2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

  • Thread starter emad
  • 3,050 comments
  • 148,002 views
People don't seem to get the greatest point of the GT-R. It's a car that costs $70.000 (it's not that the car's fault that the dealers are greedy) and can beat the others in its price class. It's even competing against higher class models such as the 911 GT3 which costs $40.000 more or the 911 Turbo which takes the difference to almost $60.000. And it does all this in pretty good luxury. Just think about what it would be if it cost that $40.000 more with the difference being spent in making it faster and you understand what an achievement it is already.

Why is it an achievement? Just because nissan arent looking to turn a profit on the GTR? Really because the GTR has so much more power makes it less impressive that it barely can beat the 997 Turbo and even more so the audi R8.

So saying the GTR has 550-600hp if we compared it to other cars with similiar power and weight makes what the GTR has "achieved" even less impressive. I dont see it troubling SLR's, 599's etc. And the GT2? Well it cant even hold a candle to that. Dont blame ferrari mercedes or porsche that they actually need to make a profit from their vehicles. They dont sell a bunch of boring everyday cars that arent all that on the whole to make money from.
 
Why is it an achievement? Just because nissan arent looking to turn a profit on the GTR? Really because the GTR has so much more power makes it less impressive that it barely can beat the 997 Turbo and even more so the audi R8.
So I can have a car that is almost as good as an R8 or a 997 Turbo (if you'll read the article I posted above you'll see that some even think it's better than the 911) for significantly less money. And that's a bad thing, yes? I'd call that an archievement.

I can't help to think that you turn every tiny bit of information about this car into something negative. And I don't understand why. Even if you don't like it, you should be grown up enough to admit that it's technically it's by no means a bad car. Yet, you fight it with all your heart.
 
So saying the GTR has 550-600hp if we compared it to other cars with similiar power and weight makes what the GTR has "achieved" even less impressive. I dont see it troubling SLR's, 599's etc. And the GT2? Well it cant even hold a candle to that. Dont blame ferrari mercedes or porsche that they actually need to make a profit from their vehicles. They dont sell a bunch of boring everyday cars that arent all that on the whole to make money from.
Rrright. In the tests we've seen you've been completely OK with the fact that the competitor of the 480 bhp GT-R has been the 505 bhp Z06. Now when it's becoming apparent that the GT-R has closer to 550 bhp you want to compare it to 625 bhp SLR's and 620 bhp 599's that cost four to six times as much. Is it or just me or is there something fishy in this?

How about comparing it to the cars in the same price class, ie. the already mentioned Corvette or the base model 911 Carrera? Or won't that do because the GT-R would wipe the floor with its competitors? It just happens to be the fastest ~$70.000 car today and you can do nothing but face the truth.
 
Just dropping in here, but I bet Nissan will make profit like the Veyron does, such as high serice costs, regular service interval etc. Like how they have to replace the plasma cylinder lining or whatever it is every year (probably very expensive), the fact it has 2 intercoolers, these will all cost big $$$ that Nissan will rake in.
 
Like how they have to replace the plasma cylinder lining or whatever it is every year (probably very expensive), the fact it has 2 intercoolers, these will all cost big $$$ that Nissan will rake in.
You're two and a half months late with that argument, it's been proved wrong long ago. There's no plasma lining, somebody understood specifications wrong and spread it over the world that the GT-R has plasma in the cylinders. There's none, it's iron.

Here's the quote to tell the truth.
The GTR uses a plasma sprayed iron coating, its not like its liquid or something, its actually iron, just sprayed on.
 
Just dropping in here, but I bet Nissan will make profit like the Veyron does, such as high serice costs, regular service interval etc. Like how they have to replace the plasma cylinder lining or whatever it is every year (probably very expensive), the fact it has 2 intercoolers, these will all cost big $$$ that Nissan will rake in.
The Veyron won't makea profit ever, VAG lose £4 million or something around that on each car from production. Do you tihnk they will ever make that back on servicing costs.

As for the Plasma lining, you don't need that replacing every year. Companies do build cars at a loss and they do it for image, because what these cars will do for the comapnies image will in the long run attract more buyers for thier more regular cars that they do make a profit on at sale.
 
People don't seem to get the greatest point of the GT-R. It's a car that costs $70.000 (it's not that the car's fault that the dealers are greedy) and can beat the others in its price class.

*ahem*

x07ch_cr024l.jpg


She sits right at the $70K mark, is serviceable at more dealers across the country (well, pretty much any GM dealer) and comes with a longer warranty. Oh, and did I mention that the GT-R is only fractions of a second faster under most circumstances? And you'll likely end up paying less for the Corvette in the long-run due to the lack of markups and their ability to hold their value?

Don't worry. I like having another performance bargain in the neighborhood. I really want to see the two of them go at it on a track.

...Damn Porsche stealing all the limelight...

