have something to do with it...better AWD for inclement weather.
4: Lower price, and the fact that there's more Nissan dealers locally than Porsche.

And I like the fact that the U.S. FINALLY gets a GT-R for real. I mean, this talk of this stupid 7:38...you know what, the Nurb's a big track, time can be lost or gained anywhere. Besides, how does anyone know that the time wasn't done with a test mule? or, maybe, Yuji Ide or one of Nissan's SuperGT boys was driving. I dont' know. Perhaps they are lying, or perhaps they're telling the truth. I don't care.

If 7:50 is competitive with the target cars, why should anyone complain? Nissan hit their target, did it for Corvette prices, and did it their way, with a technoligical tour de force, engine in the front and drive to all four wheels, why should it matter? What about Porsche's variable vane turbos? Double VANOS or whatever they use? The computers may stay at the factory, but Porsches are not low-tech.

I think that many people have their knickers in a bunch over the fact that precious Porsche is involved. It may not be faster than the Turbo on the 'Ring. It's competitive with the Turbo on the 'Ring. and it's a midsize coupe. I'd prefer it over the Turbo because I'd rather drive it daily, and not look like I have north of $100,000 to spend. Actually, it's that much more realistic for me, which is why I'm so excited over it's relative affordability.

On Image: I see a GT3, I know the guy's serious about performance. the Turbo's a snob's car, and has been since it lost it's edge as the top-performing 911 model. (993 Turbo S, the last great Turbo.) The GT-R is like that indie band that hasnt' been discovered yet. It's not got the Euro Badge Snob factor, either, nor the commonality problem of the Budget Bruiser Corvette. In a few years, when/if I have a good job, and the first of the '09s are hovering in the $30,000 range, I may go ahead and get one.

So perhaps I'm a fanboy, okay? It's a great car! Why shouldn't I be a fan?

 

[forza2.0]

Now I really missed something, I showed you a lap (7'40) of the Carrera GT driven in cold and wet conditions that was 12 seconds slower than the record time of that car (7'28). The point was to ask, why couldn't the GT-R shave 12 seconds off its time too on a warm and dry track?

So you are saying that the 7 min 50 lap that horst did was in the winter and the 7 min 38 lap in the summer? Where is the evidence?

Irrelevant? Irrelevant? You call it irrelevant that you underestimated the car pretty seriously? Well, of course. It wouldn't be so irrelevant if I had said that it can do 7'50 on road tyres and it would have needed semi racing tyres to do it, though. And believe me, there were cars on real semi racing tyres in front of the GT-R.

Why canty you understand what im saying. Its so simply. I thought that tires such as bridgestones RE070's were semi racing tires because sportauto calls them so. I have gone throught this so often now what is so hard to understand????? Please tell me I have explained so often now and you still dont get it.

It's not about the speed of the other cars. There are damn good cars out there. It's about that you were so sure that the car would struggle to run 7'50 even on semi racing tyres when it was able to do that on the road ones in unfavourable conditions. With the semi racings it would take at least ten seconds off that time. And even more on a dry track. The GT-R is seriously fast.

You and this bloody tire thing. Well if the GTR will go 10 secs faster with semi racing then all the cars I said were faster than the GTR will also be faster by 10 secs if you put semi racing tires on them. OK

"My beloved GT-R" isn't quite the truth. I want to drive a Volvo wagon myself. But I don't want to see a good car being dragged down by people who want it to fail just because it's made by the wrong manufacturer.

Saying that to a guy who drives a SEAT. Im hardly a badge snob like you try to make me out to be. I just doubted nissans word and it turns out I was correct. Hell I dream about evo's and STI's and im gonna buy one of those Japanese twins. Guy down my road has a R34 and I love it. Dont try to make me out to be a badge snob. I could not care less.

'09s are hovering in the $30,000 range

By the time the GTR can be bought for 30 grand second hand the car in question will be about 5 years old lol. If you want a car as fast as the GTR just buy a Evo 9 and get it up to 400hp with a remap and sports exhaust.

1: Better weight balance in inclement weather
3: Yeah, the computers might have something to do with it...better AWD for inclement weather.

Porsche beat audi's when it comes to racing about in the snow....

 

[Greycap]

So you are saying that the 7 min 50 lap that horst did was in the winter and the 7 min 38 lap in the summer? Where is the evidence?

