- 27,203
- United Kingdom
2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery
- Thread starter emad
- 3,050 comments
- 148,420 views
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
*points at ACR*
Yup, the Nissan trans is a helluva advantage at the 'ring. (Not sarcasm. Viper would nom everything with an SMG of some sort.)
Yup, the Nissan trans is a helluva advantage at the 'ring. (Not sarcasm. Viper would nom everything with an SMG of some sort.)
But that's still how real drivers drive. I'd never want a car that expensive and powerful without a REAL manual transmission. It's just...not right.
We're talking about a production road car, not an F1 or rally car or anything. Two very different things. You took my comment a bit too literally.
Funny how you went on to take a swing at dragster drivers. I'd love to see you try handling 8,000hp that does a 1/4 mile in 3 seconds, faster than 95% of cars can do 0-60.
Funny how you went on to take a swing at dragster drivers. I'd love to see you try handling 8,000hp that does a 1/4 mile in 3 seconds, faster than 95% of cars can do 0-60.
Because people are lazy? They're trying to reduce the possibility for human error, and to make it easier to shift quickly. I think it's a bunch of crap. All companies keep doing is removing more and more driver control. Now there are driving aids, that bullcrap they call "manual transmissions" with paddles, speed limiters, computer controls, etc etc. Give me a clutch pedal and stick, and let me drive like a man as opposed to a sissy kthxbye. I want to drive my car, not have a computer do it for me. Seriously, I find no fun in just pushing a paddle or bumping a tiptronic stick POS. If I want that, I'll hook up my DFP and play GT5P.
ROFL @ the manual transmission slushbox comment. That's hilarious. Maybe slushboxes if the driver is a moron. The term slushbox refers to a slow shifting transmission. I've never heard of a slow shifting manual transmission, considering shift speed is controlled by the driver...
Last edited:
- 5,766
- Anoka, MN
Haha you and me are on the same page there kingcars. 
Haha you and me are on the same page there kingcars.
Heck yeah man. 👍
There are even cars that park themselves. I mean, seriously, in 20 years, not many people will be driving cars period. That's a good thing in 1 way (not as many idiots in control), but not good for those of us who actually want to drive our cars instead of having computers do it. Give me an older car, like my Tbird, or even my dad's 66 Chevelle. No driving aids to be seen; I don't need them. Launch Control? That's called both my feet working in perfect harmony.
- 5,766
- Anoka, MN
Haha I have an '89 Wrangler. Non-computer, carbed inline-6, 5-speed, power steering only, no airbags, easiest dash to take apart, no carpet...it's like the anti-vehicle of today. 
Leonidae
(Banned)
- 6,881
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
So, you like doing things all by yourself? In that case, Model T is for you.. but even then, you're not making the power yourself.. so, a car that has to be like a bike.. you power it. Would that be better? your muscles would get workout, you'd be economical and no emissions at all, easy to maintain as well. you might call yourself purist, but your view at this matter is bit too black and white.
- 533
- Danville/VA/US
- japan_gator
You can go on and complain about the computers and gizmos in a car, it doesn't make a difference on how future cars will turn out, I'm a man seeking for the future and that would mean that if I find myself in a 2020 motorshow I expect it to have all this probably even more than what I can imagine. The generation of the automobile is revolutionizing
Last edited:
That's how to roll! Take a look at the interior of my dad's Chevelle:
Oh, and how about taking a look at the engine electronics:
Where did I say I wanted to transport myself? No, I want to drive my car. I DO NOT want a COMPUTER to drive FOR me. Two very different things. Stop grasping at straws.
Oh, and how about taking a look at the engine electronics:
Where did I say I wanted to transport myself? No, I want to drive my car. I DO NOT want a COMPUTER to drive FOR me. Two very different things. Stop grasping at straws.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 5,766
- Anoka, MN
Exactly why I never plan on buying new.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
There needs to be a balance between technology and driver interaction.
One thing I have against the GT-R is there is so much useless stuff in it with the on board computer and what not. That's a waste. I'm not saying the car is easy to drive though because it is fast and fast cars tend to be difficult to drive...although none of us can really say because we have not driven the car. Many BMW's work in a similar way.