====

People tend to forget that the Corvette is just as fast as the GT-R, 599, and all that jazz. My guess is that if it had the fancy dual-clutch gearbox with launch control, it would happily keep up (assuming of course it could hold traction). I'll take the couple tenths off the run to sixty to row my own gears, because either way, the Corvette catches up not too long after 100 MPH...
 
Rrright. In the tests we've seen you've been completely OK with the fact that the competitor of the 480 bhp GT-R has been the 505 bhp Z06. Now when it's becoming apparent that the GT-R has closer to 550 bhp you want to compare it to 625 bhp SLR's and 620 bhp 599's that cost four to six times as much. Is it or just me or is there something fishy in this?

How about comparing it to the cars in the same price class, ie. the already mentioned Corvette or the base model 911 Carrera? Or won't that do because the GT-R would wipe the floor with its competitors? It just happens to be the fastest ~$70.000 car today and you can do nothing but face the truth.

I know of cars that cost less than the GTR that will make it look completely stupid around teh racetrack. ;)
 
I'm sure a lot of people do, but how many of thoes are as comfortable to drive daily as the GT-R is? Not many, cars like th R500 and various Ultima models will thrash most things around a track but they arn't going to be nice cars to drive on a road nor are they built to the same standard of quality as a car like the GT-R.

Why are you wasting so much effort trying to put the GT-R down?
 
@ YSSMAN: at this point, I need to stress the differences of car prices in different countries again:

Germany (official prices without extras):

GT-R: (estimated) 70,000 Euros (107,990 $US)
Z06: 88,150 Euros (135,992 $US)
R8: 106,400 Euros (164,147 $US)
911 Turbo: 140,152 Euros (216,217 $US)

Obviously, the Z06 would be much more attractive choice if I'd live in the US. But here, and probably in Finland and many other countries as well, the GT-R might be a bigger bargain than in the USA.
 
To Forza:

in addition, do they have aircon, satnav, power seats, adjustable dampers/gearbox/traction control and room for two golf bags and kids? As grey said before, he could build his car to be faster than Z06 on the straights for half of the value, but what's the fun in that? GT-R is best overall package at the moment. Practicality, comfortable long distance cruiser and when necessary, it'll spank cars left, right and middle.

And damn right, I'd take GT-R over 911 Turbo and Z06. fuel economy might be bit different, but that's never the point of these cars.
 
The more forza hates the gt-r, the more I love it.

Both the z06 and gt-r are great cars but I would rather get the GT-R because it is faster and a lot safer.

Yeah, I highly doubt you know this for a fact since cars like these normally don't have safety ratings like other cars. If anything, both the 'Vette and the GT-R will probably rated the same or have no rating at all like a lot of cars over the $100K marker.
 
Quite the contrary: The quick acceleration times proves how adept and quick the GT-R is, but as this groundbreaking, earth-shattering supercar, its still got a ways to go. I give Nissan a ton of credit for what they did, and likely, what they will continue to do with the car. But people often forget that it is only fractions of a second better than the Corvette, which at the time of its debut, was just as "earth-shattering" as well.

The difference is, it has a GT-R badge on the back, and the fanboys from both sides will wage war over it forever.

They're all fast, they're all more expensive by comparison to what we can afford, and most of us can only bank on being able to sit in one some day. That, essentially, is where it ends for us...
 
The only reason the GT-R appears faster is because of AWD, note the GT-R can pull some nice 0-60mph times, but the Corvette does a quicker 1/4mile, a very high 10sec run with factory tyres. The Corvette has more pull down straights once power is down, then that same AWD gives the GT-R a corner exit advantage, when the Z06 is still babying the throttle the GT-R is flat down. If the GT-R was a RWD car only I have no doubt the Z06 would beat it. But it isn't, so the GT-R comes out on top around a track. The fact the Corvette keeps up with so much torque to man-handle in corners is the Z06's achievement. Now I'm looking forward to the ZR-1 vs the V-Spec ;)
 
well it would have been if the Z06 driver didnt decide to have a cup of tea during reaction times.

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u211/amd_knockhill/pics/img009.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u211/amd_knockhill/pics/img007.jpg

Z06 beats the GTR over 70mph which i would say shows that the GTR is overrated as much as people like to think it is.

The GTR is quicker to 70 because of its gearbox. ZO6 v. GT-R is just a question of which kind of gearbox you prefer and whether you want AWD or RWD.
 
The GTR is quicker to 70 because of its gearbox. ZO6 v. GT-R is just a question of which kind of gearbox you prefer and whether you want AWD or RWD.

yes i know but if you are to believe what people say the GTR has around 560bhp and if it did it would have run away from the Z06 but it didnt which would lead to believe it really does have 480-500bhp.
 
yes i know but if you are to believe what people say the GTR has around 560bhp and if it did it would have run away from the Z06
Then you read that one of them weighs 700 pounds more. Even if the GTR does have 550-560 BHP, the Z06 still has a better PWR.

