2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Leonidae]

and while doing that, you'll be sweating your arse off, where as in GT-R even grandma could outrun you thanks to it's confidence-inspiring behaviour.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

and while doing that, you'll be sweating your arse off, where as in GT-R even grandma could outrun you thanks to it's confidence-inspiring behaviour.

but the simple fact is they still beat the gtr so the GTR isnt as great or as much of a "killer" as you think it is.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

I find people ****ting their pants over having to push 3 buttons hillarious, hell if i was driving one the damn thing wouldnt leave R mode(s) at all, whos to say its not already engaged and ready to go? Why do people always have to toss the GTR into the worst care scenario? The fact is it doesnt matter if you had to get out and push a button in the trunk then walk around the car on your hands then spin in circles while singing I'm a little teapot in order to activate launch control, at the end of the day the numbers are there regardless of how many buttons need to be pressed. Also as others have said launch control doesnt do anything any dimwit with half a brain cant do. Essentially all it does is dump the clutch at 4500 rpm and the AWD system does the rest whats such a big deal, seriously people grow up.

Also as stated in the article was that the road wasn't that great either so taking that into consideration it did damn well too. They even said if the road was better it probably would have gotten even better times. But regardless of all that the simple fact that a "lowly nissan" can hang with the baddest of the bad is damn impressive. In the end the 911, Z06, Viper, and GTR are all amazing cars in their own way and respect is due to each of them, and it will be amazing to see what the future brings in the form of competition. In the end its all personal choice and no amount of convincing will do anything to change that...

 

[YSSMAN]

All of those are said in the same tone, and none of them are true or all that bad. Its all shades of 1973. Except we have engineers that give a damn now.

Minor modifications all around could actually solve most of the problems for these kids, but even then, the regulations don't start kicking-in until 2011, and won't obviously go into full-effect until 2020.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

but the simple fact is they still beat the gtr so the GTR isnt as great or as much of a "killer" as you think it is.

like i said each car has its advantages, but to the GTR's credit its been noted that it doesn't take a race car driver to work it to its full potential. What good is being "fast" if you have to be Michael Schumacher to do it? The GTR levels the playing field for all drivers and thats important because the fact is that the vast majority of drivers out there aren't able to come close to achieving the performance their cars are capable of.

 

[Jim Prower]

God. Why, oh Why, do we have to argue like this? Haggling over tenths. accusing of lying. It's sounding like the Ferrari Pit during the first F1 race of the year.

Okay, Most of us aren't claiming any superiority (though some of us are) and a few people are going off the freaking WALL acting as if they're some all-holy protectors of the internet from GT-R fanboys. Please, that's making the thread a drag.

 

[JCE]

That does bring up an interesting question:

What kind of fuel economy are we looking at on the GT-R? How does it compare to the Porsche and the Z06?

I hate to be honest...I suspect a horrid MPG rating. The 911 gets pretty decent MPG and we ALL KNOW about the Corvettes rediculously tall final gear--but being a pessimist that I am I can't see the GT-R having good fuel economy. But at least the GT-R walks the Viper in every way possible...thank god.

I'd like to now call the Viper a stretched Neon with an 8+2 cylinder engine converted to RWD. Thanks.

























*edit* Before being flamed.
I WAS BEING OVERLY SARCASTIC FOR THOSE OF YOU HERE--WHICH IS A FEW--WHO HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR.

 

[Jim Prower]

I'm half-Inclined to agree with you on the Viper comment...So long as that Neon's the rather uncomprimising SRT-4.

and I am also worried about the GT-R's economy ratings as well. Who knows, Nissan might've pulled out some MPG magic, but you never know, and with more efficient cars in their lineup, they might not need it.

 

[JCE]

I'm half-Inclined to agree with you on the Viper comment...So long as that Neon's the rather uncomprimising SRT-4.

Of course. I'm actually a fan of the SRT-4. Its balls out fast, there just isn't any other way to put it. And it handles fairly well too. Wow, I said something positive about Dodge. Someone shoot me.

 

[Leonidae]

well, Nissan has stated that GT-R fulfills ULEV ( Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) standards in Japan, thus, we can speculate that it actually will be rather economical for what it is. maybe not Corvette levels due the lack of ridiculously long fifth and sixth gear, but definitely nowhere near Veyron levels.

 

[McLaren]

The 'Ring isnt the only track in the world. I understand that its the proving ground for a lot of automakers and racers, but one car being able to lap the 'Ring faster than the other doesn't mean its a superior car.

Plus, im sure the GT-R will be far superior on other notable tracks such as Tsukuba

Look at the Tsukuba times I posted. Only 3 seconds faster than most of its competitors. Why? I would be expecting sub 1:00 times if this car was really capable of lapping the Nur. in 7:38 where its superior-Japanese suspension & AWD obviously held a bigger advantage over the Corvette.

