2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[niky]

Consider that it weighs... how much more? ...than the Viper... that's a given. Though I don't want to sound fan-boyish... that's the slowest accel times I've seen for the GT-R... hot day? Or is this the same media mule people have been thrashing since the first tests? But seeing that it's still faster than the Z06, it might not be the tester's condition... it might just be that the Viper really is that frikking fast.

Still, not surprising that the GT2 beat the GT-R (finally!) on track... the problem with the two Porsches (GT3 and Turbo) against the GT-R were that the Turbo didn't have the right tires or the proper AWD and the GT3 just didn't have enough power. The GT2 was sure to rectify that, by combining the best traits of the two. Surprising it wasn't a bigger margin on track, though... maybe with the same tires?

 

[Joey D]

How in the hell did the GT-R win? All the numbers are slower or the same as something else? Ad dollars much?

 

[TheCracker]

How in the hell did the GT-R win? All the numbers are slower or the same as something else? Ad dollars much?

Maybe the testers just thought it was the best car?

I presume the test wasn't to see which car made the best circuit or drag racer.

 

[Greycap]

In some odd way they've managed to kill the acceleration of the GT-R in that test, seeing that even times like this have been seen and low 12 second times have been the norm. But that aside, I don't think it's entirely fair to compare the base model GT-R to the top of the line Viper and 911. Sure, the Viper is only about $30.000 more expensive and thus a reasonably fair game in the bang for the buck comparison but the 911 GT2 is a total overkill. The Corvette is the "real life rival" of the GT-R in this comparison and they seem to be well matched.

 

[Joey D]

Maybe the testers just thought it was the best car?

I presume the test wasn't to see which car made the best circuit or drag racer.

It's Car and Driver, if they thing doesn't go fast then it's not worth anything to them. Which takes me back, if the GTR was slow than all but the Vette then how did it come in first? Judging by the results the Viper should have come in first. But really Car and Driver don't really know what they are talking about half the time and they do skew things quite bad based on who's giving them ad dollars.

I mean this article from March of 2007 has the Z06 beating some awesome performance cars:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/coupes/hardcore_comparison_test/(page)/1

Car and Driver does really stupid things with their points system too which really have nothing to do with the numbers of the car and are just based on whatever the driver thinks. I don't have an issue right in front of me so I can't truthfully tell you exactly what it says.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Interesting how the trap speed from the C&D test puts the GT-R right at 480 wheel horsepower...

 

[Leonidae]

reason to slow acceleration? they didn't use the launch control in order to "even out the field".. and still they chose GT-R over others.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

reason to slow acceleration? they didn't use the launch control in order to "even out the field".. and still they chose GT-R over others.

Thats bull****, that would be like comparing a 6 speed and 5 speed equipped car but only using 5 on both, or adding sandbags to make them all weigh the same. Its stupid, if it comes with it use it, there's no point in handicapping it just because the rest of the designers didn't see fit to include a launch control mode.

 

[McLaren]

In some odd way they've managed to kill the acceleration of the GT-R in that test, seeing that even times like this have been seen and low 12 second times have been the norm. But that aside, I don't think it's entirely fair to compare the base model GT-R to the top of the line Viper and 911. Sure, the Viper is only about $30.000 more expensive and thus a reasonably fair game in the bang for the buck comparison but the 911 GT2 is a total overkill. The Corvette is the "real life rival" of the GT-R in this comparison and they seem to be well matched.

And what makes it so unfair? The GT-R was capable of slapping Porsche & everyone else in the face in a few reviews already, so what made the ACR any different?
Besides that, the GT-R already hit 1:56 there before.

 

[Greycap]

Think of it the this way, how many people would see it fair to compare the upcoming GT-R V-Spec to the 911 Carrera, the Z51 Corvette and the base model Viper? Not even me. There would be no sense in it, yet it's being done the other way round all the time.

On the other hand it tells a whole lot about the GT-R, even the bottom of the line model can play with the best of the others. But I already see people - even in this thread - going mad because the "better" cars lost to the GT-R in the final scores. What they manage to miss is that the underdog equalled the top guns and that has to be taken into account in the results. And to answer your own question, yes, it is still that great. It was by just a bit over a second slower around the track than a car that weighs 620 pounds less and has some 50 bhp more power. In the slalom it actually beat it. I'm talking about the Porsche, not the Viper that is basically a street legal track car and thus should be a given winner when track times are the way of measuring which one is the best.

 

[Joey D]

Except the GT-R didn't beat any "better" cars, the Porsche and Viper were faster and the Z06 was on par with it. Frankly the most amazing thing about that compro was the Viper and how fast it was. I hate the Viper, but I have to respect those numbers.

