Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dieselstation Car Forums _ Frozen _ 2009 Nissan GT-R (R35)

Posted by: GTR Jun 21 2008, 11:43 AM




PERFORMANCE

QUOTE
Nissan claims a top speed of 310 km/h (193 mph) and various sources have achieved 0-97 km/h (0-60 mph) times of between 3.2 and 3.8 seconds. Edmunds.com achieved a standing 1/4-mile time of 11.6 s at 190 km/h (118 mph) using the GT-R's launch control system. Edmunds also speculated that faster times may be achievable on better road conditions than provided by the runway which they used for the test.Car and Driver achieved a standing 1/4-mile time of 11.5 s at 200 km/h (124 mph). Evo magazine achieved a 0-100-0 mph time of 13.9 seconds, one tenth of a second quicker than a Corvette Z06 tested under identical conditions. AutoCar achieved a 0-100 MPH time of 8.5 seconds. With a lap time of 7:29 on standard Japanese market tires, the standard-spec GT-R is currently one of the fastest production cars ever to lap the Nurburgring circuit.
In various comparisons under different criteria, the GT-R has outperformed the Audi R8, Chevrolet Corvette Z06, BMW M3 E92, Lotus Elise, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X, the three current Porsche 911s (Carrera, Turbo & GT3), and the Subaru Impreza WRX STI.


DESIGN
QUOTE
Nissan chief creative officer, Shiro Nakamura, has likened the new GT-R to the eponymous giant robots of the Gundam series. Nakamura states: "The GT-R is unique because it is not simply a copy of a European-designed supercar, it had to really reflect Japanese culture." Specifically, Nakamura noted that the GT-R's square lines and vents were influenced by Gundam. Designers from Japan, America, and Europe contributed to the final GT-R shape.Polyphony Digital, creators of the Gran Turismo series of racing video games, were themselves involved in the development of the GT-R, having been contracted to design the GT-R's multifunction display.


AFTERMARKET TUNING
QUOTE
Despite early concerns about the difficulty of modification of the Nissan GT-R, a number of modifications have been released. The previously reported "untuneable" ECU has since been hacked by several tuning houses.

It has been reported that Nissan has given access to the car to select tuners. Central 20, MINE'S, MCR, HKS, and Top Secret have been seen testing modified GT-Rs with the former two having conducted tests at the Tsukuba Circuit.

In a review by Motor Trend editor Scott Kanemura, it was revealed that the GPS system fitted to the GT-R would remove the 180-kilometer per hour (112 mph) speed limiter when the car arrives at a race track, but only on tracks approved by Nissan. Aftermarket ECUs have been developed to bypass the speed limiter, in addition to stand-alone speed-limiter defeaters. However, Nissan confirmed the GPS check is not implemented in American models.


2009 NISSAN GT-R (R35)
Engine
# VR38DETT twin-turbocharged 3.8-liter V6.
# 480 hp @ 6,800 rpm. 430 lb-ft torque @ 3,200 - 5,200 rpm.
# Dual overhead camshafts with variable intake-valve timing.
# Cast aluminum cylinder block with high-endurance/low-friction plasma-sprayed bores.
# IHI twin turbochargers, one per cylinder bank.
# Pressurized lubrication system with thermostatically controlled cooling.

Drivetrain
# ATTESA ET-S All-Wheel Drive (AWD) with independent rear-mounted transaxle integrating transmission, differential and AWD transfer case.
# Rigid, lightweight carbon-composite driveshaft between engine and transaxle.
# Electronic traction control plus 1.5-way mechanically locking rear differential.
# Vehicle Dynamics Control (VDC-R) with three driver-selectable settings: Normal (for daily driving, controls brakes and engine output), R-Mode (for ultimate performance, utilizes AWD torque distribution for additional vehicle stability) and Off (driver does not want the help of the system).
# Hill Start Assist prevents rollback when starting on an incline. DisclaimerVDC-R cannot prevent accidents due to abrupt steering, carelessness, or dangerous driving techniques. Always drive safely.

Transmission
# 6-speed Dual Clutch Transmission with three driver-selectable modes: Normal (for maximum smoothness and efficiency), Snow (for gentler starting and shifting on slippery surfaces), and R mode (for maximum performance with fastest shifts).
# Fully automatic shifting or full sequential manual control via gearshift or steering wheel-mounted paddle shifters.
# Dual clutch design changes gears in less than 0.5 second (0.2 second in R mode).
# Downshift Rev Matching (DRM).
# Predictive pre-shift control (in R mode) based on throttle position, vehicle speed, braking and other information.

Wheels and Tires
# 20 x 9.5" (front) and 20 x 10.5" (rear) super-lightweight forged-aluminum wheels with Gunmetal Gray finish.
# Exclusively developed nitrogen-filled Bridgestone RE070A high-capacity run-flat summer tires, 255/40R20 front and 285/35R20 rear.
# Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS).
# Optional exclusively developed nitrogen-filled Dunlop run-flat all-season tires, 255/40R20 front and 285/35R20 rear (includes Bright Silver wheels).

Brakes
# Brembo 4-wheel disc brakes with 4-wheel Antilock Braking System (ABS), Brake Assist, Electronic Brakeforce Distribution and Preview Braking.
# Two-piece floating-rotor 15-inch front and rear discs with diamond-pattern internal ventilation.
# 6-piston front/4-piston rear monoblock calipers.

Steering
# Rack-and-pinion steering with vehicle-speed-sensitive power assist.
# 2.6 steering-wheel turns lock-to-lock.

Suspension
# 4-wheel independent suspension with Bilstein DampTronic system with three driver-selectable modes: Normal/Sport (for automatic electronic control of damping), Comfort (for maximum ride comfort), and R mode (engages maximum damping rate for high-performance cornering).
# Electronically controlled variable-rate shock absorbers. High-accuracy progressive-rate coil springs.
# Front double-wishbone/rear multi-link configuration with aluminum members and rigid aluminum subframes.
# Hollow front and rear stabilizer bars.

Body/Chassis
# Exclusive Premium Midship platform with jig-welded hybrid unibody.
# Aluminum hood, trunk and door skins. Die-cast aluminum door structures.
# Carbon-reinforced front crossmember/radiator support.

Exterior
# Wide-beam headlights with High Intensity Discharge (HID) low beams.
# LED taillights and brake lights.
# Dual heated power mirrors.
# Flush-mounted aluminum door handles.
# Body-color rear spoiler with integrated center high-mounted stop light.
# UV-reducing tinted glass. Audio/Navigation/Performance Monitor

Interior
# Digital Bose audio system with AM/FM/in-dash 6-CD changer and 11 speakers including dual subwoofers.
# HDD Music Box system, including hard drive with 9.4 GB for audio storage.
# MP3, WMA and DVD audio capable. In-dash Compact Flash card reader.
# HDD-based GPS navigation with touch screen.
# Driver-configurable performance monitor, developed with Sony Polyphony, with graphical readouts of vehicle data and driving data displayed on a total of 11 screens.
# 7-inch WVGA high-resolution color-LCD display for audio, navigation and performance monitor.

Posted by: hexagone Jun 21 2008, 01:17 PM

yes, I voted uncool.

Posted by: Mitlov Jun 21 2008, 02:36 PM

Frozen.

I love the brutal "yeah, an engineer designed the bodywork, not a designer, you got a problem with that?" looks. I love how it's dripping with technology, and how the oh-so-advanced drivetrain makes this thing seem more at home in a Neon Genesis Evangelion manga than in a car park with Corvettes and Porsches. And I love its utter un-pretentiousness.

EDIT:

QUOTE
Nissan chief creative officer, Shiro Nakamura, has likened the new GT-R to the eponymous giant robots of the Gundam series.


It's funny, I had been thinking that ever since it came out. Not Gundam specifically, but the whole giant-robot-anime thing. I think people who say this car is fast but lacks character are missing the point. It's absolutely dripping in character, just a fundamentally different sort of character than you see from Porsche or Ferrari or Chevrolet.

Posted by: Razor Jun 21 2008, 03:28 PM

The best performance deal ever conceived, and one of the most brilliant overall cars ever. If there were rankings within Frozen, it would be towards the top. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Marien Jun 21 2008, 03:32 PM

I have to see it in person to judge the looks of this car. But until then I'll give it a solid 'cool'.

Posted by: 4wheelfreak Jun 21 2008, 06:23 PM

It's cool to the extent that when I see the first one, I'll try to flag down the owner. But it is kept from frozen because the car itself does as much driving as the driver. To maximize its potential requires a lot less input from the driver than in, say, a Ferrari.

Posted by: fiber optic Jun 21 2008, 07:30 PM

It's wicked performance is betrayed by it's hideous physique. In most instances I can overlook this and I guess I should here. Something about this car has always irked me and I can't put it into words. It gets a cool vote from me.

Posted by: Phix Jun 21 2008, 08:09 PM

There really is something that just keeps me from loving this car.

Ever since they decided to split the GT-R from the Skyline range and make this... I just can't really bring myself to care about this car to the extent that I did with the older GTRs.

I mean.... with those you had the whole base model RWD R32, R33, R34... and then you had the GT-R's.... with this ... i'm just saying I don't really like this thing as its own 'model' range. It's missing the added character that its smaller brothers managed to give it.

Posted by: Mitlov Jun 21 2008, 09:21 PM

QUOTE(Phix @ Jun 21 2008, 09:09 PM) *
There really is something that just keeps me from loving this car.