OK. If money is not important to you, then the GT-R might not be a great deal. Get the Veyron.

But this car costs probably like 75k EUR. What do get for that money ? A used 911 with 350hp. Dude, give me 3k EUR and even I kill that 911.
You get an M3, a Corvette, what else ? That's the main point. You won't get a lot of better deals for 69k $ ( stock cars ).

Now you talk about the GT2. Last time I checked, it cost as much as a house.

Also don't forget that there will be a lighter and more powerful version of the GT-R, at least in Japan. And I bet that 100 hp more and 100 kg less will be a lot faster and still be cheaper than a 911 4S.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was talking about prices in replying to Leo. I wasn't.

In the case you're presenting, the GT2 is way worth its value. Lapping times close to its $440,000 brother for much less? That's a steal in itself. Ferrari has accomplished the same with its $260,000 430 achieveing a lap time next to the now $1.2 million Enzo.

it's just natural that Porsche/Chevy fans feel themselves threatened by a godzilla. it's competitive in every possible manner. Price, performance, features, innovations..

It's just natural GT-R fans are in denial.[/sarcasm]

It's competitive, but it is not setting any bars that you're hyping.

like i said each car has its advantages, but to the GTR's credit its been noted that it doesn't take a race car driver to work it to its full potential. What good is being "fast" if you have to be Michael Schumacher to do it? The GTR levels the playing field for all drivers and thats important because the fact is that the vast majority of drivers out there aren't able to come close to achieving the performance their cars are capable of.

But this ISN'T new. Ferrari just accomplished this with the 430 Scuderia. 1 reviewer stated he was already setting times just seconds off the official testers and that the car is constantly changing to suit whoever the driver is.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> ...

Best value? Don't make me laugh. $1,000 less than a Z06 gets you 7:50 on the 'Ring. $1,000 more gets you 7:42. Best value? I think not.

^ Well it is, my friend. I'm not just talking about faster lap times and the like, it's also everyday useability too. I also like the Z06 (still my fave GM car), but the Z06 is more of a weekender car, while the GT-R is more tossable to use everyday (2+2 seats). Despite my distaste of Dual-clutch tranny cars.

-> Especially if your going to compare it to the M3, RS4, M5, CLK 63, and the RS6.

-> Don't get me wrong, I love Porsches too. But the GT2 is another GT-R more.

-> And about the ZR-1 and/or the F430-S, Nissan is already developing the V-Spec as of date.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

Look at the Tsukuba times I posted. Only 3 seconds faster than most of its competitors. Why? I would be expecting sub 1:00 times if this car was really capable of lapping the Nur. in 7:38 where its superior-Japanese suspension & AWD obviously held a bigger advantage over the Corvette.

uhh 3 seconds on a circuit is an eternity and if you knew anything about tracks you would know that just because a car performs well on one track doesnt mean it does well on all tracks so you might as well be comparing apples to oranges when comparing the ring to tsukuba. And you have to realize that that "300 hp honda" argument also applies to the z06 and 911 and every other car not only the GTR...

But this ISN'T new. Ferrari just accomplished this with the 430 Scuderia. 1 reviewer stated he was already setting times just seconds off the official testers and that the car is constantly changing to suit whoever the driver is.

show me where exactly I said anything whatsoever about it being "new"?

 

[Prosthetic]

you havent been keeping up have you? go back a couple of pages and start reading

First off, that seems to be the only thing you say. Yes, yes i have been reading this thread. In fact I have been around on this website or 3 odd years now (this being a revived user name) And I have seen people praise the GT-R mainly because of it's unique design, and the fact there are very few in America. Which makes it only cooler. And I have seen people act like very hostile towards the car saying Nissan isn't "Worthy" of making a fast car. Which is pretty much ignoring a lot of racing history and success.

dont want the GTR to fail,just too used to nissan shouting "wolf".

Yes, and the other part of the story is that the little boy was telling the truth in the end. And please don't act like Nissan is the only one that makes claims, every automotive company has made claims, EVERYONE. In fact thats what seems to turn the whole industrial wheel. The GT-R may not be as fast as they say, but you can't prove that it isn't so stop going on like you already have.

In the end how fast the car goes around the ring is not relevant to if it's a good car or not.

Seriously though people, grow up, your going around saying "That car traction control, therefor they can't drive, there not a man, they are pansy's, there gay, and therefor can't be car enthusiasts."

I don't care what a car has to make it goes fast, if it is going fast, it is obviously "going faster." Use some common sense. I don't want this to feel like a rant but you guys are stabbing each other like your in a civil war. Thats what came to my mind wile reading this thread.