Did I say the 7'38 was run at summertime? No. I said that the GT-R might be able to shave 12 seconds off its partially wet November time when driven on a dry track at summer. No real evidence as the summer is yet to come but the Carrera GT times above are good pointers.

Why canty you understand what im saying. Its so simply. I thought that tires such as bridgestones RE070's were semi racing tires because sportauto calls them so. I have gone throught this so often now what is so hard to understand????? Please tell me I have explained so often now and you still dont get it.

What I tell you is that your tyre classification has a fault, no matter how many times you explain it. It would also make the Porsches' Pilot Sport Cups, for example, road tyres while they are not. I understand what you mean, but you should also understand that there are cars with real semi racing tyres on the list already.

You and this bloody tire thing. Well if the GTR will go 10 secs faster with semi racing then all the cars I said were faster than the GTR will also be faster by 10 secs if you put semi racing tires on them. OK

Completely OK, with the exception of the ones that already have those tyres fitted. In other words, the GT-R would beat quite a bunch of the 911 GT3 times. All but one, actually, and that's a manufacturer's time.

I just doubted nissans word and it turns out I was correct.

The only thing you've been correct at yet is saying that the GT-R can't match cars with significantly higher class tyres and lap times driven in superior conditions. But yes, you've been correct at something. The completely fair comparison hasn't been done yet. And it's still breathing on the neck of the Porsches.

 

[YSSMAN]

If 7:50 is competitive with the target cars, why should anyone complain? Nissan hit their target, did it for Corvette prices, and did it their way, with a technoligical tour de force, engine in the front and drive to all four wheels, why should it matter? What about Porsche's variable vane turbos? Double VANOS or whatever they use? The computers may stay at the factory, but Porsches are not low-tech.

I'm very happy that Nissan was able to do what they wanted to do for the right price, but my biggest issue is all this secrecy over how they did it, and furthermore, why people are so pissed on both sides for who/how/when things were done. I'm a Corvette guy, I'll say it straight-up (like ya'all didn't know?), but I'd like to know how things were done simply so I can have confirmation that the times are true. Simply put, anything near 7'30 for a road-legal, non-track-oriented car (or truck) is amazing, but when there is so much evidence completely against the stance Nissan has took on the issue, I think we deserve to know how things were done.

This is why I want a truly independent car magazine to go to the track and run it. Preferably something that isn't German or isn't Japanese and would show far-less bias in the drive and report by days end. Hand the keys to The Stig, then hand the keys to Clarkson. My guess is that they'd be fair in the end...

I think that many people have their knickers in a bunch over the fact that precious Porsche is involved. It may not be faster than the Turbo on the 'Ring. It's competitive with the Turbo on the 'Ring.

It depends I suppose, I'll admit that Porsche takes second in my heart when it comes to sports cars (all praise the 911!), but that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy seeing them get beat-up once in a while either. If anything, Porsche is much like BMW where they must set the standard when it comes to everything... Be it quality, looks, ease of use, performance, etc. Everyone strives for that mark, and when someone actually beats it, well you can bet your ass that the world pays attention and wants proof.

On Image: I see a GT3, I know the guy's serious about performance. the Turbo's a snob's car, and has been since it lost it's edge as the top-performing 911 model.

Its a decent way of describing it, but at the same time, it doesn't mean anything less to have a 911 Turbo. My guess is that the guy in the GT3 would have taken then Turbo too if he could, then again, that may depend on his age. I believe Clarkson referred to GT3 drivers as "Cocks," and while I do agree to some extent, the same can be said (generally) of any car costing more than $40K that wears a premium badge.

If anything, the 997T demands respect, no matter who is driving it. Unless its Doug, with the Tiptronic transmission, then we make fun of him...

The GT-R is like that indie band that hasnt' been discovered yet. It's not got the Euro Badge Snob factor, either, nor the commonality problem of the Budget Bruiser Corvette.

I understand what you mean, but at the same time, I honestly don't think that it puts the GT-R into this "humble" league of automobiles that are just fast because they can be. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the drivers who will have GT-Rs will be snobs in much the same way Porsche drivers will be, particularly to guys like me who generally prefer the "lesser" Corvette, Viper, Sagaris, etc.

===

Someone needs to pull some strings for us GTPers to get a bunch of these cars together at some race track, let us flog 'em, and post our findings on here. I'd be willing to bet that our opinions (generally) would be far-more truthful and have a better context than any automotive magazine ever could.