Ever since they decided to split the GT-R from the Skyline range and make this... I just can't really bring myself to care about this car to the extent that I did with the older GTRs.

I mean.... with those you had the whole base model RWD R32, R33, R34... and then you had the GT-R's.... with this ... i'm just saying I don't really like this thing as its own 'model' range. It's missing the added character that its smaller brothers managed to give it.


Let me make sure I understand your argument. The existence of the 328i makes the M3 cooler than it otherwise would be? The existence of the Lancer ES makes the EVO X cooler than it otherwise would be? In other words, you like your performance cars to be hopped-up versions of more pedestrian cars, not designed from the ground up?

Posted by: moethepaki Jun 22 2008, 05:27 AM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Jun 22 2008, 08:21 AM) *
Let me make sure I understand your argument. The existence of the 328i makes the M3 cooler than it otherwise would be? The existence of the Lancer ES makes the EVO X cooler than it otherwise would be? In other words, you like your performance cars to be hopped-up versions of more pedestrian cars, not designed from the ground up?


That does kind of make sense. Without the 3-series, the M3 would be bland performance coupe, and without the Lancer the Evo would be another over-specced rice rocket. The fact that they had such humble origins really adds a lot to their appeal.

I'm really not sure what to vote. On one hand, we're looking one of the most capable performance cars of all-time, and at bargain price too. Something about it leaves me cold too...I guess I'll give it a frozen based on the fact that if I ever get to drive one, I'm sure it'll blow me away.

EDIT: I figured out what I don't like, I know this isn't the point, but it has ZERO sex appeal. Change my vote to cool please.

Posted by: Razor Jun 22 2008, 06:14 AM

The thing about the Evo is, originally there was NO Lancer, there was only the Mitsubishi Evolution based directly off of the company's WRC cars. But yeah, that does make good sense. It gives the upgraded model the flagship feeling, in a way, even if it isn't (like, for BMW the M6 would technically be considered the flagship, but the M3 still feels top-of-the-line).

Posted by: midnightdorifto Jun 23 2008, 03:14 AM

QUOTE(Razor @ Jun 22 2008, 06:14 AM) *
The thing about the Evo is, originally there was NO Lancer, there was only the Mitsubishi Evolution based directly off of the company's WRC cars. But yeah, that does make good sense. It gives the upgraded model the flagship feeling, in a way, even if it isn't (like, for BMW the M6 would technically be considered the flagship, but the M3 still feels top-of-the-line).

QUOTE(Wikipedia)
The Evolution I was introduced in 1992 to compete in the World Rally Championship. It used the 2.0 L turbocharged DOHC engine and 4WD drivetrain from the original Galant VR-4 in a Lancer chassis, and was sold in GSR and RS models.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancer_Evolution

The GT-R has been best described as a $80,000 cheat code. It weighs as much as a new CTS sedan (!), and, despite how unbelievably quick it is, setting low times to me on any track is akin to beating a video game on easy - sure, it makes you feel good inside, but there was no skill involved in doing so.

I would buy one of these as a daily driver for sure, and I am no less impressed by what they've accomplished here, but this just isn't a car that I would ever consider frozen. A solid cool for sheer numbers and engineering hours, but no more than that. Additionally, with all of the stipulations that Nissan has put on this car (restricted ECU, mandatory servicing after racing events [$$$$$$]) I just cannot in good conscience get into this car the way I could about the R34 or, even more so, the R32.

Posted by: eraser_rx Jun 23 2008, 04:11 AM

from GTR to EVO....nice off topic....smile.gif

Posted by: 4wheelfreak Jun 23 2008, 06:33 AM

QUOTE(midnightdorifto @ Jun 23 2008, 08:14 AM) *
The GT-R has been best described as a $80,000 cheat code. It weighs as much as a new CTS sedan (!), and, despite how unbelievably quick it is, setting low times to me on any track is akin to beating a video game on easy - sure, it makes you feel good insde, but there was no skill involved in doing so.

That is exactly how I feel.

Posted by: nismo Jun 23 2008, 09:25 AM

The front seats are two inches wider for only the american market.

Posted by: Phix Jun 24 2008, 12:17 PM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Jun 22 2008, 01:21 AM) *
Let me make sure I understand your argument. The existence of the 328i makes the M3 cooler than it otherwise would be? The existence of the Lancer ES makes the EVO X cooler than it otherwise would be? In other words, you like your performance cars to be hopped-up versions of more pedestrian cars, not designed from the ground up?

Yes.

I understand the idea and concept of 'character' and 'essence' is alien to you, Android, but tis' be my main point.

Posted by: Uwe Jun 24 2008, 02:24 PM

The GT-R is for ESC sissies who need blinking lights on their dashboard in order to be fast. Uncool (and me not voting MJU is a flattery I'm not sure it deserves).

Posted by: Mitlov Jun 24 2008, 02:38 PM

QUOTE(Uwe @ Jun 24 2008, 03:24 PM) *
The GT-R is for ESC sissies who need blinking lights on their dashboard in order to be fast. Uncool (and me not voting MJU is a flattery I'm not sure it deserves).


Did you mean to sound like a crotchety old man railing about "how things were different when I was a kid," or did it just pop out that way?

Posted by: Uwe Jun 24 2008, 11:38 PM

I want to drive a car myself and not having some electronic systems done it. Doing a quick lap with that car is like making the first ascent of a mountain with the help of a helicopter. And don't get me started on the Ring laptime they claim they've done with a car in production state. This all smells of cheating and I don't like that.

Posted by: Mitlov Jun 25 2008, 07:16 AM

QUOTE(Uwe @ Jun 25 2008, 12:38 AM) *
And don't get me started on the Ring laptime they claim they've done with a car in production state. This all smells of cheating and I don't like that.


Do you have ANY basis to say that the 'Ring car wasn't in production state? Every single test I've read or watched has commented on how surprisingly fast the GT-R is. Those electronics you hate so much? They work. So if you've got ANY evidence that Nissan was cheating on the Ring lap, besides the lap time itself, please say so.

Now, if by "cheating" you mean that the GT-R makes well more than the claimed 480 horsepower...that became a widely-accepted fact as soon as people started putting them on dynos.

Posted by: Uwe Jun 25 2008, 07:41 AM

I don't know if you ever experienced what power to weight ratio really means but here is some food for thought: A Porsche Carrera GT has 2.3 kg/hp, the GT-R (according to the data given by Nissan) has 3.7 kg/hp. And the GT-R should have done a laptime only 2 seconds slower than a CGT with Walter Rhrl at the wheel, one of the best Ring drivers the world has ever seen?

My opinion on that is very explicit: NO FUCKING WAY!

Posted by: Mitlov Jun 25 2008, 08:04 AM

QUOTE(Uwe @ Jun 25 2008, 08:41 AM) *
I don't know if you ever experienced what power to weight ratio really means but here is some food for thought: A Porsche Carrera GT has 2.3 kg/hp, the GT-R (according to the data given by Nissan) has 3.7 kg/hp. And the GT-R should have done a laptime only 2 seconds slower than a CGT with Walter Rhrl at the wheel, one of the best Ring drivers the world has ever seen?

My opinion on that is very explicit: NO FUCKING WAY!


I've been riding motorcycles for 11 years. I certainly have experienced vehicles with insanely-good power-to-weight ratios.

I also know that cars that don't look faster on paper OFTEN are. There's a whole lot more to speed on a twisty course than power and weight.

Posted by: Synesthesia Jun 25 2008, 09:12 AM

This is the cool wall, so I don't give a damn about price or 'Ring laptimes. It's not I can buy it cheap, it's $70k versus $100k cheap. It's not substantially faster than it's competition, it's a couple of seconds faster around a 13 MILE TRACK. It doesn't offer a manual transmission, it's more computer than car (hill start assist!?). I don't particularly like the way it looks (as mentioned, it looks like it was designed by an engineer -- which I don't see as a positive) and as mentioned it has no sex appeal. Not cool.

Posted by: Mitlov Jun 25 2008, 11:36 AM

QUOTE(Synesthesia @ Jun 25 2008, 10:12 AM) *
It's not substantially faster than it's competition,


Not that I disagree with the rest of your post, but if "its competition" involves similarly-priced cars, it really IS faster. Way faster. The GT-R is slightly cheaper than a base 911 Carrera or BMW 650i; a 911 Turbo is nearly twice the price of a GT-R. Of course, the GT-R doesn't compete image-wise and prestige-wise with ANY of those cars; it shares more in attitude with an EVO than anything else I can think of.

The Chevy Corvette Z06 is similar in price to a GT-R, and was 14 seconds slower. So that one is somewhat slower, but still pretty comparable. But the GT-R absolutely demolishes anything else in the $70k range.

This is what I used for lap time comparisons. I realize wikipedia isn't perfect, so if the information was inaccurate, I apologize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_lap_times

Posted by: eraser_rx Jun 25 2008, 02:24 PM

by cheating, he means the traction and stability are corrected with computers, not by human foot or by steering work

Posted by: Mitlov Jun 25 2008, 02:34 PM

QUOTE(eraser_rx @ Jun 25 2008, 03:24 PM) *
by cheating, he means the traction and stability are corrected with computers, not by human foot or by steering work


I understood him to mean that the GT-R that made the Nurburgring lap was a "ringer"--that it wasn't actually a production-spec GT-R. That's been a common accusation. Clarification, Uwe?

Posted by: Uwe Jun 25 2008, 03:29 PM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Jun 26 2008, 12:34 AM) *
I understood him to mean that the GT-R that made the Nurburgring lap was a "ringer"--that it wasn't actually a production-spec GT-R. That's been a common accusation. Clarification, Uwe?