Now I can see you quoting me and saying.. "I don't think you have read this thread " I will say it again, yes I have, and I realize that other people have mentioned what I said, and I'm just pointing it out that you guys need to just chill out, and wait for the car to arrive.

It seems like you guys are going to be offended if Nissan is or isn't lying. Yes it would be a disappointment if it doesn't do what Nissan said, but in the end the GT-R's of the fast have always been fast. Good for driving leisure/everyday driving (from what i heard) and you really can't say that a car with 400+ hp can't be fun. And if you really like cars, I think you would take that into consideration and just ignore the fact that it might not be .0004 or however slower/faster in straighted/corners/tracks whatever, does it really matter that much to argue over? No.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

First off, that seems to be the only thing you say. Yes, yes i have been reading this thread. In fact I have been around on this website or 3 odd years now (this being a revived user name)

ive been around for 4 years does that mean im more special ?

And I have seen people act like very hostile towards the car saying Nissan isn't "Worthy" of making a fast car. Which is pretty much ignoring a lot of racing history and success.

ive never said its not worthy of making a fast car

Yes, and the other part of the story is that the little boy was telling the truth in the end. And please don't act like Nissan is the only one that makes claims, every automotive company has made claims, EVERYONE. In fact thats what seems to turn the whole industrial wheel. The GT-R may not be as fast as they say, but you can't prove that it isn't so stop going on like you already have.

exactly and for all i know nissan could be telling the truth but back in the early '90's they said the R32 can do this and that look at it go! and then turn around a few years later and say "yeah well we gave it abit more boost,took some weight out and changed the tyres".

Then again a few years later the R33 came out and said look at this its the fastest production car around the 'ring and again a few years later nissan come along and say "yeah well we upped the boost,delimited it and put some stickier tyres on it and different brakes so they wouldnt fade."

then they come along with the GTR and say look its faster than a 997 turbo around the 'ring then a very well respected fast 'ring driver goes around in 7:50 im guessing "wolf" again and isnt helped with people like leon coming saying thats its the fast3st car 3v3r and its showing everyone else how its done when as pointed out it did the same 1/4 mile time as a 997 turbo and was out braked and out handled by a dodge viper SRT-10 and even round another track it was only 2/3 seconds slower than a car that is 5 years older and 250bhp less(depending on who you wish to believe on power claims) so its hardly "raising the bar" or a "supercar killer" as some people are making out.

Now I can see you quoting me and saying.. "I don't think you have read this thread " I will say it again, yes I have, and I realize that other people have mentioned what I said, and I'm just pointing it out that you guys need to just chill out, and wait for the car to arrive.
.

the reference in the "havent you read the thread" would be pointed towards a few pages before it was posted that a gtr was dynoed at 485bhp at the hubs therefore around 560bhp at the fly.

It seems like you guys are going to be offended if Nissan is or isn't lying. Yes it would be a disappointment if it doesn't do what Nissan said, but in the end the GT-R's of the fast have always been fast.

why cant anyone be offended if nissan are lying? they are selling this car on its performance and thats its able to go round the 'ring in 7:38 (if they didnt then why play the video at the launch).

 

[McLaren]

-> ...

^ Well it is, my friend. I'm not just talking about faster lap times and the like, it's also everyday useability too. I also like the Z06 (still my fave GM car), but the Z06 is more of a weekender car, while the GT-R is more tossable to use everyday (2+2 seats). Despite my distaste of Dual-clutch tranny cars.

Despite the fact that many Z06 owners really do use their cars everday. The only negative is the suspension.

-> Especially if your going to compare it to the M3, RS4, M5, CLK 63, and the RS6.

The M5, RS6, & RS4 are sport saloons. The cars they're based upon are made to be daily driven. The M3 & CLK 63 are the only things remotely near the class of the Z06 & the GT-R, and even then, I don't find them to be exactly in the same league.

uhh 3 seconds on a circuit is an eternity and if you knew anything about tracks you would know that just because a car performs well on one track doesnt mean it does well on all tracks so you might as well be comparing apples to oranges when comparing the ring to tsukuba.

Went right over your head....

My point was this. If a car like the GT-R is set up so fast to lap the 'Ring in 7:38 (a near-impossible feat for a 480Hp road car), then it should have no problem lapping Tsukuba faster than it did. Tsukuba's layout suits the GT-R's suspension and drivetrain perfectly, better than the Nurburgring. So, if Nissan is claiming the GT-R can do the 'Ring in 7:38, that would project that its suspension, braking, acceleration, etc. are near top of the line.
If this is so, why is the Z06 only 3 seconds behind on a course where its at a disadvantage, yet 5 seconds behind on a course where the comparison is fairer? Simple. Either Nissan lied, or the cars are set up differently.