We may have to do it the Top Gear way though; Each presenter uses their favorite car, then we all switch up, and later hand them over to The Stig. Problem is, do we really have a hardcore Porsche guy on here anymore? I know I'd back up the Corvette 'till it hurts, I'm sure Jim would be happy to bring on the Viper, let Leonide take the GT-R, and Dave with the Sagaris. We'll need someone for the R8 (probably Doug?), the 911 (McLaren?), and maybe the V8 Vantage while we're at it (takers?).

What a good dream that is...

 

[Leonidae]

We may have to do it the Top Gear way though; Each presenter uses their favorite car, then we all switch up, and later hand them over to The Stig. Problem is, do we really have a hardcore Porsche guy on here anymore? I know I'd back up the Corvette 'till it hurts, I'm sure Jim would be happy to bring on the Viper, let Leonide take the GT-R, and Dave with the Sagaris. We'll need someone for the R8 (probably Doug?), the 911 (McLaren?), and maybe the V8 Vantage while we're at it (takers?).

What a good dream that is...

Now that would be interesting indeed. Oh well, we can always daydream of that, can't we?

 

[Jim Prower]

Sure, give the Viper to the one with least talent, I assure you. remember, I drive an 80HP FWD econobox (emphasis on BOX) with three-speed automatic.

But, hell, I'd go for GToP Gear. Just pay my way to Michigan and a driving class: Perhaps The Cracker can be our Stig, him having actual racing experience. Or CAMAROBOY69. Perhaps I could butter up someone at Roanoke Dodge for an SRT-10 Coupe...

Forza2.0 might be happy taking the Turbo.

("Dream on, dream on 'till your dreams come true..." - Aerosmith, right?)

 

[///M-Spec]

Re: It's Cold. Slow down.

The following is just an assumption. Completely fictional. Just an idea. Don't ask for proof, there is none.

Von Saurma drove 7'50. Röhrl was four seconds faster than von Saurma in the Carrera GT, so maybe in the GT-R too. That would make it 7'46. A fully dry track with higher temperature might raise the cornering speeds by 2%. That would make it 7'37. Add in a fair wind on the back straight and it may be 7'36.

I'm not going completely shoot you down.

What I will say is that I don't think it's that simple.

The first problem with this line of thought is that we don't know what the ambient track temperatures were during Mr. von Saurma's 7'50" run. The article says he covered a hundred km. So assuming that it was cold that day is just that... an assumption. It's not a BAD assumption, but let's not forget the difference between knowing and assuming.

The second, and more complicated issue is the assumption that tire performance goes up with temperature. Therefore on hot days, laps will always be faster and on cold days, laps will always be slower. This is a very simplistic and inaccurate way of painting things.

Tires have range of temperatures where they provide optimal grip. Too cold, and they turn into poker chips and slide around. Too hot, and they get greasy and slide around. The reason why professional race teams bring TRUCK LOADS of tires to a race is because they want the EXACT compound to go with the EXACT track condition and race strategy.

But, as we'll established, the RE070 is NOT a race tire. It is a street tire.

(ASIDE NOTE: the GT-R actually wears a NEW tire called the RE070A RFT. Despite forza2.0's claims this is the same tire that comes on WRXs, that's not technically correct. Bridgestone sells a tire called the RE050A Pole Position. This is a slightly different tire than the plain jane RE050 and different again from the RE050A RFT. Therefore, we should ALL be careful again when making assumption about its performance envelope. HOWEVER, it is still a street tire and a RUN-FLAT at that)

Street tires almost always make the trade off between performance for consistency. Thus, a street tire will stay at or near it's peak performance, for a greater range of temperatures. In other words, temperature has a less dramatic effect on a street tire's performance (even a Max Performance tire, like a PS2) Manufactures do this for the simple reason that people expect their street cars to handle pretty much the same way when it's 30 deg F or 112 deg F. After all, they don't want to get sued if it gets cold and their 100k sports cars start falling off the road.

Example. A car is shod with a Kumho V700 Victorracer (Comp tire) and may run a 1:10:00 in the early morning when it's 60 deg F. Later in the day, when it's 80 deg. F, it MAY run a 1'08:78".