That was exactly what I meant, Mitlov.

Only two more words on it. I actually have a car that has 3.5 kg/bhp and I actually have driven the Ring often enough. I have driven against people with cars that had a lot less than 3 kg/bhp and that were otherwise comparable. There is no way you can make that disadvantage up with some clever eStuff.

I will quit this discussion now because I think I've made my point clear enough. I'll wait until the real production car comes out and I am sure it will be fast but I'm sure as well it will be not as fast as Nissan wants to make us believe now.

Posted by: Mitlov Jun 25 2008, 03:46 PM

The fact that the GT-R continually sparks this degree of anger and distrust among "old schoolers" and "purists" makes it even cooler in my mind...it's iconoclasm on four wheels.

Posted by: midnightdorifto Jun 25 2008, 08:46 PM

QUOTE(Synesthesia @ Jun 25 2008, 09:12 AM) *
This is the cool wall, so I don't give a damn about price or 'Ring laptimes. It's not I can buy it cheap, it's $70k versus $100k cheap. It's not substantially faster than it's competition, it's a couple of seconds faster around a 13 MILE TRACK. It doesn't offer a manual transmission, it's more computer than car (hill start assist!?). I don't particularly like the way it looks (as mentioned, it looks like it was designed by an engineer -- which I don't see as a positive) and as mentioned it has no sex appeal. Not cool.

Damnit all, that was the one I was going to top my list with - no third pedal. That seals the deal for me.

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Jun 25 2008, 03:46 PM) *
The fact that the GT-R continually sparks this degree of anger and distrust among "old schoolers" and "purists" makes it even cooler in my mind...it's iconoclasm on four wheels.

Here's how this plays out in my mind:

This isn't like the big uproar of when they went to FI over carburetors, nor is it like when F1 went to V8s or lost the forced induction. To me, this is a baseball thing. When aluminum bats came out, they could drive the ball just a bit further and a bit harder than their wooden counterparts. Suddenly, every half-decent ball player out there looks like Hank Aaron, smashing the hell out of ball after ball. With a bigger sweet spot, and that *klang* noise they make, they simply were slightly superior to their wooden cousins. In essence, lesser players could prevail.

Yeah, the GT-R evens the playing field and can even make you and me look like Tom Kristensen. It's easy, its big, its fast, and every 14-year-old wants one. But for "old schoolers" and "purists" like me, well, hell, I still respect raw skill and talent over engineering prowess. Sure, its neat, its fun, and it can save my ham-fisted ass in a heartbeat when I actually begin to think that I am Tom Kristensen. But when I'm imagining myself sitting, watching a track day, I'll root for the guy who doesn't have more systems with acronyms for names than I can count on two hands. Don't get me wrong, I still voted cool because this is an engineering work of art, but it isn't anything really special.

The GT-R is the aluminum bat of cars - its a superior piece of equipment in terms of what it will do for you, but don't expect anyone else to respect any lap time you may (or may not, in Nissan's case) have earned. Again, at the end of the day, I'm rooting for the driver - not the car. Maybe that's personal preference, maybe I'm out-dated, maybe I should get a car with A/C and power windows and a working defroster and see what life is like with modern technology. But for me? Fun isn't an acronym.

EDIT: I'm talking about college ball here, folks. Real professionals still use wooden bats.

Posted by: Mitlov Jun 25 2008, 09:48 PM

QUOTE(midnightdorifto @ Jun 25 2008, 09:46 PM) *
I still respect raw skill and talent over engineering prowess.


Engineering prowess is a fundamental part of performance cars. Engineering prowess is what separates a Porsche 911 from a Toyota Solara.

Shit, if it weren't for engineering prowess, this is what F1 would look like:



And this would be the WRC:


Posted by: clarkma5 Jun 25 2008, 10:06 PM

MJU. There aren't many cars that leave me colder.

Posted by: midnightdorifto Jun 26 2008, 03:17 AM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Jun 25 2008, 09:48 PM) *
Engineering prowess is a fundamental part of performance cars. Engineering prowess is what separates a Porsche 911 from a Toyota Solara.

Shit, if it weren't for engineering prowess, this is what F1 would look like:

And this would be the WRC:

You're missing the point. I gave the thing a cool because it was such a feat of engineering - if you're trying to peg me as a Luddite, you're way off the mark. But when it comes to my driving experience or racing, I can only get so excited about cars that take any form of technology that dumbs down the driving experience. And that's what the GT-R is - speed for idiots.

Most anyone can take a GT-R and be fast out of the box - and that might be just fine for you. Hell, I love going fast. But like I said before, this is beating a video game on easy - there is no challenge. This car will never be as rewarding as I prefer for just that fact.

And I most certainly don't subscribe to the fact that engineering prowess is a fundamental part of performance cars. I think back to the Cobras, Tigers, Elans, TVRs (sorry duke), Allards, Sevens, and GTI's (the Mk. 1) and am reminded that these weren't the most sophisticated cars of their day. I'll agree that it is extremely important and that frequently this reaching for the technological bleeding edge is a part of what the performance segment does, but I favor a philosophy of simplicity over a philosophy of sophistication.

Again, that's just my opinion, not dogging the fans of the GT-R.

Posted by: Mitlov Jun 26 2008, 06:28 AM

QUOTE(midnightdorifto @ Jun 26 2008, 04:17 AM) *
And that's what the GT-R is - speed for idiots.
...
Again, that's just my opinion, not dogging the fans of the GT-R.


Of course you're not.

Posted by: Synesthesia Jun 26 2008, 12:23 PM

Come on Miltov, drop it. He's not saying people who like the GT-R are idiots, he's just saying you can be an idiot and still go fast in a GT-R.

Posted by: clarkma5 Jun 26 2008, 02:19 PM

QUOTE(Synesthesia @ Jun 26 2008, 01:23 PM) *
Come on Miltov, drop it. He's not saying people who like the GT-R are idiots, he's just saying you can be an idiot and still go fast in a GT-R.


Exactly.

Posted by: midnightdorifto Jun 26 2008, 02:48 PM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Jun 26 2008, 06:28 AM) *
Of course you're not.


QUOTE(Synesthesia @ Jun 26 2008, 12:23 PM) *
Come on Miltov, drop it. He's not saying people who like the GT-R are idiots, he's just saying you can be an idiot and still go fast in a GT-R.

Thank you.

Posted by: moethepaki Jun 26 2008, 03:25 PM

I think Mitlov's blatant fanboyism for the GT-R will single handedly drive this car into MJU...tongue.gif

I still think it's ugly, and just a tad too soulless for my taste.

Posted by: Mitlov Jun 26 2008, 05:29 PM

midnight,

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Posted by: midnightdorifto Jun 26 2008, 08:24 PM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Jun 26 2008, 05:29 PM) *
midnight,

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I'm just happy to see you still have emotions, kimosabe. Raspberry.gif

And like I said before, I think the GT-R is a cool car. But it will never be frozen in my book.

Posted by: nismo Jul 1 2008, 03:12 AM

I'm pretty underwhelmed with this car.

Plus, automatic only. Fuck that.

Posted by: Phix Jul 1 2008, 08:51 AM

QUOTE(midnightdorifto @ Jun 27 2008, 12:24 AM) *
I'm just happy to see you still have emotions, kimosabe. Raspberry.gif

And like I said before, I think the GT-R is a cool car. But it will never be frozen in my book.

....sure, until his emotion chip goes out of control and Geordi has to remove it for his own good....


Posted by: darinzon Jul 1 2008, 12:34 PM

i think i'll have to drive it before i vote.

Posted by: Mitlov Jul 1 2008, 12:44 PM

QUOTE(darinzon @ Jul 1 2008, 01:34 PM) *
i think i'll have to drive it before i vote.


What is this "withholding judgment until you have firsthand experience" idea you speak of? Clearly you are new to the internet.

Posted by: clarkma5 Jul 1 2008, 12:55 PM

The Cool Wall has nothing to do with what the cars are like to drive. It's all about gut reactions and perceptions.

Posted by: Bjorn Jul 4 2008, 06:32 AM

Its definitely not on my list of dream cars.

I respect what it can do, I think it is an achievement, but to use a top gear analogy, it feels like a white good. Too engineered. Saying that however the 911 is probably just as engineered, and I don't think that about it at all (except maybe the Turbo...).

Going back to what Uwe said about power to weight, I understand his argument, but from my understanding the GT-Rs electronics allow you to have a much higher than normal corner speed, which could give a super crazy time, which could explain the discrepancy. Although I have never driven a GT-R or driven on a real life 'ring, so I don't know how much of a difference a higher than expected corner speed would make to a lap time.

I would like to see what kind of time a GT-R could set with out computer assistance.

Posted by: Mitlov Jul 4 2008, 10:14 AM

Not to mention the Uwe's power-to-weight argument is based upon the claimed horsepower, which most people agree is significantly lower than the actual power output. This certainly isn't the first time that a manufacturer published significantly lower than real power numbers. I think they did it with old Mustangs? Something like that.

And it's not just preproduction cars that have more than the claimed HP. Production R35s have already been on sale in Japan for a while now. If there was a major difference in performance between preproduction and production, we'd know by now.

Posted by: moethepaki Jul 4 2008, 10:52 AM

I think they had an article somewhere. It's actually putting out 100hp than they claim. Also, if TopGear is to be believed, the Shelbys put out less than they claim.

