2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Tornado]

And for that matter, how much money Nissan is losing on every car.

The "probably lots" answer from the 90s models isn't good enough any more?

 

[McLaren]

Almost 100 pages of LULZ here.

pay attention to heavychevy and monarocountry. they've been repeating those lines since the first nurb laptime by GT-R mule..

Monaro is just a cry-baby, make-up-any-excuse GT-R hater. He constantly posts crap on UCP, FChat, & 6Speed. Hell, he even claimed that the R35 cheated because he thinks Nismo lied about estimating how fast the Z-Tune would run. He stopped that Z-Tune nonsense though, as soon as I told him off that it was pointless to argue about modified cars "cheating".

 

[Leonidae]

oh yes, I do know his reputation and what he does..

Owners first 24 hours with GT-R
👍

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

oh yes, I do know his reputation and what he does..

Owners first 24 hours with GT-R
👍

And it should be known that not all Holden fans are like that, you get your bad eggs in every carton.

 

[McLaren]

oh yes, I do know his reputation and what he does..

Owners first 24 hours with GT-R
👍

Terrific read.

Here's Monaro's latest rant, halfway down the page. It's worth a laugh to see the supercar he decided to compare the GT-R to.
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/american-cars/36983-corvette-zr1-driven-hard-3.html

 

[Tornado]

If a street race proved which car would be better, then the Toyota Corolla from Initial D must be God.

 

[Leonidae]

Yet another praising article from R&T

and this time you can't claim that the competition isn't evenly matched..

 

[Tornado]

And another great showing for the Gallardo. What a great job they did fixing it.

 

[McLaren]

Here's a helpful, all-in-one listing of all the tests.
http://www.gtrblog.com/media/blogs/gtrblog/RoadAndTrack/road-and-track-results.gif

 

[Joey D]

Wow the totally unsophisticated and brutish Viper ACR did better than Nissan's science fair project. I'm sort of shocked it did that. I hate the Viper but I've really grown to love how the ACR gives a full on finger to technology.

 

[Leonidae]

and on that same thread in corvetteforums, massive luls keep appearing over and over by same guys..

 

[McLaren]

and on that same thread in corvetteforums, massive luls keep appearing over and over by same guys..

An R8 wont even stay on the same lap as a Z06. PERIOD. You want to justify this publication because it exalts your GT-R, but utter stupidity like this only exsposes the mags for what they are.

Am I the only one who smells some irony in this statement?

 

[Leonidae]

^indeed..

 

[Greycap]

Wow the totally unsophisticated and brutish Viper ACR did better than Nissan's science fair project. I'm sort of shocked it did that. I hate the Viper but I've really grown to love how the ACR gives a full on finger to technology.

Err, a car built for track use, to such extents that it has to be modified to be road legal (removing the front splitter), with 25% more power and 17% less weight, sporting a race car level wing and a fully adjustable suspension, running on road legal track tyres... I can't see a single reason why it would NOT do better. It has all the advantages when it comes to driving fast on dry tarmac which is pretty much the sole reason it was built for. Not to be a comfortable cruiser that you can drive across the country without rattling your teeth off but that can also hang with many of the best on the track.

 

[YSSMAN]

Here's a helpful, all-in-one listing of all the tests.
http://www.gtrblog.com/media/blogs/gtrblog/RoadAndTrack/road-and-track-results.gif

Interesting. All they do is bitch about how the Corvette was twitchy, but nevertheless, it performed in-line with most of the other "top cars" from around the world. The main difference I'm starting to see here is that technology is out-pacing the car, because as it stands, I believe its the second oldest platform in the test (Gallardo --> C6 --> SRT-10 ver 2.0).

I'm unfamiliar with the layouts of these tracks... I'm under the assumption that they are smaller, a bit more technical? Wouldn't lend well to the high-power cars like the Z06 and such who depend on acceleration to keep pace.

I am most-disappointed with the Aston DBS beating the Z06 on the last thing there. That shouldn't have happened, I don't care what your opinion of the car is. I do find it most-interesting that the R8 did what it did as well, because in most other things I've seen, the Z06 has been able to defeat it handily.

Meh. When you're looking at a $70K car that can at least hold its own with cars that occasionally cost double (or more!), I think the mission statement of the car has been fulfilled.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Yet another praising article from R&T

and this time you can't claim that the competition isn't evenly matched..

Actually stevo in the comments brings up a good point

Good concept for a comparo, but ultimately flawed and therefore misleading. All cars should be on real street tires or on R-compounds - no mixed testing. It is an indisputable fact that R-compound tires give a huge advantage, masking the real performance differences between cars. I realize someone is going to say "stock is stock", but tires must be somewhat equalized to have a valid comparo. The performance difference between the various street tires is nowhere near as great as the difference going from pure street to an R-compound. Hence the comparo is fatally flawed.

But I think I'm more of a "stock is stock" guy.

 

[Scaff]

I'm unfamiliar with the layouts of these tracks... I'm under the assumption that they are smaller, a bit more technical? Wouldn't lend well to the high-power cars like the Z06 and such who depend on acceleration to keep pace.

