CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,307
- United States
Sure it looks the same, but it's definitely not the same underneath.
2012 Nissan GTR [0-60: under 3 seconds]
- Thread starter WeinerSchnitzel
- 740 comments
- 99,638 views
Sure it looks the same, but it's definitely not the same underneath.
- 5,303
- Riverside, Ca
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
It seems that Godzilla is as strong as ever.
- 10,836
- Belgium
- bramturismo
Seems like a 0-60 mph time has become a brag-factor for this car. I really don't hope the overall performance of the car around a track will suffer. But thinking about the GT-R, I doubt it will. Apart from a 0-60 mph time I haven't heard too much about this car yet.
However, those idiotic LED lights on the the front have to go!
However, those idiotic LED lights on the the front have to go!
- 237
- 2,083
- FreedomWeasel
Aren't LED DRLs a requirement a lot of places now? Someone told me they were going to be (or already are) required in the EU.
- 11,343
- Chicago, iLL
- GTP_Nismo
Mustang dynos don't read low. They're more accurate, if set up right, than dynojet or whatever else most people are used to.
- 5,303
- Riverside, Ca
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
- 11,343
- Chicago, iLL
- GTP_Nismo
It doesn't take much to set them up right. That dyno was not reading low.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Low, high, what's the difference? Each dyno will read to a different scale due to the quirks of their systems. 'Jets will read differently because of how an inertial dyno allows boost to build and the effects of flywheels and wheel packages Dynapacks will read differently because of the magnetic brakes. Mustangs and other roller-type brake dynos, which tend to use water brakes, tend to read differently when the brakes overheat or when the tires start sticking to the rollers.
In the end, all that matters is how the car reads on a particular dyno in comparison to other cars on the same dyno in the same conditions.
In the end, all that matters is how the car reads on a particular dyno in comparison to other cars on the same dyno in the same conditions.
- 9,055
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
Doesn't this car kind of make the Spec-V useless now?
- 462
- 5,303
- Riverside, Ca
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
- 678
- BrutherSuperior
That won't happen anytime soon.
Cars can be made to have substantial traction. A couple clicks at YouTube can reveal cars doing bumper stands...cars made in someone's garage. So traction isn't the problem; power is.
It takes a substantial amount of power to motivate something as heavy as a car up to 60 mph in under 2 seconds. That means more batteries if you want acceleration AND a range. Those batteries have weight. More weight means it requires more power to accelerate it.
Achieving the feat of a sub 2s 0-60 in a commercially sold EV is very far off. Weight kills it. And if you think Korea or China is going to hurry to make lightweight performance oriented batteries...don't hold your breath.
Weight & range is what killed the electric cars that were manufactured 100 years ago...and what was old is now new again.
- 7,313
- Land of the smelly onion
From what I read in a couple sources, electric cars were favored over gas in the early 1900's. They were cleaner, quieter, and easier to start.
What helped gas powered cars was ironically, an electric motor. (starter)
- 678
- BrutherSuperior
- 7,313
- Land of the smelly onion
Don't remember where I read it, but it was also on History channel not too long ago.
Cleaner meaning no emmissions. Electric motors run quieter than gas engines, thats no secret. Even 100 years ago.
I didn't say they were easier to drive, I said they were easier to start. Remember, those were the days of hand cranks. It took a bit of strength, hence why there were so few women drivers in the early days of the automobile. Also, try and hand crank a gas powered car the wrong way and get a dislocated shoulder or broken arm.
But like today, the range and charge times on the old ones sucked. So when gas became plentiful, ICE powered cars won out.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Electric performance is good... but under 2 seconds will require a lot of power, as BS has stated... some of the best-performing electrics that I know of are still around the 2.5 -3 second mark... and these are lightweight, bespoke performance machines... not full-on road cars and all the weight (in terms of crash structure, long-range batteries, seat space, etcetera) that entails.
---
Didn't doubt the car could do it... but a 0-100 mph time of around 7 seconds? Insane.
---
Didn't doubt the car could do it... but a 0-100 mph time of around 7 seconds? Insane.
- 5,303
- Riverside, Ca
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
Let's get back on topic, please. Make a thread for EV and EV performance if it's so interesting. 
This thread is for GT-R related matters.
Edit:
7'24.22 on damp track. Not bad.
This thread is for GT-R related matters.Edit:
7'24.22 on damp track. Not bad.
Last edited:
- 5,303
- Riverside, Ca
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
Perhaps. They're going to try again when weather allows.
- 8,642
- London
- GTP_Stotty
That's some impressive driving there... big commitment on some of the fastest, scariest parts of the track!
It's interesting how the motoring press's view of the GTR has changed over the past couple of years.
When it first came out it got almost universal praise and pretty much won every group test it was pitted in. But now, as the outright performance is less of a novelty, the GTR seems to be becoming a victim of its own competence. In the last few months the new GTR placed mid field in EVO and CAR magazine’s car of the year features, and it recently lost out to the M3 and Caymen R in a CAR magazine group test.
The view of the motoring press is consistent… yes, it’s amazingly fast, yes, it’s road holding (mechanical grip) is amazing, but it just doesn’t reward on an emotional level. The engine has power and torque to die for, but is soulless, the ride is super hard at low/medium speed, and you need to be travelling at speeds that will kill you or get you locked up before it starts to become even slightly interesting to drive.
Perhaps an example of familiarity breeding contempt!
It's interesting how the motoring press's view of the GTR has changed over the past couple of years.
When it first came out it got almost universal praise and pretty much won every group test it was pitted in. But now, as the outright performance is less of a novelty, the GTR seems to be becoming a victim of its own competence. In the last few months the new GTR placed mid field in EVO and CAR magazine’s car of the year features, and it recently lost out to the M3 and Caymen R in a CAR magazine group test.
The view of the motoring press is consistent… yes, it’s amazingly fast, yes, it’s road holding (mechanical grip) is amazing, but it just doesn’t reward on an emotional level. The engine has power and torque to die for, but is soulless, the ride is super hard at low/medium speed, and you need to be travelling at speeds that will kill you or get you locked up before it starts to become even slightly interesting to drive.
Perhaps an example of familiarity breeding contempt!
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,307
- United States
Similar threads