But the same car shod with PS2s (Max Per Street Tire) may run a 1:14:00 in the morning and a 1:13.92 in the afternoon, all else being equal. Moreover, a street tire is more prone to overheating than a race tire, since they are not designed with extreme temperatures you may encounter with hard track use. So if you take the same car, same tire and go on a 100 deg F. day, you may find that the laps drop to the 1:16s or 1:17s because the tires are overheating and becoming very greasy.

Again. I'm not going to say it's flat out of the question a showroom GT-R is a 7'38" car. Just saying it seems improbable given what we know thus far. Like I've already said: I can see mid-7:40s. On a good day with Walter Röhrl driving. Unlike some people, I don't have a dog in this fight. And because of that, I'm not going to assume things to make my position (which is neither PRO or ANTI GT-R) look better. At least I'll try, anyway.


M

 

[Kent]

Well said M-spec and excellent commentary on street tires and ambient temperatures. 👍
Very true all around.

 

[forza2.0]

I'm very happy that Nissan was able to do what they wanted to do for the right price, but my biggest issue is all this secrecy over how they did it, and furthermore, why people are so pissed on both sides for who/how/when things were done. I'm a Corvette guy, I'll say it straight-up (like ya'all didn't know?), but I'd like to know how things were done simply so I can have confirmation that the times are true. Simply put, anything near 7'30 for a road-legal, non-track-oriented car (or truck) is amazing, but when there is so much evidence completely against the stance Nissan has took on the issue, I think we deserve to know how things were done.

This is why I want a truly independent car magazine to go to the track and run it. Preferably something that isn't German or isn't Japanese and would show far-less bias in the drive and report by days end. Hand the keys to The Stig, then hand the keys to Clarkson. My guess is that they'd be fair in the end...



It depends I suppose, I'll admit that Porsche takes second in my heart when it comes to sports cars (all praise the 911!), but that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy seeing them get beat-up once in a while either. If anything, Porsche is much like BMW where they must set the standard when it comes to everything... Be it quality, looks, ease of use, performance, etc. Everyone strives for that mark, and when someone actually beats it, well you can bet your ass that the world pays attention and wants proof.



Its a decent way of describing it, but at the same time, it doesn't mean anything less to have a 911 Turbo. My guess is that the guy in the GT3 would have taken then Turbo too if he could, then again, that may depend on his age. I believe Clarkson referred to GT3 drivers as "Cocks," and while I do agree to some extent, the same can be said (generally) of any car costing more than $40K that wears a premium badge.

If anything, the 997T demands respect, no matter who is driving it. Unless its Doug, with the Tiptronic transmission, then we make fun of him...



I understand what you mean, but at the same time, I honestly don't think that it puts the GT-R into this "humble" league of automobiles that are just fast because they can be. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the drivers who will have GT-Rs will be snobs in much the same way Porsche drivers will be, particularly to guys like me who generally prefer the "lesser" Corvette, Viper, Sagaris, etc.

===

Someone needs to pull some strings for us GTPers to get a bunch of these cars together at some race track, let us flog 'em, and post our findings on here. I'd be willing to bet that our opinions (generally) would be far-more truthful and have a better context than any automotive magazine ever could.

We may have to do it the Top Gear way though; Each presenter uses their favorite car, then we all switch up, and later hand them over to The Stig. Problem is, do we really have a hardcore Porsche guy on here anymore? I know I'd back up the Corvette 'till it hurts, I'm sure Jim would be happy to bring on the Viper, let Leonide take the GT-R, and Dave with the Sagaris. We'll need someone for the R8 (probably Doug?), the 911 (McLaren?), and maybe the V8 Vantage while we're at it (takers?).

What a good dream that is...

The owner of the M5 board often organises events like these actually. Its only natural that they will do one including the GTR.

P.S

Dense cold air suits high pressure turbo cars better than warmer days also. On a colder day engines often produce more power, especially on high pressure turbo ones.

 

[McLaren]

Nissan is going to belly ache over the lap times no matter what happens. Much like Bugatti, who refuse to accept the fact that the SCC Ultimate Aero is faster than the Veyron (they quibble over what is production, testing procedures, and the fact that SCC won't sell them one), its more or less a matter of pride for Nissan.

Which is full of so much irony on Bugatti's part since they weren't even officially recognized as the world's fastest production car.

1: Better weight balance in inclement weather
2: More cargo space
3: Yeah, the computers might have something to do with it...better AWD for inclement weather.
4: Lower price, and the fact that there's more Nissan dealers locally than Porsche.