Autoclub Speedway = 2 mile Oval

...the Z06 came 7th here.

The Willow Spring international raceway is described in the R&T article as "It's known as the fastest track in the West", so to be fair the actual track selection used does seem to be a good balance.

I would also dispute that the ACR Viper gives the finger to technology as Joey claimed, just because it doesn't use a lot of electronics does not mean its a basic design. Technological excellence in automotive design goes well beyond the electronic, material components, design and construction methods can all be advanced without the use of 'electronics. It certainly doesn't give the finger to technology at all. Same thing always make me laugh about NASCAR, they love to portray the sport as being 'low-tech', actually take the time to look into what make a good oval car and its a scary amount of very advanced design and engineering.


Regards

Scaff

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm somewhat familiar with Willow Springs. I seem to recall that it is a track that places value on acceleration and consistent cornering, while I believe is the likely reason why the Corvette lost a lot of ground.

 

[Joey D]

Err, a car built for track use, to such extents that it has to be modified to be road legal (removing the front splitter), with 25% more power and 17% less weight, sporting a race car level wing and a fully adjustable suspension, running on road legal track tyres... I can't see a single reason why it would NOT do better. It has all the advantages when it comes to driving fast on dry tarmac which is pretty much the sole reason it was built for. Not to be a comfortable cruiser that you can drive across the country without rattling your teeth off but that can also hang with many of the best on the track.

It's still a road car and it's better without using all the technology in the known world on it. I don't see why the GT-R didn't do better considering the times it has been running on other tracks. The Top Gear test track is one such example, it ran up there with an Atom which is nothing more then some piping and an engine.

And before you say it no this isn't anti-GT-R ramblings.

 

[Greycap]

I don't see why the GT-R didn't do better considering the times it has been running on other tracks.

I can't see how much better it could have done. It was able to beat each of its competitors at least once, defeating the Gallardo and 911 around the Willow Springs as well as the Viper around the speedway. And it still has noticably more weight and less power than any of them so an outright victory was more or less impossible anyway. It pretty much slaughtered the Corvette and R8 which is what matters in the market, the rest are V-Spec game.

 

[niky]

Actually, I'll take issue with this:

Good concept for a comparo, but ultimately flawed and therefore misleading. All cars should be on real street tires or on R-compounds - no mixed testing. It is an indisputable fact that R-compound tires give a huge advantage, masking the real performance differences between cars. I realize someone is going to say "stock is stock", but tires must be somewhat equalized to have a valid comparo. The performance difference between the various street tires is nowhere near as great as the difference going from pure street to an R-compound. Hence the comparo is fatally flawed.

The problem is, advanced suspension design is not only centered on making the suspension work with the vehicle, but also making it work with the tires. Simply, a car designed around a certain set of tires will obviously not perform as well on tires with less grip or a different profile, but likewise, a car designed around lesser tires won't always be better on stickier tires. Simply because shock damping, spring loading and suspension geometry aren't designed to take full advantage of those tires.

Ultra-sticky tires on a car designed to flow around regular street tires? I can think of a zillion things happening... Over-stressed suspension, car rolling onto its bump-stops because it's got more grip than shocks, twitchy rear end (too much front grip), too much understeer (too much rear grip), etcetera...

Consider that the big boys in this group are all wearing intermediate tires (except the ACR), and I'd regard this test as fair. Stock tires are stock tires. If a manufacturer chooses to design their car around poor tires, that's their problem.

As to the GT-R's performance? The Gallardo LP560-4, the Porsche 911 GT2 and the Viper ACR have beaten it elsewhere already, so I don't see any shocks in the test. Remember, all three cars have more power and less weight, and at least one of them has more grip than anything else out there. And consider that it comes no lower than third at any of the tracks (and fourth in the autocross), that's pretty good.

As for the Z06's showing... that's life. They noted that it lost time on various tracks due to the twitchy rear end... which other road testers have complained about. It's not just power-weight, y'know.... and due to the lesser grip of the Eagle F1s... maybe the ZR1 will fix that... who knows. That the R8 bested it (and that the Aston went faster on the Oval) shows the value of car balance over power in these cases.

Not entirely unexpected results (except for how low the Exige scored on the Autocroos), and just about what you'd expect from previous tests in other publications.

 

[McLaren]

It's still a road car and it's better without using all the technology in the known world on it. I don't see why the GT-R didn't do better considering the times it has been running on other tracks. The Top Gear test track is one such example, it ran up there with an Atom which is nothing more then some piping and an engine.

And before you say it no this isn't anti-GT-R ramblings.

True, but the thing is that we don't have ACR times for those other tracks, so we don't know just how dominate the ACR is.

I'm not surprised the ACR did so well. The GT-R showed it isn't god (no offense GT-R guys) when it started running other tracks despite the 'Ring time, and considering the ACR is pretty much a race car that just happens to be barely street legal, I would expect it to beat the GT-R pretty well.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

The Corvette......lost to an R8 and GTR.......on an oval track? Am I the only one who sees that as just a little strange?