I know 3 seconds is a big difference, however, the driver setting the 1:01 time is pretty much a god at that track which is why I said I'd like to see him drive the Z06 & 911 Turbo and see if he can break better times because his skills on that track have helped him set quite a few records. However, the time set by the Mine's driver lapped 1 second faster than the 911 Turbo & Z06. It would then appear, in the hands of the average test driver, the GT-R is not that much faster than the 911 Turbo or Z06.

As for the race track comment, your comment only further proves my point that, no, the GT-R has not set a new level. If it had, I'm sure I'd be sitting here seeing a lap time at least somewhere near 7:38, not 7:50. It only shows the GT-R, Z06, & 911 Turbo are still as equal as can be, because none of them have something over the others that propels them ahead every time.

And you have to realize that that "300 hp honda" argument also applies to the z06 and 911 and every other car not only the GTR...

Sorry, I do. In fact, I've brought up several times before in past debates. The fact the 300Hp NSX-R still keeps with the pack should be enough for folks to realize how large a role suspension, brakes, etc. play.

show me where exactly I said anything whatsoever about it being "new"?

Perhaps I picked a choice of wrong words, but when you said, 'but to the GTR's credit its been noted that it doesn't take a race car driver to work it to its full potential", it almost sounded as if you were saying the GT-R brought this to the automotive world.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

Seems Mr "tarzan" Yamada and sunline racing are having some fun setting some hot lap times: 2:22:8 on suzuka

for reference:
1. Nissan GT-R 2:22:8 Sunline Racing
2. Ferrari F40 2:25.26 Best Motoring
3. Ferrari F50 2:26.52 Best Motoring
4. Porsche Carrera GT 2:28.42 "Best Motoring"
5. Porsche 993 GT2 2:29.148 "Best Motoring"
6. Porsche 993 Turbo (3.6) 2:31.165 Best Motoring
7. Honda NSX 3.2 2:32.54min best motoring
8. Lamborghini Diablo 2:32.98 Best Motoring
9. Porsche 996 GT3 2:32.988 Best Motoring
10. Ferrari F355 2:33.25 Best Motoring
11. Honda NSX-R (3.0) 2:34.19 best motoring
12. Honda Civic Type-R JDM (FD2) 2:35.20 Tsuchiya
13. Nissan Skyline GT-R R34 2:36.263 "Best Motoring"
14. Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VI 2:36.50 best motoring
15. Mazda RX-7 2:37.26 Best Motoring
16. Ferrari 550 Maranello 2:38.50 Best Motoring
17. Honda Civic Type-R 2:49.169 best motoring
18. Honda NSX 3.0 (1991) 2:50.0 Ayarton Senna
19. Mercedes E 350 2:52.00 ICHIRO

Link to site 1
http://www.fastestlaps.com/track4.html

Blog Story:
http://kultivate.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/sunline-auto-r35-posts-a-laptime-on-suzuka/

GTR.co.uk discussion:
http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/88503-sunline-racing-sets-laptime-suzuka-2.html

not quite sure how the hell the F40 beat the F50 and carrera GT, anyone seen the BM videos for it?

 

[McLaren]

Seems Mr "tarzan" Yamada and sunline racing are having some fun setting some hot lap times: 2:22:8 on suzuka

for reference:
1. Nissan GT-R 2:22:8 Sunline Racing
2. Ferrari F40 2:25.26 Best Motoring
3. Ferrari F50 2:26.52 Best Motoring
4. Porsche Carrera GT 2:28.42 "Best Motoring"
5. Porsche 993 GT2 2:29.148 "Best Motoring"
6. Porsche 993 Turbo (3.6) 2:31.165 Best Motoring
7. Honda NSX 3.2 2:32.54min best motoring
8. Lamborghini Diablo 2:32.98 Best Motoring
9. Porsche 996 GT3 2:32.988 Best Motoring
10. Ferrari F355 2:33.25 Best Motoring
11. Honda NSX-R (3.0) 2:34.19 best motoring
12. Honda Civic Type-R JDM (FD2) 2:35.20 Tsuchiya
13. Nissan Skyline GT-R R34 2:36.263 "Best Motoring"
14. Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VI 2:36.50 best motoring
15. Mazda RX-7 2:37.26 Best Motoring
16. Ferrari 550 Maranello 2:38.50 Best Motoring
17. Honda Civic Type-R 2:49.169 best motoring
18. Honda NSX 3.0 (1991) 2:50.0 Ayarton Senna
19. Mercedes E 350 2:52.00 ICHIRO

Link to site 1
http://www.fastestlaps.com/track4.html

Blog Story:
http://kultivate.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/sunline-auto-r35-posts-a-laptime-on-suzuka/

GTR.co.uk discussion:
http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/88503-sunline-racing-sets-laptime-suzuka-2.html

not quite sure how the hell the F40 beat the F50 and carrera GT, anyone seen the BM videos for it?