And as I've said Car and Driver put a lot of subjective things in with there comparisons, which is why the GT-R. It probably got two more points on the fun to drive scale or something, there points system is not solely performance based so really it means nothing in that scheme of things. I'll have to get the issue or find scans to see how it was all broken down. I just don't understand how the best performing car didn't win.

 

[Stevisiov]

Perhaps it was horrible to drive?

 

[the Interceptor]

 

[YSSMAN]

The Corvette is the "real life rival" of the GT-R in this comparison and they seem to be well matched.

That's what I was most-concerned about, and in the end, my assumptions of similar performance for similar amounts of cash turned out to be true. I figured it was going to be between the GT2 and the GT-R for the top spot, so that wasn't a surprise at all. What was, however, is the absolute BRUTALITY that the ACR brought to the track. I really don't think you're going to find much that can beat that at-cost, maybe the only car to come close being the ZR1, but that being said... I have my doubts now.

Still, the Z06 put up a good show with the GT-R, and being what, (0.50) seconds behind on a track that shows the best nature of both cars, it seems very solid that you're getting a good deal either way... Furthermore, that you're getting a very different experience with both as well.

 

[Joey D]

Thanks for the scans 👍!

But seriously a "Gotta Have it Factor" what does that have to do with anything?

 

[YSSMAN]

Its a measurement of how popular a car is versus the others... Clearly a car like a GT-R or GT2 would have a clear advantage over a Corvette that has been around for four years now.

 

[Joey D]

Its a measurement of how popular a car is versus the others... Clearly a car like a GT-R or GT2 would have a clear advantage over a Corvette that has been around for four years now.

But how do they measure that? This is what I hate about C&D, they need to just stick with the numbers, not subject crap.

 

[the Interceptor]

Obviously those are not my scans, someone posted them on Finalgear.com.

 

[McLaren]

Those are some of the dumbest "The Lows" I have ever read. The 911 Turbo is a great car, and the GT2 is a negative because it's a "Rolex" version?

Seriously, wow....👎

Think of it the this way, how many people would see it fair to compare the upcoming GT-R V-Spec to the 911 Carrera, the Z51 Corvette and the base model Viper? Not even me. There would be no sense in it, yet it's being done the other way round all the time.

On the other hand it tells a whole lot about the GT-R, even the bottom of the line model can play with the best of the others. But I already see people - even in this thread - going mad because the "better" cars lost to the GT-R in the final scores. What they manage to miss is that the underdog equalled the top guns and that has to be taken into account in the results. And to answer your own question, yes, it is still that great. It was by just a bit over a second slower around the track than a car that weighs 620 pounds less and has some 50 bhp more power. In the slalom it actually beat it. I'm talking about the Porsche, not the Viper that is basically a street legal track car and thus should be a given winner when track times are the way of measuring which one is the best.

Yeah, I guess we should also forget that the GT2 is a car that takes nothing but driver skill to control 530 horses through the rear wheels, while the GT-R can actually allow any ol' monkey to drive it fast. These times only remind me that the GT-R is fast because of its aids, and nothing more. I'd love to see how it could do if it went with a 6-speed manual, and ditched all those computers helping drive it.

 

[nissan tuner]

reason to slow acceleration? they didn't use the launch control in order to "even out the field".. and still they chose GT-R over others.

the GT-R is capable of 0-60 in 3.3 seconds with launch control. that test is crap

the GT-R is also capable of a 72.9 Slalom and a 11.6 1/4 mile time in edmunds' test. and that was on a dirty airstrip

 

[Greycap]

Those are some of the dumbest "The Lows" I have ever read. The 911 Turbo is a great car, and the GT2 is a negative because it's a "Rolex" version?

Err, no. It's because "Taxing clutch, turbo lag, road-humping ride, $126,350 more than the GT-R". I understand that a heavy clutch is needed to harness the power but it also makes street driving a pain in traffic. Turbo lag is hardly excusable nowadays when there are variable geometry turbos around. And if Nissan could make a suspension setup that is both comfortable and stable, why couldn't Porsche? Those are real downsides, every one of them. The Rolex thing was just the verdict.

Yeah, I guess we should also forget that the GT2 is a car that takes nothing but driver skill to control 530 horses through the rear wheels, while the GT-R can actually allow any ol' monkey to drive it fast. These times only remind me that the GT-R is fast because of its aids, and nothing more. I'd love to see how it could do if it went with a 6-speed manual, and ditched all those computers helping drive it.

"Any ol' monkey" you say, let's pick Carl the Commuter from the street and tell him to take the GT-R to the limits. He'll take it to the wall. Any car will become difficult to drive when pushing hard. And, in case you didn't know it, in the "race" mode that is used for driving the hotlaps the actual driving aids are off, only ATTESA-ETS is working. I admit that it's a computer controlled system but one could argue about a whole lot of computer controlled things in today's cars. If we wanted a truly "pure" car it would have to be equipped with a carburettor to begin with, or mechanical fuel injection at the most. The formula for a fast car is changing and it isn't Nissan's fault if Porsche isn't following - which is quite ironic seeing that they made the 959 about 20 years ago, probably the most technologically advanced supercar of its time.