Posted by: clarkma5 Jul 4 2008, 11:02 AM

The Top Gear dyno tested rear wheel horsepower and then compared it to the SAE crank #'s. Totally stupid. The Shelby's output at the rear wheels was within accepted drivetrain loss percentages.

Posted by: Bjorn Jul 4 2008, 11:02 AM

^wasn't the whole TG thing a mix up of crank and wheel power? I thought it actually had 500bhp at the crank.

For the record, I wasn't trying to disagree with Uwe, given his experience with the 'ring i put a lot of stock in what he has to say about the times people are able to post there, I was just trying to present a reason why the times may have seemed beyond what the power to weight would suggest. Personally I have stopped putting a lot of stock in ring times, since so many manufacturers now rely on a stonking great time to prove the worthiness of their product. I find the whole thing kinda trite and wouldn't put fudging the numbers past a manufacturer.

EDIT. I do think its kinda pointless to argue that the car which did the official lap had more than the claimed 480bhp, since I don't believe the "GT-R makes more power than claimed" story has been widely proven yet. I could be wrong though...I personally was under the impression it was being propagated by some people who took early delivery in Japan.

Posted by: clarkma5 Jul 4 2008, 11:10 AM

Well I don't think they're fudging numbers but there's a lot of other factors at work. For instance, when the ZR-1 recently set a 7:26 on the 'ring, the article I read said that GM went for a rolling start instead of a standing start and the test driver said that "a few corners could've been better". So that's like...how do you really compare car vs. car when they're using different starts, when the drivers are different, when the weather's different? Every manufacturer goes out and runs their cars and gets the best time they can but maybe one manufacturer's doing a little better or worse out there than their competitors, or using a slightly different methodology. Makes the whole comparison of 'ring times that are within a few seconds of each other pretty silly (of course, if there's 30 seconds between a pair of cars, then you can probably take that as meaning something).

Posted by: Uwe Jul 4 2008, 12:21 PM

Sport Auto uses a rolling start as well.

Clarkma, you're right. The weather, the driver, the tires, all this make a great impact and a few seconds up and down won't change the impression a car makes while a difference of 30 seconds certainly does. I like to take the Sport Auto lap times as comparison chart because it is always the same driver, we'll get sector times, cornering speeds and G forces and he will report in detail how the car behaves and if there were extraordinary circumstances like cold weather which gives more power to the engine but reduces the tire grip. He isn't the fastest driver on the Ring but in general he tries to drive as coherently as he can and professionals who are faster nevertheless confirm what he has to say about a car.

Posted by: Mitlov Nov 20 2008, 09:59 AM

Someone please change my vote from frozen to MJU.

Posted by: clarkma5 Nov 20 2008, 12:51 PM

Done

Posted by: moethepaki Dec 7 2008, 07:14 AM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Nov 20 2008, 08:59 PM) *
Someone please change my vote from frozen to MJU.


I'll second that, except mine was originally cool.

Posted by: clarkma5 Dec 7 2008, 12:49 PM

QUOTE(moethepaki @ Dec 7 2008, 07:14 AM) *
I'll second that, except mine was originally cool.

Cool to MJU, done.

Posted by: dukenukem Dec 7 2008, 08:42 PM

I saw my first R35 GTR in person and it is HUUGE. Doesn't look nearly as ugly in person but damn its big.

Posted by: moethepaki Dec 7 2008, 09:25 PM

QUOTE(dukenukem @ Dec 8 2008, 07:42 AM) *
I saw my first R35 GTR in person and it is HUUGE. Doesn't look nearly as ugly in person but damn its big.


That's most of why I find it so horrendous looking. I saw one parked next to a Bentley Continental GT, and it still looked massive.

Posted by: maxima302 Dec 7 2008, 10:23 PM

They are huge cars for sure!

Being probably one of the few ppl here who has driven an R35, I give it a cool... but only by a little bit. Its a "cool" idea, concept, executed by a great amount of technology. And it is impressively capable. But its not really that exciting to drive unless your on a track. I haven't driven it on a track, just around town a bit (got to bring one home overnight since I live just around the corner from the office). Around town, its really just another car. You don't sit super low to the ground, it doesn't sound exotic, nor does it smell Italian. But when you punch it, its a whole different story... the thing is scary fast, and you can get into a whole bunch of trouble very quickly with it!! Hoepfully I'll get some more time behind the wheel, but after just a short period, I'm not sold. For that amount of money, I'd probably either buy an NSX, Elise, or save up for a 355 GTB.

Posted by: Mitlov Dec 8 2008, 08:25 AM

QUOTE(maxima302 @ Dec 7 2008, 10:23 PM) *
you can get into a whole bunch of trouble very quickly with it!!


And that's just the transmission repair costs! wink.gif

Posted by: maxima302 Dec 8 2008, 05:49 PM

I heard we were taking launch control off of future models!! I believe in less than half of the BS that has been posted on the web about it though...

Posted by: clarkma5 Dec 8 2008, 05:52 PM

QUOTE(maxima302 @ Dec 8 2008, 05:49 PM) *
I heard we were taking launch control off of future models!! I believe in less than half of the BS that has been posted on the web about it though...

Yes launch control's removed in 2010.

Posted by: Mitlov Dec 8 2008, 06:25 PM

QUOTE(maxima302 @ Dec 8 2008, 05:49 PM) *
I heard we were taking launch control off of future models!! I believe in less than half of the BS that has been posted on the web about it though...


Did you wonder why people were moving their votes to MJU?

(1) The GT-R can only produce the insane performance numbers it makes with VDC off.

(2) You need to turn VDC off to activate launch control.

(3) According to Nissan's warranty materials for the GT-R, turning VDC off for any purpose besides rocking the GT-R out of snow means that any damage your car sustains is not covered by the warranty.

(4) Numerous reports of transmissions failing after using launch control have started circulating the internet.

(5) The fact that Nissan is removing launch control entirely gives #4 some real credibility.

(6) Any doubt as to #4 was removed when a Nissan exec told Inside Line: "It's gone. We just don't want to deal with the warranty nightmare anymore." http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2008/11/2008-la-auto-show-2010-nissan-gt-r-loses-launch-control.html

Posted by: Aircooled Dec 8 2008, 07:25 PM

Automobile mag named it their car of the year, bleh.

How can you name a car the Car of the year if the only way to get decent performance is to void your warranty and ruin a trans. Complete bs if you ask me...

Posted by: moethepaki Dec 9 2008, 01:35 AM

Yeah InsideLine put it on their Editors' Most Wanted list as well. I was impressed when TG passed it up in favor of the ZR-1 as performance car of the year though.

The GT-R is a bucketload of fail.

EDIT: Apparently to compensate for the loss of VDC, Nissan is now equipping the Dunlop tires used on the 'Ring standard, and upping the horsepower by 5.

Posted by: Mitlov Dec 9 2008, 07:37 AM

QUOTE
upping the horsepower by 5.


Wow! 1%!

Posted by: 4wheelfreak Dec 9 2008, 03:29 PM

Finally. I'm sure that those 5 extra horses will compensate for the car's immense bulk and the fact that it can only be driven well with the help of a bajillion computers. Sign me up!

Posted by: darinzon Dec 12 2008, 11:07 AM

wow, you guys really love to hate this car. i'm perfectly satisfied with how my current non-launch control car now drives... i think if i had a gt-r i would be having a good time with or without the launch control. yeah there are bad parts about the situation, i know. but it's not all bad

Posted by: clarkma5 Dec 12 2008, 12:23 PM

QUOTE(darinzon @ Dec 12 2008, 11:07 AM) *
wow, you guys really love to hate this car.


Nissan made a lot of promises that they couldn't fulfill. Without that last edge of awesome performance, its fatness, weird styling, and lack of driver involvement dominate the frame. At least that's how I see it.

Posted by: Uwe Dec 12 2008, 01:55 PM

Should I say it?

No, I'm not going to!

No but...

Cmon, Uwe, hold it back...

Arrrgh, I can't...


I TOLD YOU SO!


Sorry.

Posted by: Mitlov Dec 12 2008, 05:14 PM

QUOTE(Uwe @ Dec 12 2008, 01:55 PM) *
Should I say it?

No, I'm not going to!

No but...

Cmon, Uwe, hold it back...

Arrrgh, I can't...
I TOLD YOU SO!
Sorry.


No you didn't. You told us that the car that made the Nurburgring lap was a ringer, not a production GT-R, which isn't at all related to the GT-R's weak transmission and weaker customer relations.

Posted by: clarkma5 Dec 12 2008, 05:46 PM

He also said the car was for sissies and was very uncool.

Posted by: Uwe Dec 12 2008, 10:46 PM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Dec 13 2008, 02:14 AM) *
No you didn't. You told us that the car that made the Nurburgring lap was a ringer, not a production GT-R, which isn't at all related to the GT-R's weak transmission and weaker customer relations.

My baseline was, Nissan cheated. They cheated with the Ring lap in order to brag with a time of 7:29 and now it shows they cheated with their launch control in order to show off with the 0-60 numbers even if their transmission couldn't withstand (and don't tell me they didn't know that in advance). You wanted to believe in the Ring lap as well as into the fact that a car for 80,000 $ was a world beater. Don't blame me for that.

Posted by: Mitlov Dec 12 2008, 10:52 PM

QUOTE(Uwe @ Dec 12 2008, 10:46 PM) *
My baseline was, Nissan cheated. They cheated with the Ring lap in order to brag with a time of 7:29 and now it shows they cheated with their launch control in order to show off with the 0-60 numbers even if their transmission couldn't withstand (and don't tell me they didn't know that in advance). You wanted to believe in the Ring lap as well as into the fact that a car for 80,000 $ was a world beater. Don't blame me for that.