Like you said, 1 car's performance on 1 track doesn't necessarily mean anything for the next track. However, on a track like Suzuka, the Ferrari's are definately more track oriented than the Carrera GT, and did use the top of the line technology in their respective times.

I'm sure we might even be surprised if we could get an official time for the F50, F40, & Enzo around the 'Ring.

As for the times, I'm not terribly surprised. The way the GT-R is built, and the way Suzuka runs, it's a perfect combination.

 

[Div is back]

McLaren is right but....

You said it was only 3 sec quicker than the NSX-R, which is a track monster on small tracks such as Tsubuka where high powered cars such as the GTR can't really stretch their legs.

If you look at Suzuka, I agree with you it's the perfect combo for the GTR, you can really see it's power and potential as it crushes the NSX-R.

Your opinions aren't constant...but they're right.

 

[McLaren]

McLaren is right but....

You said it was only 3 sec quicker than the NSX-R, which is a track monster on small tracks such as Tsubuka where high powered cars such as the GTR can't really stretch their legs.

If you look at Suzuka, I agree with you it's the perfect combo for the GTR, you can really see it's power and potential as it crushes the NSX-R.

Your opinions aren't constant...but they're right.

On the GT-R content, I think somewhat different. Although the GT-R is holding 480 horses under the hood, it's also holding some extremely superior Japanese technology behind those wheels. Tsukuba isn't as perfect for the GT-R as Suzuka is, but the GT-R can take advantage of the turns with the suspension and the straights with the power, and I believe the man behind the 1:01 time (I forget his name....) took advantage of that as did Mr. "Tarzan" on Suzuka. It's similar to the case where Walter R. knew the GT2 had the power for the straights and suspension for the curves and took immediate advantage over that.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

My point was this. If a car like the GT-R is set up so fast to lap the 'Ring in 7:38 (a near-impossible feat for a 480Hp road car), then it should have no problem lapping Tsukuba faster than it did. Tsukuba's layout suits the GT-R's suspension and drivetrain perfectly, better than the Nurburgring. So, if Nissan is claiming the GT-R can do the 'Ring in 7:38, that would project that its suspension, braking, acceleration, etc. are near top of the line.
If this is so, why is the Z06 only 3 seconds behind on a course where its at a disadvantage, yet 5 seconds behind on a course where the comparison is fairer? Simple. Either Nissan lied, or the cars are set up differently.

I know 3 seconds is a big difference, however, the driver setting the 1:01 time is pretty much a god at that track which is why I said I'd like to see him drive the Z06 & 911 Turbo and see if he can break better times because his skills on that track have helped him set quite a few records. However, the time set by the Mine's driver lapped 1 second faster than the 911 Turbo & Z06. It would then appear, in the hands of the average test driver, the GT-R is not that much faster than the 911 Turbo or Z06.

The mines car I know was having traction problems when they took it out. The car was run with the VDC in the R setting instead of turned off.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/coupes/mines-nissan-gt-r-takes-to-the-track/

Perhaps I picked a choice of wrong words, but when you said, 'but to the GTR's credit its been noted that it doesn't take a race car driver to work it to its full potential", it almost sounded as if you were saying the GT-R brought this to the automotive world.

No its isn't the first, but it is nice to see manufacturers open the realm of posibility to non pro drivers.

 

[McLaren]

The mines car I know was having traction problems when they took it out. The car was run with the VDC in the R setting instead of turned off.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/coupes/mines-nissan-gt-r-takes-to-the-track/

Then I guess that would explain it. I still feel, however, that the average tester in the GT-R will do only slightly better than the Z06 & the 911.

No its isn't the first, but it is nice to see manufacturers open the realm of posibility to non pro drivers.

Then my apologies.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

Then I guess that would explain it. I still feel, however, that the average tester in the GT-R will do only slightly better than the Z06 & the 911.

I guess time will tell, but all in all each car is amazing and I wouldn't mind having all 3. They each bring something interesting to the game.

Then my apologies.

no worries

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Launch control is for kids who don't know how to drive their cars properly, simply put. Hell, even Clarkson agrees when hes driving the 599. Your left and right feet is really all you need, your brain being a better computer than the one in the dashboard that thinks it knows better.