I hate old muscle cars for the opposite reason (hell even new "muscle cars"). You need some sort of technology in the car to make it fast without having an engine that could spin earth.
One thing I have against the GT-R is there is so much useless stuff in it with the on board computer and what not. That's a waste. I'm not saying the car is easy to drive though because it is fast and fast cars tend to be difficult to drive...although none of us can really say because we have not driven the car. Many BMW's work in a similar way.
I hate old muscle cars for the opposite reason (hell even new "muscle cars"). You need some sort of technology in the car to make it fast without having an engine that could spin earth.
Leonidae
(Banned)
- 6,881
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
Fixed. Thanks for playing.
What in the WORLD are you talking about? Sure, it needs inputs, but as cars get newer, they find ways to compensate for, or reduce driver input. Like launch control, self parking, etc. I'd rather do all that myself. I'd rather shift the car myself instead of pressing a paddle and having it done for me. That has NOTHING to do with propelling myself. I have no clue what you're going on about.
The Z06 Vette is the perfect example of how a car should be nowadays. Powerful, simplistic, and still retains a good amount of driver control. And for the money, it cannot be beat.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Do not fix things, it's not funny or cleaver, I said it the way I did for a reason. I hate old muscle cars because they lack any form of technology. Cars need some sort of technology in them because using a giant engine to produce power is dumb. Many new cars show you that you don't need an 8.0L engine to be quick.
I don't hate the GT-R because it has too much technology though, I dislike it but I can live with it. I just think it's soulless.
==
Don't double post either, it's just as irritating as you fixing things.
Ok, people. Can we please just take a step back, cool down, look at what we're saying, and realize that we're all different people with different preferences talking about a highly subjective thing here? We're not debating the implications of an absolute, transcendent moral truth here - though some would certainly like to think this issue is as essential. 
kingcars66 linked me to this thread, and I responded to it to him in and IM, so I'm just going to copy and paste my 'observations' of this thread in my post.
You and Leonidae are really arguing two different points. Leonidae is arguing that modern automatics are faster than even the fastest shifting driver with a manual transmission and due to recent modern advances, is THE choice for extreme, ultimate performance situations. He's right. No guy yanking on a stick can come close to replicating the fast shifts of today's performance automatics. Yes, I hate to admit that as much as you do, but I have to. YOU're arguing that you don't CARE how much faster an auto is, it removes you from the experience and cuts down on the intimate connection between you, machine, and road. You'd rather lose some time in the shifts and gain the feel and joy of jerking that shifter around. I would agree with you. However, I see both sides, and I think the two of you are failing to see what each other is really arguing.
He's just getting ridiculous now. [In reference to the "well then you should ride a bicycle" argument.] However, I think he's perceiving you to be saying that a manual transmission is superior to an automatic because more is required of the driver. He's taking that to the extreme saying you have to do EVERYthing on your own. Yes, really ridiculous, but it is the logical conclusion of what he's perceiving to be your premise. Is the manual superior to the automatic? Or is the automatic superior to the manual? Neither. If we talk about shifting times, auto. If we talk about weight, manual. If we talk about driver involvement, manual. Etc, etc. They're really personal preferrences based on application.
But he's still perceiving you to be saying the manual IS BETTER. You can't say that, and I don't think you are saying that. You're saying that the driver's connection with the car is where the true joy of driving comes from for you, and so for you, a manual is superior to an automatic.
I hope we can at least mostly agree with that. Also hope I didn't step on too many toes, though a few would be ok.
kingcars66 linked me to this thread, and I responded to it to him in and IM, so I'm just going to copy and paste my 'observations' of this thread in my post.
You and Leonidae are really arguing two different points. Leonidae is arguing that modern automatics are faster than even the fastest shifting driver with a manual transmission and due to recent modern advances, is THE choice for extreme, ultimate performance situations. He's right. No guy yanking on a stick can come close to replicating the fast shifts of today's performance automatics. Yes, I hate to admit that as much as you do, but I have to. YOU're arguing that you don't CARE how much faster an auto is, it removes you from the experience and cuts down on the intimate connection between you, machine, and road. You'd rather lose some time in the shifts and gain the feel and joy of jerking that shifter around. I would agree with you. However, I see both sides, and I think the two of you are failing to see what each other is really arguing.