Except it's never been proven that they cheated on the Ring time. Not remotely. I still don't believe that the car that did the 7:29 was modified from stock form, and that was the spearhead of your arguments against the GT-R. I see the Nurburgring "ringer" argument as a completely different issue than the transmission-and-warranty issue.

Posted by: Uwe Dec 12 2008, 11:14 PM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Dec 13 2008, 07:52 AM) *
Except it's never been proven that they cheated on the Ring time. Not remotely. I still don't believe that the car that did the 7:29 was modified from stock form, and that was the spearhead of your arguments against the GT-R. I see the Nurburgring "ringer" argument as a completely different issue than the transmission-and-warranty issue.

To prove it you would have needed to get access on the GT-R that did the Ring lap two minutes after they finished the lap. And if you say "not remotely" then you are still ignoring all the physical conditions (i.e. power-to-weight ratio), you are ignoring the report from Drivers Republic (see "Porsche raises BS flag" thread) and you are ignoring the video from the ZR1 (that last argument of the speed difference through the Galgenkopf corner was as flawed as it could be). You want to believe in the fact the sky is green, that's my only explanation for this sort of stubbornness.

Posted by: Mitlov Dec 13 2008, 09:51 AM

QUOTE(Uwe @ Dec 12 2008, 11:14 PM) *
To prove it you would have needed to get access on the GT-R that did the Ring lap two minutes after they finished the lap. And if you say "not remotely" then you are still ignoring all the physical conditions (i.e. power-to-weight ratio), you are ignoring the report from Drivers Republic (see "Porsche raises BS flag" thread) and you are ignoring the video from the ZR1 (that last argument of the speed difference through the Galgenkopf corner was as flawed as it could be). You want to believe in the fact the sky is green, that's my only explanation for this sort of stubbornness.


Your jihad against this car, and your dripping condescension for anyone who has looked at evidence and come to a different conclusion than you, is growing tiresome.

Posted by: Aircooled Dec 13 2008, 10:58 AM

Dude if Walter Rhrl can't get within 25 secs of Nissan's claimed time, you really have to wonder....

Posted by: clarkma5 Dec 13 2008, 11:25 AM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Dec 13 2008, 09:51 AM) *
Your jihad against this car, and your dripping condescension for anyone who has looked at evidence and come to a different conclusion than you, is growing tiresome.

I would hesitate to doubt Uwe's knowledge of the Nurburgring.

Posted by: Uwe Dec 13 2008, 11:26 AM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Dec 13 2008, 06:51 PM) *
Your jihad against this car, and your dripping condescension for anyone who has looked at evidence and come to a different conclusion than you, is growing tiresome.

Which evidence, please? So far there are a lot of reasons to believe the Ring GT-R was a cheater and a lot less for believing it was not. The only evidence we currently have is the claim by Nissan that it was production state. I can claim a lot when the day is long.

And "my jihad against this car"? Puleeeze! Count your posts at DS concerning (I nearly wanted to say "wanking over") the GT-R and count mine. Everytime I dared to write something about the GT-R you jumped at my face accusing me of sounding like an old man or likewise. I really had a hard time not writing something like "you sound exactly like a lawyer - making big and eloquent words about something you don't have a fucking clue about".

Yes, I wrote it now. And you know what? For a very good reason. Neither did you ever drive on the Ring (let alone fast) nor do you seem to know what car weight means, nor do you know what one needs to make a car fast, nor do you know what can be achieved with clever electronics and what not. And I seriously doubt you have ever been on a race track with a fast car (I was often enough).

Posted by: moethepaki Dec 13 2008, 12:08 PM

What does driving on a race track or driving at the 'Ring have anything to do with this? I'm sure Mitlov knows fairly well what makes a fast car, and he doesn't need to be a race car driver/track day fiend to know that. You've been badgering us incessantly on how the GT-R couldn't have pulled off the time they quoted since Nissan released the info. Who was Mitlov, or any other enthusiast, supposed to believe; a weekend 'Ring warrior, or Nissan, a company that happens to know quite a bit about making damn good sports cars? So just give it a break.

Also, at the risk of refueling the fire...there has been a lot of skepticism, but no one has officially disproved Nissan's laptime. If they have, please do let me know. And the DR article doesn't count.

Posted by: clarkma5 Dec 13 2008, 12:14 PM

How would one go about "disproving" Nissan's laptime? Proving that the car wasn't stock or finding evidence of the video being sped up? The car's long gone, we can't evaluate whether it was modified or not at this point. At this juncture all someone could do is prove that nissan's laptime was good by matching it (or getting really really close to it), which has yet to happen.

And I think driving on the 'ring has a fair deal to do with this. I've driven it, and though I can only claim to have begun to wrap my head around the place as I was leaving, it's quite clear that what makes a car fast at the 'ring is not necessarily what most bench racers will point to making a car fast, and let's face it, Mitlov's a bench racer.

Posted by: moethepaki Dec 13 2008, 12:18 PM

If Nissan stuck their driver in a stock GT-R and got within five seconds (or reasonably close) of the time they quoted, I'd let them have it.

EDIT: Also I'd like to clarify my stance. I never cared about the GT-R's laptime, seeing as I'm also a "bench racer" I could really care less. I'm not saying that Nissan's not wrong either. If Rohrl and Harris say it can't be done, it probably can't be, I'm just giving Nissan and the GT-R the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: Uwe Dec 13 2008, 12:38 PM

QUOTE(moethepaki @ Dec 13 2008, 09:08 PM) *
What does driving on a race track or driving at the 'Ring have anything to do with this? I'm sure Mitlov knows fairly well what makes a fast car, and he doesn't need to be a race car driver/track day fiend to know that.

Mitlov has claimed that the GT-R's electronics will allow for 20mph more speed than the ZR1 through an 80mph corner (the Galgenkopf corner) and this is so fucking ridiculous he CAN'T know anything about driving. He just can't.

Read the DR report to see what the actual speed difference between the GT-R and the GT2 at that point was (edit: and the ZR1 will not be much different).

Posted by: dukenukem Dec 13 2008, 12:50 PM



The only person who can beat the 7:29 time at the 'ring.

Posted by: Mitlov Dec 13 2008, 12:51 PM

QUOTE(moethepaki @ Dec 13 2008, 12:18 PM) *
If Nissan stuck their driver in a stock GT-R and got within five seconds (or reasonably close) of the time they quoted, I'd let them have it.

EDIT: Also I'd like to clarify my stance. I never cared about the GT-R's laptime, seeing as I'm also a "bench racer" I could really care less. I'm not saying that Nissan's not wrong either. If Rohrl and Harris say it can't be done, it probably can't be, I'm just giving Nissan and the GT-R the benefit of the doubt.


According to Nissan, their driver performed several laps at 7:29 that day, the car was stock, and the tires used are on display. Of course, if they're all compulsive liars involved in a vast conspiracy (that also involves giving ringers to magazines, who have all found that the GT-R is damn fast, including in comparison tests), none of this matters, but if you don't believe that, it certainly does.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/09/nissan-to-porsche-put-the-gt-r-down-before-you-hurt-yourself/

QUOTE(moethepaki @ Dec 13 2008, 12:08 PM) *
What does driving on a race track or driving at the 'Ring have anything to do with this? I'm sure Mitlov knows fairly well what makes a fast car, and he doesn't need to be a race car driver/track day fiend to know that. You've been badgering us incessantly on how the GT-R couldn't have pulled off the time they quoted since Nissan released the info. Who was Mitlov, or any other enthusiast, supposed to believe; a weekend 'Ring warrior, or Nissan, a company that happens to know quite a bit about making damn good sports cars? So just give it a break.

Also, at the risk of refueling the fire...there has been a lot of skepticism, but no one has officially disproved Nissan's laptime. If they have, please do let me know. And the DR article doesn't count.


Thank you. The Nurburgring itself is not the issue here. I'm sure Uwe knows every turn like the back of his hand. But that's not the debate. The debate is whether it's possible for (a) the GT-R to clock a lap time of 7:29, and (b) the GT-R to travel between two bridges on the Ring in the same amount of time as the ZR-1 does. The real issues here are the GT-R and the ZR-1, not the course on which they drove. And since neither Uwe nor I has first-hand experience with either the GT-R or ZR-1, I think I'm entitled to interpret the existing evidence (all from third parties) just as much as he is.

Since Uwe cannot debate without engaging in pervasive personal attacks, and since we're not arguing anything here we haven't argued before, I'm through with this debate.

Posted by: clarkma5 Dec 13 2008, 02:04 PM

phix on this thread:

QUOTE
<phix> that thread is a POSTER child of everything wrong with mitlov

Posted by: Razor Dec 13 2008, 02:16 PM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Dec 13 2008, 05:04 PM) *
phix on this thread:


Why doesn't he come on and say it himself, again? Because he's scared of Ketan or something? tongue.gif

Posted by: Mitlov Dec 13 2008, 02:59 PM

Someday, Clarkma5, you'll learn how to actually debate topics instead of just launching snide ad hominem attacks against anyone you don't like or anyone who disagrees with you.

As for phix...what a big man he is! Can't even talk shit on the internet directly? People who can't say things face to face in real life is lame enough, but lacking the ability to say something "face to face" on an internet forum is pretty damn weak.