I figured I'd dig this up just because the whole anti-technology argument is flawed. Does the Vette have ABS? Why, so it does. It's got some pretty advanced suspension, too. You can complain about launch control not being "manly" enough, but I seriously doubt any of us could achieve the times its capable of, much less as consistently. It does know better.

O/T... but why do people put so much weight in what Clarkson says around here?

Oh, and the whole issue about the GT-R having the advantage to the Porsche due to the dual-clutch system (this isn't directed towards you, Brad): Do we have a rough time for how long the Porsche's shifts take? The reason I'm asking is that DC does not always equal faster times. The GT-R's are .2 seconds iirc, as are the IS-F's (which is a full-on auto with flappy paddles), but the Scuderia, with its single clutch, manages .06.

People talk about these two things in a negative light, yet we're all talking about cars where the entire point is to go fast. Quicker shifting and launch control both satisfy this desire.

Price doesnt mean diddly squat because porsche makes like 20 grand profit on near enough each car they sell anyway whilst nissan will probably lose money or break even with the GTR. Price argument is stupid. Porsches costs as much as they do because they are a porsche and people will pay it. simple as. And id rather spend 30k on a FQ series evo that will keep up with a GTR on the twisties than pay 75k for the gtr.

Uh, price is a huge point. Do you compare a Camry to an E-Class? Or a Town Car to a 7-Series? No, because while there are similar sizes and even performance in some cases, they're completely different cars. People are bringing up price because Nissan has raised the bar in the sense that 911T performance is going to be available for 911 money. Previously, the only other option for that kind of money was the Vette, but it offered a decidedly different approach (lower tech, big engine). What the hell does the profit of a model have to do with the customer? I don't care what the company gets out of me buying a car... hell, if they're making a loss to give me it, then I'm getting an even better deal.

How come bow-tie guys can use the price thing as their argument to fall back on, but this won't fly for the GT-R? Yeah, there are the GT2's, the Scuderias, and ZR-1's around to perform better than the GT-R, but that's even more money over an already huge disadvantage (well, except the Vette). In it's class, the GT-R is a hugely impressive car, right there with the Vette for bang-for-the-buck.

If price is pointless, then yes, this car sucks. The Veyron totally is faster. Oh, and the new Vette sucks. Yep, all those Ferraris and Porsches suck too.

 

[Max_DC]

Price doesnt mean diddly squat because porsche makes like 20 grand profit on near enough each car they sell anyway whilst nissan will probably lose money or break even with the GTR. Price argument is stupid. Porsches costs as much as they do because they are a porsche and people will pay it. simple as. And id rather spend 30k on a FQ series evo that will keep up with a GTR on the twisties than pay 75k for the gtr.

OK. So what ? I don't care how much profit they make. I care about how much I HAVE TO PAY. Note, that the cheapest Porsche 911, 325 hp, no extras - a standard 911 costs more than 115.000 $ in Germany. The Turbo costs at least 200k $ and the GT2 275k $.

And the GT-R ? Probably about 110k $. The price argument isn't stupid. It is, if you are really rich. Of course a billionaire doesn't care about prices, but for the rest : it is important. Why didn't you buy a red Enzo but a red Seat ? Because you are stupid ?

However I'm with you concerning the Evo FQ 400 for example. I'd probably take that instead aswell.

Look at the Tsukuba times I posted. Only 3 seconds faster than most of its competitors. Why? I would be expecting sub 1:00 times if this car was really capable of lapping the Nur. in 7:38 where its superior-Japanese suspension & AWD obviously held a bigger advantage over the Corvette.

Come on you know Tsukuba. Tsukuba is not about horsepower. It's about weight. The GT-R is heavy. That's poison for a track made only out of corners. Sure, the GT-R has a lot of traction, but still... 1800kg are 1800 kgs

And 3 seconds is a lot. 3 seconds out of one minute. Have a look at Formula 1. 3 seconds are worlds.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was talking about prices in replying to Leo. I wasn't.

In the case you're presenting, the GT2 is way worth its value. Lapping times close to its $440,000 brother for much less? That's a steal in itself. Ferrari has accomplished the same with its $260,000 430 achieveing a lap time next to the now $1.2 million Enzo.

Well now you know it. I supposed it. Why ? He said the GT-R raised the bar performancewise. I assume that he is no idiot, so I'm sure he didin't mean, that the GT-R raised the bar for cars like the Koenigsegg or the Veyron. He talked about cars in that price range. The GT2 is not. Not at all.
Ofcourse it is cheaper than a Carrera GT. If you want to spend 300k $, the GT2 is the car to buy. It is one of the best deals in that price range.
But since this thread is " 2009 Nissan GT-R - U.S $69,850 " and not "Porsche 911 GT2 - U.S. $XYZ" I'd say that the GT2 cannot be compared.