Maybe so, but have we seen the GT-R in harsh conditions yet? No, but we do know Porsche tested the 911 Turbo in tough winter conditions. So for now, we know the Porsche is capable of traveling over snow without any major problems.
On 2, how much. I haven't seen the trunk on the GT-R so I honestly don't know how much more.
We haven't seen the GT-R's AWD in action yet though, have we? Again, though we have seen Porsche's.
As for 4, that makes a small bit of difference. More dealers? Ok, so what, 2 Nissan dealers for every 1 Porsche dealer? I don't think that's going to bother either vehicle owner so long as there is 1 dealer in the area. As for price, I don't think that honestly plays a role in who's more practical, unless you're going to be asking the cheapest, yet most practical car for the price.

 

[forza2.0]

Which is full of so much irony on Bugatti's part since they weren't even officially recognized as the world's fastest production car.



Maybe so, but have we seen the GT-R in harsh conditions yet? No, but we do know Porsche tested the 911 Turbo in tough winter conditions. So for now, we know the Porsche is capable of traveling over snow without any major problems.
On 2, how much. I haven't seen the trunk on the GT-R so I honestly don't know how much more.
We haven't seen the GT-R's AWD in action yet though, have we? Again, though we have seen Porsche's.
As for 4, that makes a small bit of difference. More dealers? Ok, so what, 2 Nissan dealers for every 1 Porsche dealer? I don't think that's going to bother either vehicle owner so long as there is 1 dealer in the area. As for price, I don't think that honestly plays a role in who's more practical, unless you're going to be asking the cheapest, yet most practical car for the price.

I thought you could only buy the GTR at select nissan dealerships?

As for nissans AWD system its setup for fastraod track driving not going in the snow. Its like BMW's system. Good on the road poor off. 4WD bmws dont really do much better than their rwd counterparts in tricky conditions.

 

[Dave A]

Maybe you can only buy it from selected dealerships, but that still means there is a higher chance of a more local dealer to service the car for you.

 

[Tornado]

As for nissans AWD system its setup for fastraod track driving not going in the snow. Its like BMW's system. Good on the road poor off. 4WD bmws dont really do much better than their rwd counterparts in tricky conditions.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suppose you have no proof of this either, yes?

With porsches you can drive the car half way around the world and come back home without any issues.

Assuming you don't fry the clutch in the Porsche, which I believe is a hilariously common occurrence in high torque Porsches.

How does it feel that a 400hp NA 911 goes around the 'ring faster than your beloved GTR, and only 8 secs faster than a NA 420hp audi RS4

I'm sure GT-R owners will care about as much that that happens as much as 911 Turbo owners care that that happens. Here is a hint: They won't. In fact, I'm sure GT-R owners will care even less that there car fits in that category (a category that is in between an Audi "on slicks" and a car that comes with cheater slicks standard) than 911 Turbo owners.

Dense cold air suits high pressure turbo cars better than warmer days also. On a colder day engines often produce more power, especially on high pressure turbo ones.

Yes. I'm sure a highly turbocharged car with an intercooler will get huge variances in horsepower from the temperature.

I thought you could only buy the GTR at select nissan dealerships?

Which means so much, because one can obviously get their Porsche serviced at their everyday VW dealer. And considering how upper-crusted and snobbish Porsche dealers are, I can imagine that many would prefer the 911 Turbo over the GT-R even if the dealer network for the GT-R was every Nissan dealer.

 

[forza2.0]

Yes. I'm sure a highly turbocharged car with an intercooler will get huge variances in horsepower from the temperature.

Friend of mine has a 1.8T ibiza cupra with a ihi turbo. On a normal day his engine outputs 335hp. On a cold day gets over nearly 360hp. His intercooler is uprated, designed for high hp applications. Your intercooler can be as big as you like, on a cold day it will produce more power. Simple as.

 

[JohnBM01]

I still think some elements of its design are a deterrent for me with this GT-R. It looks great, but there are some touches that drive me away from it a bit. It's like me with the latest Corvette- think it's a great car, but some of its design shys me away from it. The roofline, doors, door handles, and the "mustache" design under the grill (is there a specific name for this?) drive me away from it. I'd even modify the rear spoiler to something more racy while not being outlandish. I'm not a real Nissan guy, but I do think this is a killer car. Perhaps worth the money. Then again (speaking as not being a real Nissan guy), one of my all-time favorite sports cars is the Datsun 240Z.