Posted by: midnightdorifto Dec 13 2008, 04:15 PM

And someday you'll learn how to handle being called out on something you said without acting like a condescending douchebag.

EDIT: Somebody lock this thread before it becomes another "Mitlov's pissing match" thread. We have had enough of those in the past and they just go nowhere.

Posted by: Aircooled Dec 13 2008, 04:18 PM

As a Chemist, I think we should take a scientific approach to this; after all, cars and automobile racing is just applied physics and chemistry.

A scientist can work all day in a lab and say at the end of the day he invented a cure to cancer or a perpetual motion device.
For a procedure or theory to be accepted as fact it must be reproducible by other labs and scientists.

I think we should take the lap time achieved by Rohrl as the lap time of the GT-R unless anyone else takes a guaranteed stock GT-R around the lap and has legit witnesses.

Posted by: Razor Dec 13 2008, 04:55 PM

QUOTE(Aircooled @ Dec 13 2008, 07:18 PM) *
As a Chemist



Posted by: clarkma5 Dec 14 2008, 12:36 AM

Mitlov, at your worst, you're incapable of coping with an attack on your character or your reason so you'll sit here and argue in defense of yourself and your viewpoint until everyone says you're awesome, which we won't, so you'll just argue until you're blue in the face and we'll go nowhere. You're aggressively contrarian* and seek victory in arguments to satisfy your ego. It's probably why you're in law.

As for the original Nurburgring argument (which is admittedly all a bit silly to me, I don't care if the time's real or not I still don't like the car either way) I feel that Uwe's got a better feel for what's going on than you do and that the Nissan's published time is to be considered suspect until proven repeatable.

*hey I love playing devil's advocate too, I do it all the time, but everything in moderation right?

As for me making snide comments and being condescending towards those who disagree with me, maybe you should be reading your own posts more...particularly in this thread, you've resorted a lot to attacking other posters' credibilities.

EDIT: Actually re-reading Uwe's posts I'm shocked you can find them to have "dripping condescension" and "pervasive personal attacks". He basically just said what you don't know, and nowhere have you provided any evidence to the contrary to prove that you DO know those things. All you've argued is for your right to say what you think is right.

Posted by: Uwe Dec 14 2008, 03:08 AM

Thanks, Clarkma. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Posted by: MustangAficionado Dec 14 2008, 11:21 AM




and

QUOTE
12/01/2008, 10:58 AM
Coupe
Official details leak on Nissan GT-R Spec-V
Ads by Google
Pontiac G8 vs. Maxima
See How Pontiac G8 Performs Against the Nissan Maxima. See Details!
www.Pontiac.com/G8Compare
Top Nissan 350z Prices
Find out our Lowest Possible Price on a new 2008 Nissan 350z!
www.CarPriceSecrets.com

The Nissan GT-R is one of the most potent performance machines on the market, but Nissan plans to follow up the GT-R’s first act with an even more high-performance Spec-V variant. The Nissan GT-R Spec-V has been long-rumored and well documented through spy shots, but a concrete launch date has eluded the headlines – until now.

According to GTRBlog.com, Nissan will unleash the GT-R Spec-V on January 8th with Japanese deliveries set to kick off in February. No word on when the U.S. will get a shot at the Spec-V, but it will likely be later in 2009.

The GT-R Spec-V will be an extremely low-production car, with only 10 examples expected to roll off the assembly line each month. The Spec-V’s price tag will match its exclusivity, with prices expected to start around $150,000.

All-out performance fans will likely be disappointed with the GT-R Spec-V’s performance numbers. The Spec-V’s 3.8L twin-turbo V6 merely matches the 2010 GT-R’s output of 485 ps (roughly 478 horsepower), well short of its predicted 520-550 horsepower. However, a new overboost button does allow for more mid-range turbo boost.

Although the Spec-V’s engine bay has been largely ignored, Nissan engineers didn’t overlook the performance value of a lighter curb weight. Therefore many of the GT-R’s stock parts have been swapped out for carbon fiber units, including the car’s front seat shells, a rear seat-replacing shelf, front and rear spoilers and front grille. Throw in an upgraded suspension and the GT-R Spec-V lapped the Sendai Highland Raceway two seconds faster than the series II GT-R.


Make it seriously uncool. Apparently facts are hate too. Why can't facts just love the GT-R? So bias.

Posted by: clarkma5 Dec 14 2008, 02:11 PM

I like the idea of putting the GT-R on a diet but not for double the price.

Posted by: Phix Dec 14 2008, 10:51 PM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Dec 13 2008, 06:59 PM) *
Someday, Clarkma5, you'll learn how to actually debate topics instead of just launching snide ad hominem attacks against anyone you don't like or anyone who disagrees with you.

As for phix...what a big man he is! Can't even talk shit on the internet directly? People who can't say things face to face in real life is lame enough, but lacking the ability to say something "face to face" on an internet forum is pretty damn weak.


Really, what's the point when you just reiterate your favourite line:

QUOTE
Since <Insert Name Here> cannot debate without engaging in pervasive personal attacks, and since we're not arguing anything here we haven't argued before, I'm through with this debate.


and then you proceed to commence your own attacks on peoples characters faulting them for being an aggressive individual for attacking you in the first place. Nice double standard you have there in your egomaniacal mind.

I look forward to your essay length reply to this thread in which you point to having a life yet still going out of your way by creating a duplicate account and spending several days thinking about the correct path of action to take on an internet forum which has no bearing on your supposed "full life". smile.gif

Posted by: Dr. Strangelove Dec 18 2008, 08:06 PM

Guys, this is all missing the point. Ring lap times and 0-60 don't make a car cool. Weak transmissions and warranties don't make a car cool. Hell there are a ton of hyper cool Ferraris that break down all the time. The GT-R is uncool because it is a nerd's car.

And for the last time. My car is a Spec V, GT-Rs are V-Specs. They switched it around for the Sentra when they released the car in America because the Japanese engineers thought calling my car a V-Spec is an insult to their hard work.


...weak, I know.

Posted by: Razor Dec 18 2008, 08:18 PM

QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Dec 18 2008, 11:06 PM) *
Guys, this is all missing the point. Ring lap times and 0-60 don't make a car cool. Weak transmissions and warranties don't make a car cool. Hell there are a ton of hyper cool Ferraris that break down all the time. The GT-R is uncool because it is a nerd's car.

And for the last time. My car is a Spec V, GT-Rs are V-Specs. They switched it around for the Sentra when they released the car in America because the Japanese engineers thought calling my car a V-Spec is an insult to their hard work.

...weak, I know.


THANK YOU.

Posted by: speedyK Jan 7 2009, 04:32 PM

I have yet to see one in the metal though from the pics it certainly is striking and different not beautiful but, if it is a great drive (and according to every respected enthusiasts car mag that has tested it it is), then I can live with "striking".

My old 300ZX Twin Turbo has served me really well the 2+2 configuration with all mod cons (including targa panels and rear hatch with fold-down back seats) is great but with only rwd it is just not a viable winter car here in Switzerland. Even though it is 15 years old now, it still is totally reliable. I have no reason to doubt that the GT-R will be equally solid and, with 4WD, an all-year car.

Yes, for purity of driving experience, a Caterham like Uwe's or an Exige like mine is no doubt better but for almost all of the time, the other attributes of the GT-R will give me more satisfaction and, like the 300ZX, it can be used for more rles.

I'm hoping to pick up a used GT-R for a fair price in the not too distant future. I don't need to use launch control to enjoy owning one.


For me, the only other option with similar capabilities would be a Porsche (which in similar spec is way more expensive) and my wife says, "Over my dead body" anyway. She did not like the ZX when I first got it, but now she really enjoys driving it herself.

Perhaps I will very occasionally miss the ZX's extra facilities of targa and rear hatch on the GT-R, but I reckon it is a superb bit of kit.

I've given it "frozen"
, though perhaps I should diss it too in the hope that the re-sale value will drop like a stone and I can pick one up for peanuts! biggrin.gif



As for it being a nerd's car you can turn off all the aids if you wish. I do on the virtual version in GT5 Prologue and I just love how adjustable it is on the throttle though if I would ever do that on the public road is questionable. The track is another matter... DS_Naughty2.gif

Posted by: Razor Jan 7 2009, 04:57 PM

^ You, sir, would be the perfect GT-R owner. Not the idiots who tear up their transmissions trying to show off and cry like little bitches to Nissan about it. If breaking down easily when used incorrectly is so uncool, why do you all love to suck off the older Alfa models?

Posted by: SwissWhiskey Jan 10 2009, 09:11 AM

Overrated, boring, no class. (I've seen 3 of them)

From the technical perspective its a new yard stick.

For most of the world wide population its basically a 350Z. Its a nerds car. It doesn't/sound/impress good enough. Who cares if it can do everything when a Golf GTi is cooler. Admit it, every gearhead/petrolhead wants atleast a bit of attention with his car.

Posted by: clarkma5 Jan 10 2009, 12:21 PM

I think these cars get TONS of attention from lots of people, despite their lack of overt sex appeal. I think only the most hardcore enthusiasts are complaining about these cars, honestly.

Posted by: duality Jan 10 2009, 12:39 PM

chicks find the 350Z sexier than a Zonda (seen as ugly)...and I've personally done surveys about this lol.

sex appeal is diff. for each person...and the female mind works differently to petrol heads.