It's competitive, but it is not setting any bars that you're hyping.

In that price range, it is. At least for stock cars. The FQ 400 is great aswell, but it's not availible everywhere. And the GT-R has other qualities ( Bose, leather, some comfort etc ) whereas the the FQ 400 is a beast. I like that, but it has to be mentioned.
M3 ? Same price, but slower.
911 ? More expensive, way slower.
Turbo ? Let's say same speed, but 90k$ above that car. Take 25k and tune the GT-R, take the 65 and buy another car. So you'll end up with 2 cars, one of them now a lot faster than the turbo.
GT2. I don't talk about a car twice as expensive. Of course it's supercar, but you simply can't compare them.

 

[BayConRong]

well i think it's better than a thirty-five ounce.

 

[McLaren]

Come on you know Tsukuba. Tsukuba is not about horsepower. It's about weight. The GT-R is heavy. That's poison for a track made only out of corners. Sure, the GT-R has a lot of traction, but still... 1800kg are 1800 kgs

Don't give me that. We all know by now the GT-R has no problem moving itself. If the GT-R is capable of "achieving" 5 seconds faster than a Z06 on the 'Ring, then on a track where it obviously has a better advantage should be doing even better. But it didn't, which shows it's not capable of 7:38 on its own from the factory.

And 3 seconds is a lot. 3 seconds out of one minute. Have a look at Formula 1. 3 seconds are worlds.

Note the fact that the man behind the wheel also has hours loads of track time on Tsukuba compared to those who set the 997 & Z06. As I said before, I'd prefer to see him drive the other 2 as well. But until then, I believe in the hands of the average test driver, the GT-R will not achieve 3 seconds over the other 2 on Tsukuba.

Well now you know it. I supposed it. Why ? He said the GT-R raised the bar performancewise. I assume that he is no idiot, so I'm sure he didin't mean, that the GT-R raised the bar for cars like the Koenigsegg or the Veyron. He talked about cars in that price range. The GT2 is not. Not at all.

I know he didn't mean that, and the fact remains, NO, the Nissan did not raise the bar for cars in its range. It's as equal as the other 2.

Ofcourse it is cheaper than a Carrera GT. If you want to spend 300k $, the GT2 is the car to buy. It is one of the best deals in that price range.
But since this thread is " 2009 Nissan GT-R - U.S $69,850 " and not "Porsche 911 GT2 - U.S. $XYZ" I'd say that the GT2 cannot be compared.

I wasn't even talking about price until you brought it up. I was showing that the GT-R did not raise the bar over. I brought up the fact that if you want to see a car who has raised the bar, it was the GT2.

I was NOT comparing them.

In that price range, it is. At least for stock cars. The FQ 400 is great aswell, but it's not availible everywhere. And the GT-R has other qualities ( Bose, leather, some comfort etc ) whereas the the FQ 400 is a beast. I like that, but it has to be mentioned.
M3 ? Same price, but slower.
911 ? More expensive, way slower.
Turbo ? Let's say same speed, but 90k$ above that car. Take 25k and tune the GT-R, take the 65 and buy another car. So you'll end up with 2 cars, one of them now a lot faster than the turbo.
GT2. I don't talk about a car twice as expensive. Of course it's supercar, but you simply can't compare them.

What a dumb argument. Price does not mean the GT-R has raised the bar. Raising the bar is the GT-R shooting out performance numbers that crush its opponents. So what if the 911 Turbo is $90K more? You're buying a Porsche, that's why!

And how hypocritcal. You come in here nearly criticizing me for bringing up the 997 GT2, and yet you claim the GT-R has raised the bar by being in the same price range as a M3 & 911 Carrera.
HELLLO!!! Not in the same category!

And stop talking about tuning the car. I hate arguments that do that. It doesn't mean diddly squat. Oohh, a modified car vs. a stock car. Yeah, that's a genius comparison, esp. when the cars were fine stock.
So, from now on, stop bringing in prices and modifying. If you want to play that stupid game, then anyone can just say, "Hey, Ultima GTR". End of discussion then as it's only $20K more and would easily outperform the GT-R.

Next time...read.

 

[Dave A]

well, Nissan has stated that GT-R fulfills ULEV ( Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) standards in Japan, thus, we can speculate that it actually will be rather economical for what it is. maybe not Corvette levels due the lack of ridiculously long fifth and sixth gear, but definitely nowhere near Veyron levels.

I always find the Corvettes economy to be something of an anomoly, I haven't seen a single UK test get results close to US tests and if anything, UK tests should show better numbers because out gallons are different, not worse.