He's just getting ridiculous now. [In reference to the "well then you should ride a bicycle" argument.] However, I think he's perceiving you to be saying that a manual transmission is superior to an automatic because more is required of the driver. He's taking that to the extreme saying you have to do EVERYthing on your own. Yes, really ridiculous, but it is the logical conclusion of what he's perceiving to be your premise. Is the manual superior to the automatic? Or is the automatic superior to the manual? Neither. If we talk about shifting times, auto. If we talk about weight, manual. If we talk about driver involvement, manual. Etc, etc. They're really personal preferrences based on application.
But he's still perceiving you to be saying the manual IS BETTER. You can't say that, and I don't think you are saying that. You're saying that the driver's connection with the car is where the true joy of driving comes from for you, and so for you, a manual is superior to an automatic.
I hope we can at least mostly agree with that. Also hope I didn't step on too many toes, though a few would be ok.
- 533
- Danville/VA/US
- japan_gator
My goodness, am I the only one here that likes technology? 
Leonidae
(Banned)
- 6,881
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
Obviously you don't. There are new cars BTW that don't have any assists at all, cheap base models you know..but thanks to safety laws and regulations, the power of performance cars have to be harnessed somehow just to keep the drivers alive. AFAIK, Z06 has traction control etc, as do most of race cars.
:idea:So that's why there's so many crashed by now, it's just like GT-R! Although, GT-R takes the route of modern age technology in order to be equally fast with more comfort at any situation.
edit: Gator, you're not alone. Some people just can't see but black and white colors.
Who said anything about an 8.0L engine? Ever heard of a Z06 Corvette? Yeah, for its price, it sure as hell smokes a tech-loaded Nissan GTR. Many road racing muscle cars back in the day used rather small V8s, like the 302. Remember these?
Might wanna try doing some research before blindly posting.
About the double posts: Sorry, master, it's rather time consuming to quote each of you and copy/paste them all into 1 post....wish there was a multi quote feature
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
My goodness, am I the only one here that likes technology?
No, like I said some technology in a vehicle is great. I mean when companies can take small engines and get great performance out of it I'm all for it. The Mazdaspeed3 is excellent for this. I like traction control, double clutch gear boxes, stability control, etc.
I don't like pointless technology like the on board computer thing on the GT-R which you can see everything down to the G load or the iDrive on BMW's which is the worst thing in the world.
A Z06 smokes a GT-R? Care to prove that one to me? I'm all ears.
They are pretty similar in performance and it's be discussed at length in this very thread.
But here is just one of the thousand articles on the internet.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6594
Maybe you could do the same.
There is a multi-quote feature.
Last edited:
Traction control is fine. It can be turned off without voiding warranties, and doesn't affect the amount of driver input.
Wrecks? You go from telling me to get a bicycle to blabbing about people wrecking cars? As long as there are cars, there will be wrecks, no matter how much tech they stuff in there.
Smokes GT-R?Straight line maybe, but on track? nope. and there's no such straight that it has no bend at the end of it.
Learn to read, genius. Oh, and if they're so bad, how do you explain this? Remember what car won the 24h Daytona not too long ago?
Last edited:
Keef
Premium
- 25,006
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Of racers and drivers, you're probably one of few. Within my circle of friends its usually the people who watch the racing who like the technology, as opposed to actually doing the racing.My goodness, am I the only one here that likes technology?
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
They are even priced similarly in America so I don't see how that's a valid point.
The Z06 starts at $74,775 and the GT-R starts at $76,840 per the manufactures respective website. The GT-R has also been proven by many magazines, reviewers, and testers to have somewhat better performance then the Z06.
The Z06 starts at $74,775 and the GT-R starts at $76,840 per the manufactures respective website. The GT-R has also been proven by many magazines, reviewers, and testers to have somewhat better performance then the Z06.