Z06 beats the GTR over 70mph which i would say shows that the GTR is overrated as much as people like to think it is.
That is a neat trick. I find it pretty awesome that the GTR is so fast that after the Corvette beats it to 100 (and both of those times are pretty spotty, to say the least), the GTR is able to overcome a half second deficit and post an identical quarter mile time of 11.6 seconds (and this is despite a lower trap speed!).
 
She sits right at the $70K mark, is serviceable at more dealers across the country (well, pretty much any GM dealer) and comes with a longer warranty. Oh, and did I mention that the GT-R is only fractions of a second faster under most circumstances? And you'll likely end up paying less for the Corvette in the long-run due to the lack of markups and their ability to hold their value?

People tend to forget that the Corvette is just as fast as the GT-R, 599, and all that jazz. My guess is that if it had the fancy dual-clutch gearbox with launch control, it would happily keep up (assuming of course it could hold traction). I'll take the couple tenths off the run to sixty to row my own gears, because either way, the Corvette catches up not too long after 100 MPH...

People don't forget if you take every post in this thread to remind them...

Also, if we added all those things... wouldn't it lose it's bargain-price USP? ;).

The bolded part: That is entirely the point of all this though. People are bench-racing, and if we're going by the numbers, the GT-R is the faster one, even if it's just barely. Being "fractions behind" =/= the same. Plus the AWD means it's probably going to be easier to have consistent times (though there's been a review or two out there that's said otherwise). Also, the GT-R's ability to hold its value in the used market is an unknown right now, and I definitely wouldn't base it off the few right-hookers imported in. Maybe it's just around here, but I've not seen used Vettes holding their value particularly well. The M3 seemed to be the standard here up until about a year ago, when they started to plummet.

I'm still amazed the same people are trolling this thread with the same comments, months after tests have started to pop up. If it were some other car, it would've been put to a stop long ago, but for some reason, the GT-R badge just reels them in. The GTP community seems to take poorly to certain cars being talked about in even a remotely negative light, while others are there for just that purpose. Toyota is terrible, the GT-R's crap, etc etc ad nauseum.
 
but the Corvette does a quicker 1/4mile, a very high 10sec run with factory tyres.

What? All tests I have seen of the Z06 is around 11.6-11.7, you say high 10's!?

The GTR 1/4 mile times have been quite similar but usually a tad quicker around 11.5-11.6 (11.5 on that C&D page YSSMAN posted two pages ago)
 
I'm still amazed the same people are trolling this thread with the same comments, months after tests have started to pop up. If it were some other car, it would've been put to a stop long ago, but for some reason, the GT-R badge just reels them in. The GTP community seems to take poorly to certain cars being talked about in even a remotely negative light, while others are there for just that purpose. Toyota is terrible, the GT-R's crap, etc etc ad nauseum.
Well, there's a very simple solution to that - close the thread. I think that everything that needs to be said has already been said.

I for myself would be happy if everyone would just accept that the GT-R is a good car, is a bit cheaper than the competition in some countries and maybe a bit more expensive in others, and is about as quick as them as well. I wouldn't have to defend the car if some of the attenders of this thread would just accept and live with the above. You're still free to not like it, that's fine. But you should be abe to accept what it is capable of.
 
I just find it amazing that this goes on without many, if anyone saying things along the following lines...

We are comparing these cars without consideration for the world around them (11.5 .v 11.6, big deal, either way it's under 12 seconds and amazing).

We don't seem to care about the customer's position... You want raw power and no driving aids, go with the vette, you want computers and consistant laps, go with the GTR.

We don't seem to care abou the customer's location (this has been brought up some)... The GTR will be the best buy outside of the US and the Vette will be the best buy within the US. Prices change with the location of purchase and that will make the difference in price based comparisons.

All in all, I just find it sad that people can't simply say...
I like the GTR or I don't like the GTR.

Personally, I like the GTR (even though I don't see it as my dream car).
 
What? You've obviously missed the point of owning a sports car...

How so? Just because if I buy a performance car, it DOESNT mean I would always have to take it and race. If I want to drive through snow to go to work, it will be safer.
If I want to drive through severe raining condition, it will be safer.

And forza. "faster" is a bit subjective. However, I consider running around the track superior.
 
How so? Just because if I buy a performance car, it DOESNT mean I would always have to take it and race. If I want to drive through snow to go to work, it will be safer.
If I want to drive through severe raining condition, it will be safer.


And forza. "faster" is a bit subjective. However, I consider running around the track superior.
And where are the sources that say the GT-R will be safer? It'll be harder on the Corvette in those 2 conditions, but that doesn't necessarily mean the GT-R will be safer if both cars get into the same accident.
 
I think the point he's trying to make is that the GT-R isn't as likely to get into the said accident as it's easier to drive in low grip conditions thanks to being AWD. A friend of mine actually drove a Corvette to work earlier this winter and said that it was very slippery.

You're still free to not like it, that's fine. But you should be abe to accept what it is capable of.
Nothing more to add to this. 👍
 
Back