Do Americans or American testers drive cars in the highest gears or something because that's the only explenation I can think of. I'm not looking for an argument, just an explanation. Ride quality is subjective and largly depends on the quality of the roads, but economy should be the same or thereabouts unless the cars are being driven differently.

 

[the Interceptor]

I'm still trying to figure out what it is that makes some people critisize this car so much here. As far as I get it, it seems that you mostly are put off by the facts that people say "it raised the bar for the competition", and that Nissan claims it lapped the ring in 7:38. Is that correct, and did I forget something?

 

[Max_DC]

Don't give me that. We all know by now the GT-R has no problem moving itself. If the GT-R is capable of "achieving" 5 seconds faster than a Z06 on the 'Ring, then on a track where it obviously has a better advantage should be doing even better. But it didn't, which shows it's not capable of 7:38 on its own from the factory.

The Z06 is a good car for a good price. We'll see how times of the final production car will be.

Note the fact that the man behind the wheel also has hours loads of track time on Tsukuba compared to those who set the 997 & Z06. As I said before, I'd prefer to see him drive the other 2 as well. But until then, I believe in the hands of the average test driver, the GT-R will not achieve 3 seconds over the other 2 on Tsukuba.

I agree. Of course that also means that the time driven on the Nurburgring is not necessarily everything that is possible with this car. Maybe Walter Röhrl could achieve a 7.38 on the Ring

I know he didn't mean that, and the fact remains, NO, the Nissan did not raise the bar for cars in its range. It's as equal as the other 2.

It did. In it's price range. Category : stock sports cars with a certain amount of luxury and every day usability. If you like that or not.

I wasn't even talking about price until you brought it up. I was showing that the GT-R did not raise the bar over. I brought up the fact that if you want to see a car who has raised the bar, it was the GT2.

I was NOT comparing them.


What a dumb argument. Price does not mean the GT-R has raised the bar. Raising the bar is the GT-R shooting out performance numbers that crush its opponents. So what if the 911 Turbo is $90K more? You're buying a Porsche, that's why!

You talk ONLY about performance, I talk about money&performance. Why ? Because in the end money is the limiting factor for most of us. You don't only have to buy the GT2, you have to insure it, pay taxes, maintain it. Who can ? Not many of us obviously.

I agree that the Nissan is not the ubercar if you simply look at hp numbers and then compare it to cars with eqaul hp. If you only have 70k$ to spend, you certainly get more (performance) at the Nissan dealer now than at a Porsche or BMW dealer. So it raised the bar. Just like the STi and the Evo did in their category : cars below 45k$.

The fact the YOU define "raising the bar" the way you do, doesn't mean that this is fact. It's your definition. You can define it that way, but you have to understand that other people use the same phrase while having sth different in mined. And they are just as right as you are. That's how language works.

So don't call me dumb if you don't even understand the basic rules of a argumentation. I'm not some random 12 year old wannabe expert, I'm older than you, well educated and I study medicine at one of the best universities ( for medicine ) in Germany.

For 90$k more, Nissan could easily make the GT-R a GT2 killer. Replace everything with carbon, use the best racing parts, short : more hp, less weight.

It's all a matter of priorities. I'd say if you want to have a sports car, you buy the fastest car you can afford ( of course you have to like the styling etc, but that's nothing you can discuss in a forum : you like it or you don't. ).

And how hypocritcal. You come in here nearly criticizing me for bringing up the 997 GT2, and yet you claim the GT-R has raised the bar by being in the same price range as a M3 & 911 Carrera.
HELLLO!!! Not in the same category!

HELLLO : SAME PRICE CATEGORY. At least in Germany. The yare not in the same performance category, exactly that is my point. That's why Nissan is raising the bar. How can you not understand this ?

It is legitimate to say : Nissan raised the bar with the GT-R. But obviously not if you use your definition.

And stop talking about tuning the car. I hate arguments that do that. It doesn't mean diddly squat. Oohh, a modified car vs. a stock car. Yeah, that's a genius comparison, esp. when the cars were fine stock.
So, from now on, stop bringing in prices and modifying. If you want to play that stupid game, then anyone can just say, "Hey, Ultima GTR". End of discussion then as it's only $20K more and would easily outperform the GT-R.

Next time...read.

I agree that tuning the car is a problem in this kind of discussion. Because you buy a used car from Ebay, buy the best parts you can get and end up with a 600 hp semirace car for 50k$.

Same with cars like the Ariel Atom. Of course that "car" would win almost every performance comparison, it is not really sth you would want to drive every day to work with. I mean, some people would, but you know what I mean.


It is so simple : Take 80k$. Now go and try to find the fastest stock car for that amount of money. Go to a Porsche dealer, go to BMW.Then go to Nissan. Of course you also might end up with a Z06. But not with a Porsche.