Posted by: clarkma5 Jan 10 2009, 01:03 PM

Well I don't fucking care what your average woman thinks about cars, do you? I think it's not just that women think differently than petrol heads, it's that non-enthusiasts think differently than enthusiasts. That's the crux of it. The only person I'm interested in impressing with a car is myself.

Posted by: duality Jan 10 2009, 01:23 PM

most people who buy cars like these buy it for posing...the way they would look in it, or what others (female) think.

QUOTE
it's that non-enthusiasts think differently than enthusiasts.
I'd agree. I'm not pretending to be a full car connoisseur, but very few buyers are actual enthusiasts who know the jists of driving such beauties.

Posted by: 350Z Jan 10 2009, 03:40 PM

Apparently women like the sound of a Maserati the most.

Posted by: darinzon Jan 16 2009, 07:44 AM

QUOTE(duality @ Jan 10 2009, 04:23 PM) *
most people who buy cars like these buy it for posing...the way they would look in it, or what others (female) think.

where are you getting this information?

Posted by: dukenukem Jan 16 2009, 08:05 AM

QUOTE(darinzon @ Jan 16 2009, 09:44 AM) *
where are you getting this information?

Real life. Not the show you watch on MTV. But like real real life.

Posted by: clarkma5 Jan 16 2009, 01:37 PM

Against all logic, this thread is now in the frozen section.

Posted by: 350Z Jan 17 2009, 04:09 AM

The system works.

Posted by: Uwe Jan 18 2009, 02:57 AM



laugh.gif

Posted by: darinzon Jan 18 2009, 07:55 AM

QUOTE(dukenukem @ Jan 16 2009, 11:05 AM) *
Real life. Not the show you watch on MTV. But like real real life.

oh, i thought we were dealing with meaningful, factual information. my bad.

Posted by: dukenukem Jan 18 2009, 08:41 AM

QUOTE(darinzon @ Jan 18 2009, 09:55 AM) *
oh, i thought we were dealing with meaningful, factual information. my bad.

The point would still hold true.

Posted by: clarkma5 Jan 18 2009, 09:34 AM

lol at the video, that's awesome.

Posted by: maxima302 Jan 18 2009, 03:53 PM

Haha I loved that video!

Did anyone see Top Gear with the GT-R? Jeremy didn't seem to have any problems with the tranny, and if he doesn't drive cars hard, then I don't know who does wink.gif

Posted by: clarkma5 Jan 18 2009, 03:58 PM

QUOTE(maxima302 @ Jan 18 2009, 03:53 PM) *
Jeremy didn't seem to have any problems with the tranny, and if he doesn't drive cars hard, then I don't know who does wink.gif


...and because one car's transmission didn't fail during a brief test for a car show, the transmission design overall is just fine. Not to pick on you but I've noticed a lot of this "no, that can't happen because it hasn't happened to me/I haven't seen it happen" logic around lately.

Posted by: Mitlov Jan 18 2009, 04:10 PM

That Hitler video is awesome.

As a slight tangent, it's the second best Hitler-in-the-bunker video I've seen. My favorite:


Posted by: clarkma5 Jan 18 2009, 04:36 PM

...IMO that's actually the worst Hitler in the bunker vid I've seen. Although the line about the SRT-4 not getting you laid in a whorehouse was pretty good.

Posted by: Razor Jan 20 2009, 02:37 PM



Yeah, Porsche, what now? How about you try to beat that time in those conditions without totaling. Absolutely and totally badass and proof of just how frozen the GT-R is (save the Lambo doors).

Posted by: clarkma5 Jan 20 2009, 03:06 PM

...what time? There is no laptime for this video, it's just edited together to be about 7 and a half minutes long. It doesn't even show a full lap and it shows several sections of track repeatedly. It's just a goof-off video.

Posted by: Razor Jan 20 2009, 03:13 PM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Jan 20 2009, 06:06 PM) *
...what time? There is no laptime for this video, it's just edited together to be about 7 and a half minutes long. It doesn't even show a full lap and it shows several sections of track repeatedly. It's just a goof-off video.


Theoretically. tongue.gif It would be interesting to compare the GT-R and the 911 in the snow for fastest times... you'd just need a driver stupid enough to do it. Maybe now the Stig should do it because he's going to lose his job and has nothing to live for. tongue.gif

Posted by: Uwe Jan 21 2009, 12:46 AM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Jan 21 2009, 12:06 AM) *
...what time? There is no laptime for this video, it's just edited together to be about 7 and a half minutes long. It doesn't even show a full lap and it shows several sections of track repeatedly. It's just a goof-off video.

Clarkma, I take it from Razors comment that it was meant ironicly. wink.gif

Guessing by the comments on Youtube the video has been put together by a german Nissan dealer who was filming with one of our TV cheapochannels (RTL2) and testing winter tires for the GT-R. Judging by the TV channel it is going to be a piece of trivial rubbish.

Posted by: maxima302 Jan 21 2009, 04:59 PM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Jan 18 2009, 03:58 PM) *
...and because one car's transmission didn't fail during a brief test for a car show, the transmission design overall is just fine. Not to pick on you but I've noticed a lot of this "no, that can't happen because it hasn't happened to me/I haven't seen it happen" logic around lately.


Um... it was a joke. And to be exact, there was more than one unit used on the show, one was a press car, and the other was privately owned.

Not to pick on you, but when were you planning on stepping off your high horse? I guess I just don't understand what you are trying to prove around here by being such a pompous asshole.

Posted by: clarkma5 Jan 21 2009, 09:49 PM

I play the contrarian in practically any debate, it's my nature. Also it's hard to tell when people are being serious or not.

Posted by: moethepaki Jan 30 2009, 03:08 AM

There was one ahead of us in traffic the other day and my g/f thought it looked like a "video game car."

Posted by: maxima302 Jan 31 2009, 03:44 AM

Now that I've seen a few around town, and driven one for the weekend, I must say they really aren't impressive looking in the flesh. I think the G37 is a much better, more emotional looking car.

Posted by: Bjorn Jan 31 2009, 06:25 AM

According to Autoblog, Nissan has designed a new launch control program that doesn't require the deactivation of VDC. The upgrade is being performed on all undelivered GT-Rs and it is "strongly recommended" that current owners submit their cars to the free upgrade. Nissan feels that with the upgrade the car will be able to achieve a 0-100km/h time close to a pre-upgrade car using LC with VDC deactivated.

Props to Nissan for offering a fix for the problem, although I don't buy that Nissan didn't know that there was a problem with the transmission lunching itself before these customers started blowing up their transmissions. Call me a cynic, but if you develop a car, and don't test several of them to destruction...from say, using LC until something breaks...you have no business selling cars. The question in my mind; is Nissan negligent or incompetent? Either way I'll think twice before buying any Nissan product from now on.

Posted by: Mitlov Jan 31 2009, 11:31 AM

QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Dec 18 2008, 08:06 PM) *
Guys, this is all missing the point. Ring lap times and 0-60 don't make a car cool. Weak transmissions and warranties don't make a car cool. Hell there are a ton of hyper cool Ferraris that break down all the time.


After a month of being pissed about the transmission thing, I've realized Dr. Strangelove is dead on the money.

Posted by: clarkma5 Jan 31 2009, 01:17 PM

Though they've reached a decent compromise with their new VDC program, I still think it's utterly retarded to give customers a "VDC off" button and then put "damages stemming from use with VDC off void the warranty". WHO thought it was a good idea to give their end users a "void warranty" button on their dashboard?? That's what's so fucking retarded here.

Posted by: moethepaki Jan 31 2009, 01:24 PM

QUOTE(maxima302 @ Jan 31 2009, 03:44 PM) *
Now that I've seen a few around town, and driven one for the weekend, I must say they really aren't impressive looking in the flesh. I think the G37 is a much better, more emotional looking car.


I agree completely.

Posted by: Uwe Feb 1 2009, 02:44 AM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Jan 31 2009, 10:17 PM) *
Though they've reached a decent compromise with their new VDC program, I still think it's utterly retarded to give customers a "VDC off" button and then put "damages stemming from use with VDC off void the warranty". WHO thought it was a good idea to give their end users a "void warranty" button on their dashboard?? That's what's so fucking retarded here.

I do expect a lot of GT-R's with gearbox troubles in a few years time, even if the VDC on them hasn't been disabled once.

A heavy car with a powerful engine puts a lot of stress on a transmission. Take all the facts into account - Nissan voiding the warranty when disabling VDC, several transmissions already gone pop, the car not being the most expensive (Nissan has to make money somewhere with it) - and I can't imagine how on average the transmission is going to survive the whole car life. Except you drive the car in grandpa mode all the time.

Posted by: Mitlov Feb 1 2009, 04:10 AM

QUOTE(Uwe @ Feb 1 2009, 02:44 AM) *
I do expect a lot of GT-R's with gearbox troubles in a few years time, even if the VDC on them hasn't been disabled once.

A heavy car with a powerful engine puts a lot of stress on a transmission. Take all the facts into account - Nissan voiding the warranty when disabling VDC, several transmissions already gone pop, the car not being the most expensive (Nissan has to make money somewhere with it) - and I can't imagine how on average the transmission is going to survive the whole car life. Except you drive the car in grandpa mode all the time.


And that's a terrible shame, because other supercars typically have really low long-term maintenance costs wink.gif

Posted by: Uwe Feb 1 2009, 10:27 AM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Feb 1 2009, 01:10 PM) *
And that's a terrible shame, because other supercars typically have really low long-term maintenance costs wink.gif

Especially when a gearbox exchange is comparable to a brakepad exchange.