My knowledge of the Skyline/GT-R is pretty limited in terms of calling it a supercar. I've heard a lot about what the Skylines of old were capable of. I've heard of these as supercars. I don't usually think so because it's very heavy. They're pretty powerful for what they are. Tuning possibilities are pretty endless to make it better than it already is. If you're keeping true to these aspects in regards to the latest GT-R, then I'm sure this car can do very bad things to doubters of its performance with the right kind of people trying to wrestle this beast. I'm going on the numbers provided by the ultimatecarpage.com entry on this car. It has 473hp and 434 lb. ft of torque. It has a power-to-weight ratio of 0.27 bhp/kg. The R34 Skyline was about 3400 lbs. This GT-R is much heavier. It's at 3,858 lbs. So it's heavier than one of my other favorite sports cars- the 3,769 lb. Mitsubishi 3000GT. I still give this car plenty of credit if this thing can still perform even if weighing 200 lbs. shy of two tons. I would DEFINITELY lighten this car if I was a tuner. I'd get it as far below 3,000 lbs as possible. If Nissan wanted to go all out, they'd make this a true driver's car- a purpose-built car without much in the way of seating, less electronics, and carbon-fiber. Nissan made the R390 road car back in the late 1990s. This car would be just as good, if not better.

Again, I'm giving this car a lot of credit. I usually give Japanese cars a chance. If this can deliver the load like it normally could, then I'm sure this car will be highly respected by sports car types alike. It should be an awesome car no matter how you look at it.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

In case anyone might be interested, there is now another Gran Turismo TV video available for download featuring the GT-R in action at the Nürburgring as well as some nice shots of the under carriage, engine bay, and interiors.

Here is some additional info on the video and for those unfamiliar with GT-TV, the first post of the thread will explain pretty much all you need to know:

UPDATE: New GT-TV Content

BTW: This is the first of a three part series on the GT-R for GT-TV.

 

[forza2.0]

Has it really been six years? Way back in 2001, Auto Express published the world’s first pictures of the Nissan GT-R concept. Since then, we have seen the spy shots, watched the launch and digested the specification of Japan’s mightiest-ever supercar.

And with good reason, too. With 473bhp, Nissan’s new GT-R is the most potent production car the nation has ever built. It has nearly 200bhp more than its predecessor, and its specification is mouth-watering: twin-turbo V6, double-clutch gearbox, advanced four-wheel drive, adjustable dampers, gearshift and traction control, plus construction that features both aluminium and carbon fibre.

So advanced is the engine, Nissan builds it in laboratory conditions in a clean room at the centre of its sprawling Yokohama factory. This all sounds very impressive, but how does the GT-R shape up in reality?

Put simply, the 3.8-litre V6 is awesome, and the car is a driver’s delight. The gentleman’s agreement that limited Japanese cars to 280bhp has now ended, and Nissan has not let the landmark pass without creating something spectacular.

But as part of that same evolution, Nissan has agreed that its cars will not be so easy for aftermarket specialists to tune. It has ditched the expensive ceramic turbochargers of the last Skyline GT-R and replaced them with steel items that are not only harder to replace, but claimed to pick up more rapidly.

Even so, at low engine speeds, the GT-R isn’t as responsive as the car Nissan has benchmarked it against, Porsche’s 911 Turbo. However, once the engine revs past 3,000rpm, this is a savagely fast car. The noise is purposeful rather than inspiring, but there’s precious little turbo lag and the GT-R hurls itself from 0-60mph in just three and a half seconds.

This is thanks in no small part to Nissan’s new six-speed twin-clutch gearbox. Although it’s similar to Volks*wagen’s DSG system and is operated by column-mounted paddles, it has a more mechanical feel. Upshifts are instant, and it blips the throttle to smooth downchanges.

It’s great when being used hard, but at low speeds the transmission is best left in auto mode. Around town it hunts and shunts a bit, while on full lock you can feel the clever limited-slip differentials of the 4WD system struggling to match wheel speeds.

More concerningly, although the dampers have three modes – Comfort, Normal and Race – even in the softest setting the ride is uncompromising, and it’s certainly harder and less supple than a Porsche 911 or BMW M3. The GT-R is also prone to tramlining unnervingly on rutted surfaces.