 

[Jay]

Is the GT-R really that great anymore? I mean, just LOOK at the ACR's QTR mile speed compared to the GT-R's! Jesus, it's got some power.

They are by far the worst acceleration figures I have ever seen from a GTR test, 0-60 in 4.1!!........1/4 mile in 12.6!!... Don't know what they done but that is pathetic.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The GT-R comes with run-flat tires?

 

[nissan tuner]

The GT-R comes with run-flat tires?

http://www.nissangtrproto.com/the-nissan-r35-gt-r/wheels-and-tires/

 

[McLaren]

Err, no. It's because "Taxing clutch, turbo lag, road-humping ride, $126,350 more than the GT-R". I understand that a heavy clutch is needed to harness the power but it also makes street driving a pain in traffic. Turbo lag is hardly excusable nowadays when there are variable geometry turbos around. And if Nissan could make a suspension setup that is both comfortable and stable, why couldn't Porsche? Those are real downsides, every one of them. The Rolex thing was just the verdict.

I'm not talking about the reasons. I'm talking about the wording. Surely they can come up with something better than, "Rolex Turbo".

"Any ol' monkey" you say, let's pick Carl the Commuter from the street and tell him to take the GT-R to the limits. He'll take it to the wall. Any car will become difficult to drive when pushing hard. And, in case you didn't know it, in the "race" mode that is used for driving the hotlaps the actual driving aids are off, only ATTESA-ETS is working. I admit that it's a computer controlled system but one could argue about a whole lot of computer controlled things in today's cars. If we wanted a truly "pure" car it would have to be equipped with a carburettor to begin with, or mechanical fuel injection at the most. The formula for a fast car is changing and it isn't Nissan's fault if Porsche isn't following - which is quite ironic seeing that they made the 959 about 20 years ago, probably the most technologically advanced supercar of its time.

Yeah, any car will be difficult to drive on the limit. But I'm talking about just driving fast in general.

Let someone take a GT2 & a GT-R around Laguna Seca at just 60-70Mph. I guarantee you that person will most likely have zero problems driving the GT-R. The GT2 on the hand, will probably prove to be somewhat of a handful.

The GT-R is great, but I'm not going to doubt its electronics are what really help achieve fast times, and not the driver alone.

 

[Dave A]

Perhaps, but why should the car be penalised for being more usable? Why should the fact it's easier to drive be a problem? I can understand it being a personal thing, though I wonder if most regular drivers who think they can drive that commute in their Mondeo's and 3-Series would still have the same opinion after driving both. I'm with you in that I like to feel like I'm fully in charge, I like to be the reason that was a superb gear change and the corner was apexed perfectly (not that I have much experience to do that) but at the same time I'm know that if I was stuck in a GT2 and I thrashed it, I'd probably die. That is a bad thing, if I wanted a usable supercar the GT-R would be a serious option. I don't particularly like the car not a fan of it's looks. But the usability of it is most certainly not something you can, or should be trying to use to put the car down.

In my opinion.

 

[Tornado]

I don't see what the big deal is over the slow acceleration times. C&D themselves said they have pulled sub-3.5 second rips to 60, so I doubt it was intentional sabotage. They were as confused as we are about it.
I also agree with *McLaren*. Car and Driver themselves said that the way to drive the GT-R fast was to drive it as if you were welcoming death, flinging it around as a two ton rally car. I imagine trying anything similar in the Porsche would cause...complications. I don't think that is a bad thing, but the Porsche is certainly more classic in its application.

Am I the only one who did a complete 180 and now loves the Viper ACR to death because of that article? Its just so...classic. Like a 60s race car.

 

[Joey D]

Am I the only one who did a complete 180 and now loves the Viper ACR to death because of that article? Its just so...classic. Like a 60s race car.

No, I typically hate the Viper because it's just so overly pointless but the ACR is defiantly a top-notch racecar. I love how it just gives the finger to technology and has an absurd amount of power that will kill you if you aren't careful. I still hate the Viper's styling and the car will probably break down or fall apart, but I would still take one in a heartbeat for a track car.

 

[Tornado]

No, I typically hate the Viper because it's just so overly pointless but the ACR is defiantly a top-notch racecar. I love how it just gives the finger to technology and has an absurd amount of power that will kill you if you aren't careful.

Other than the hating of the normal Viper part, that is what I meant. I originally didn't like the ACR too much.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Am I the only one who did a complete 180 and now loves the Viper ACR to death because of that article? Its just so...classic. Like a 60s race car.

But the GT-R has a nice rear seat.