 

[niky]

RE: ACR: there was already another magazine test that pitted the GT-R against the ACR, GT2 and Vette. The ACR came in first.

Not if you read why. The test driver stated that the Corvette's rear end got squiggly at over 150 mph. Granted, that doesn't mean it can't go faster... just that you can't be sure that it's safe to do so.

In a straight line, obviously, the Vette would eat those cars alive... but then, a racetrack isn't a straight line.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

RE: ACR: there was already another magazine test that pitted the GT-R against the ACR, GT2 and Vette. The ACR came in first.

Not if you read why. The test driver stated that the Corvette's rear end got squiggly at over 150 mph. Granted, that doesn't mean it can't go faster... just that you can't be sure that it's safe to do so.

In a straight line, obviously, the Vette would eat those cars alive... but then, a racetrack isn't a straight line.

An oval might as well be a straight line. The Corvette really and truly needs just a bit of downforce, like it or not, the GTR has got downforce, but the Corvette doesn't (Or at least nowhere near as much). It would be interesting to see if the C7 Vette gets a wing, and maybe some downforce generating front bumper and rear diffuser.

 

[Leonidae]

^but that would mean more time spent in wind tunnel, which increases development costs. also, downforce usually means increase in drag, which would cause the mileage to go down.. and relatively good MPG for power is Z06's selling points. of course, they could yet again put even longer gears on it to negate this..

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

^but that would mean more time spent in wind tunnel, which increases development costs. also, downforce usually means increase in drag, which would cause the mileage to go down.. and relatively good MPG for power is Z06's selling points. of course, they could yet again put even longer gears on it to negate this..

That cofuses me, apart from maybe top gear for low rev highway cruising, I thought shorter gears would get better mileage thanks to not needing to use as much throttle to get the same acceleration?
Devlopment costs are a part of building good cars, but given GM would undoubtedly have their own wind tunnels I don't see how that could really run up development costs, other than maybe the extra material needed to make the spoilers.
Don't forget the C7 is said by GM to be getting smaller and lighter and less powerful while maintaining the same PWR, if Cd increases even a little bit (because surely the rest of the body would get more aerodynamically slippery anyway), the overall mileage will still increase, because less air is being pushed aside, the engine is making less power, and it would have less weight to lug around. Surely they can afford to create some downforce given all that.

 

[niky]

Well... the C6 already has an astronomically long top gear...

Shorter gears mean quicker acceleration, but a short top gear means high cruising rpm. With the massive torque of the Corvette's big V8, it can have long gears (60 mph in first... ) and still have good acceleration... and decent economy, considering you're doing a good clip of speed just off idle in the higher gears.

Oval =/= straight line... true, oval banking helps provide a sort of downforce, but there's still lateral forces acting on the car. The change between flat straights and banked turns at high speeds requires stability in transition.

True, downforce, any kind of downforce, would help the Vette (ref. "Top Gear" Koenigsegg spoiler), but I don't think development money would be that big of an issue, considering GM's active racing program.

 

[///M-Spec]

Actually stevo in the comments brings up a good point

But I think I'm more of a "stock is stock" guy.

I disagree with Stevo. Strongly. Cars should be the tested exactly the way they are delivered to the customers. A magazine that goes around changing anything --and I mean anything-- instantly misrepresents a car to the consumer. Period.

If a car is delivered on Cups, they should be tested on Cups. If the car is delivered on hockey pucks, they should be tested on the hockey pucks. The tires should be noted and it should be up to the magazine reader and consumers to make conclusions.

That cofuses me, apart from maybe top gear for low rev highway cruising, I thought shorter gears would get better mileage thanks to not needing to use as much throttle to get the same acceleration?

You've got it backwards. Shorter gears (numerically higher, more torque multiplication) generally increases gas consumption, in return for better acceleration.

Taller gears (numerically lower, less torque multiplication) generally reduces gas consumption, in return for worse acceleration.

Assuming driving style and environment being equal.

Think about it this way: each revolution of the crankshaft has a fuel cost associated with it. The more an engine revs, the more power it makes and the more fuel it uses. Why do you think cars like the Corvette has such tall gearing?

With short gearing, you will need more revolutions to achieve a certain road speed in a given amount of time.


M

 

[Scaff]

I disagree with Stevo. Strongly. Cars should be the tested exactly the way they are delivered to the customers. A magazine that goes around changing anything --and I mean anything-- instantly misrepresents a car to the consumer. Period.

If a car is delivered on Cups, they should be tested on Cups. If the car is delivered on hockey pucks, they should be tested on the hockey pucks. The tires should be noted and it should be up to the magazine reader and consumers to make conclusions.

I agree you you on this one M.

Any change in the spec changes the package away from the one the customer gets, its miss-leading in many ways (Niky also pointed out areas this causes problems with as well). This is not an attempt to do a 'like for like' comparison, too many other things differ about these cars, its a comparison of how they come from the 'factory/showroom'.


Regards

Scaff