However, with a super-stiff bodyshell (at 1,740kg, the Nissan weighs 155kg more than a 911 Turbo), it’s also secure and extremely stable on the road. It has tremendous turn-in, the meaty steering is well weighted, if short on feedback, and thanks to the hi-tech four-wheel-drive system, you can get on the power early to pull you out of corners.

However, the GT-R has been set up to feel and behave more like a rear-wheel-drive car. At the Sendai Highland Raceway – renowned as the most severe circuit in Japan – it would happily oversteer out of tight bends. But on the whole, the front-engine, rear-gearbox layout has resulted in a very balanced and benign supercar. Plus the brakes are superb, too.

The interior isn’t the most exciting, but it’s very solidly constructed and is likely to be well equipped when it hits the UK, priced at around £55,000. Which brings us to the bad news; it won’t be arriving here until March 2009. As the saying goes, the best things come to those who wait.
Rival: Porsche 911 Turbo
At more than £90,000, the Turbo is decidedly expensive and isn’t the best driver’s car in the 911 line-up. It has a softer set-up than the GT-R, but the twin-turbo flat-six is a masterpiece which helps to make this a highly desirable supercar.

 

[Jim Prower]

Soooo...who'd you quote that from?

 

[forza2.0]

Auto express it says so in the first line.

 

[Jim Prower]

Still, wasnt' that obvious. Usually you put something like that in quotes, and link to the original article. That way it doesn't look like, you know, you wrote it.

 

[forza2.0]

Boy fanboys really do look for any excuse. Its not a bad review so I dont see why you are looking for something suspicious


There are loads of magazine reviews out on the GTR now but I shant post them as last time I got a slap on the wrist for posting a whole magazine article. The autoexpress one is ok because its off the site.

But I shall quote top gear, "Its nearly as fast as the porsche" in regards to the 997TT.

In a drag race the porsche slowly creeps forward according to the TG guys. The stig has laid hishands on it also.

 

[Max_DC]

There is a video (11 min), probably in high def about the new GT-R. Did I see the JAPANESE video yet ? No, but it's on Gran Turismo TV and that's why I posted it. You can download it on the link I posted,stream it or - and that's what I will do - download it on your PS3 and watch the GT-R in high def... From what I saw as I quickly clicked through the stream, we have a lot of Nurburgring driving and K. Yamauchi/ Polyphony, so it might be worth a look for GT fans...

 

[Jim Prower]

Boy fanboys really do look for any excuse. Its not a bad review so I dont see why you are looking for something suspicious


There are loads of magazine reviews out on the GTR now but I shant post them as last time I got a slap on the wrist for posting a whole magazine article. The autoexpress one is ok because its off the site.

But I shall quote top gear, "Its nearly as fast as the porsche" in regards to the 997TT.

In a drag race the porsche slowly creeps forward according to the TG guys. The stig has laid hishands on it also.

No, that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that the way you posted it makes it look like you're taking credit for it. But, hey, whatever. I gave you fair warning.

 

[YSSMAN]

The Telegraph article on the car seemed to like it, but they noted that "Even a GT3 rides better" when comparing the quality on UK roads. I haven't ridden in a GT3 myself, but it can't be that bad...

None of the American magazines have been allowed to perform a full-review, which is unfortunate, but the previews seemed mostly positive to say the least. I think the big reservation is still over the price/badge issue, but its normally agreed upon that the car (much like the NSX and Supra) will carry a certain amount of prestige with it no matter who is making it.

In the end, its good to see that they got so much right, but at the same time, I'm still interested to see how it stacks up against other cars on the same track. The Car and Driver preview noted that it may be difficult to find any for less than $85K, fewer than a couple thousand coming to America each year. We'll see, I still think it may have a difficult time "stealing" sales away from those it will be competing directly against (ie, Corvette, Viper, 911), but you never know.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I think what they mean by "stealing" sales is that before now, the only way to a Skyline in North America was sketchy importers. Now, with it officially on sale here, people who would have settled for a Vette, Viper, or 911 can now get the car they really wanted. Not saying that will be a huge amount of people, but there's bound to be some out there.

I will have to check which it was, but either Car or Evo said the car rode pretty well on its softest setting, but that could very well have to do with where they were testing it. I don't think the GT3 comment is too bad; everyone has said the 997 rides far better than either 996 version due to PASM, so who knows.

(EDIT) I seem to be remembering their passenger rides, so that's not entirely fair. CAR seems overwhelmingly positive about it though, judging by This new review.