Posted by: Mitlov Feb 1 2009, 11:01 AM

QUOTE(Uwe @ Feb 1 2009, 10:27 AM) *
Especially when a gearbox exchange is comparable to a brakepad exchange.


...because nothing besides the brakes ever goes wrong on non-Nissan supercars wink.gif

Posted by: Uwe Feb 1 2009, 12:04 PM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Feb 1 2009, 08:01 PM) *
...because nothing besides the brakes ever goes wrong on non-Nissan supercars wink.gif

I didn't say that. But the GT-R is equipped with a component - and a quite expensive one - that has shown to be fragile.

And what makes you sure the replacement price of other GT-R parts won't be on supercar level? BTW, parts wear is generally higher and thus more expensive with a heavier car like the GT-R.

Posted by: Mitlov Feb 1 2009, 12:42 PM

Call me an automotive racist, but I'm pretty sure that overall (not necessarily component-for-component, but overall), anything Nissan will be more reliable and cheaper to maintain than anything Italian. And a significant percentage of supercars are Italian, and people don't say they're shitty supercars just because they're unreliable and expensive to maintain.

And as for German stuff, remember that the R8 uses the same engine as the RS4...and PD's RS4 needs a completely new engine after one year. How expensive would THAT be if it was out of warranty? Supercars are, in general, so highly tuned that reliability is always a big question.

Nissan's poor customer service is still an issue, but that's not a mark against the GT-R itself. As for the GT-R itself, I just don't see that the average cost of ownership is necessarily going to be a lot more than the average cost of ownership of an F430 or even an R8.

Posted by: Uwe Feb 1 2009, 01:30 PM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Feb 1 2009, 09:42 PM) *
Call me an automotive racist, but I'm pretty sure that overall (not necessarily component-for-component, but overall), anything Nissan will be more reliable and cheaper to maintain than anything Italian. And a significant percentage of supercars are Italian, and people don't say they're shitty supercars just because they're unreliable and expensive to maintain.

Generally I agree even though the build quality of Ferraris have been dramatically improved since the shitboxes that were released by Maranello in the 80's. That said - Ferrari spare parts have always been very expensive and my first boss who had some expensive cars during his automobile life always said you need to have the buying price for a Ferrari plus exactly the same money again to cover repair costs.

QUOTE
And as for German stuff, remember that the R8 uses the same engine as the RS4...and PD's RS4 needs a completely new engine after one year. How expensive would THAT be if it was out of warranty? Supercars are, in general, so highly tuned that reliability is always a big question.

I can't say if PD's engine was just a monday's lemon or if it was a design flaw. But with the GT-R's transmission I think it is the latter.

BTW, if I wanted to buy a super car in the 100 k range (give or take 10k) I'd take a Porsche GT3 just for that reason. Expensive parts as well but otherwise bulletproof.

QUOTE
Nissan's poor customer service is still an issue, but that's not a mark against the GT-R itself. As for the GT-R itself, I just don't see that the average cost of ownership is necessarily going to be a lot more than the average cost of ownership of an F430 or even an R8.

I agree that the maintenance costs of the average R8 are not going to be below a GT-R - as long as the GT-R's transmission holds together. That a lot of them are going to break is just my personal opinion. We will see if I'm right or wrong here.

The F430 runs a bit out of competition as it is nearly double the price of a GT-R (well, and Ferrari spare parts... see above).

Posted by: darinzon Feb 1 2009, 07:11 PM

just saw the gt-r in person the other day. what a beautiful car

Posted by: 4wheelfreak Feb 3 2009, 06:49 PM

It does have a rather striking road presence, but I wouldn't call it 'beautiful.'

Posted by: clarkma5 Feb 3 2009, 07:06 PM

The thing is huuuuge and I think a lot of its styling is overhanded and clunky (I really don't like that roofline).

Posted by: Flaw Feb 13 2009, 11:43 PM

I couldn't care less about the issues it has, the forums that RAGEEEEEE anytime someone mentions 'ring lap times, or how much "purists" loathe it, this car is FROZEN as FUCK for being a prime example of how Japanese-engineered robots are better than any human soul. German engineers can't hang with the Japanese...different leagues.

Posted by: moethepaki Feb 15 2009, 12:03 PM

http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/2009/02/2009-nissan-gt-r-reprogrammed-our-gt-r-gets-quicker.html?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..4.*.

Posted by: Mitlov Feb 15 2009, 12:14 PM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Nov 20 2008, 09:59 AM) *
Someone please change my vote from frozen to MJU.


Sorry to be fickle here, but after getting over my frustration over the warranty fiasco (which isn't really about the car itself...otherwise, Hyundais would be cooler than Lambos), I'm back to thinking that this car is frozen as fuck. Would someone mind changing my vote back?

Posted by: clarkma5 Feb 15 2009, 12:35 PM

Done mitlov

Posted by: midnightdorifto Feb 24 2009, 11:44 AM

QUOTE(Flaw @ Feb 13 2009, 11:43 PM) *
Japanese-engineered robots are better than any human soul.

失敗

(That's Japanese for "fail".)

Racing isn't any fun if you can't feel a damn thing while doing it. Same reasons why, no matter if DCTs cure cancer, they will still be my second choice in transmission - it just doesn't get my blood pumping at the end of the day.

Posted by: maxima302 Feb 27 2009, 03:04 AM

QUOTE(midnightdorifto @ Feb 24 2009, 11:44 AM) *
失敗

(That's Japanese for "fail".)

Racing isn't any fun if you can't feel a damn thing while doing it. Same reasons why, no matter if DCTs cure cancer, they will still be my second choice in transmission - it just doesn't get my blood pumping at the end of the day.


You can definitely feel the GT-R. Perhaps the way the GT-R goes about going fast is dull, but its certainly not a dull driving experience.

Posted by: moe Mar 5 2009, 11:31 AM

i've been wrong. the gt-r is just really, really badass.

Posted by: Mitlov Mar 5 2009, 12:14 PM

QUOTE(moe @ Mar 5 2009, 11:31 AM) *
i've been wrong. the gt-r is just really, really badass.


What changed your mind?

Posted by: moe Mar 6 2009, 04:12 AM

it's fast. really fast.

Posted by: maxima302 Mar 6 2009, 08:18 PM

QUOTE(moe @ Mar 6 2009, 04:12 AM) *
it's fast. really fast.


Did you get a ride in one smile.gif

Posted by: clarkma5 Mar 6 2009, 08:23 PM

rolleyes.gif We don't just give frozens to everything that's fast but whatever.

Posted by: Razor Mar 6 2009, 08:30 PM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Mar 6 2009, 11:23 PM) *
rolleyes.gif We don't just give frozens to everything that's fast but whatever.


No, only engineering marvels that appear to be Japanese robots in car form that manage to undercut cars twice their costs.

Posted by: clarkma5 Mar 6 2009, 09:30 PM

Or fat overhyped ugly lumps with truck interiors. Depends on your point of view I guess.

Posted by: Razor Mar 6 2009, 09:39 PM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Mar 7 2009, 12:30 AM) *
Depends on your point of view I guess.


Definitely does.

Posted by: Mitlov Mar 7 2009, 02:01 AM

OMG cool is subjective?

Posted by: 350Z Mar 7 2009, 04:29 AM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Mar 7 2009, 04:23 AM) *
rolleyes.gif We don't just give frozens to everything that's fast but whatever.

With a few exceptions yes we do.

Posted by: moe Mar 7 2009, 08:17 AM

QUOTE(maxima302 @ Mar 7 2009, 08:18 AM) *
Did you get a ride in one smile.gif


the cornering speeds are unreal. everything seemed unreal.

Posted by: speedyK Mar 10 2009, 04:19 PM

Music to my ears.

And when you hear that people are selling them used in Japan at 40% off the list price... absolute bargain or what?

Posted by: GTR Mar 10 2009, 10:05 PM

This is probably the longest running cool thread discussion/argument/flamewar ever since I posted it in June 2008 haha
Way to go guys thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Mitlov Mar 10 2009, 10:25 PM

QUOTE(speedyK @ Mar 10 2009, 05:19 PM) *
Music to my ears.

And when you hear that people are selling them used in Japan at 40% off the list price... absolute bargain or what?


Considering that a new transaxle is 30% of the list price...no. Raspberry.gif

Posted by: maxima302 Mar 11 2009, 12:24 AM

QUOTE(speedyK @ Mar 10 2009, 05:19 PM) *
Music to my ears.

And when you hear that people are selling them used in Japan at 40% off the list price... absolute bargain or what?


Was in a dealership today and they had a white one for MSRP + $20,000 rolleyes.gif

Posted by: speedyK Mar 12 2009, 11:29 AM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Mar 11 2009, 07:25 AM) *
Considering that a new transaxle is 30% of the list price...no. Raspberry.gif


I wouldn't be launch controlling mine to death though still comfortably fast enough without the need for that! thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Razor Mar 12 2009, 11:42 AM

QUOTE(speedyK @ Mar 12 2009, 03:29 PM) *
I wouldn't be launch controlling mine to death though – still comfortably fast enough without the need for that! thumbs_up.gif


We clearly think on the same wavelength. If Nissan says don't do it, but gives you the option to and you still do it, how is that different from committing some form of crime? You're not supposed to, but you still can, and if you do there will most likely be punishments of some sort, whether it's a repair bill or jail time. If you're gonna be dumb, pay the price.

Posted by: clarkma5 Mar 12 2009, 11:45 AM

Razor, your thinking constantly astounds me. If you want to make an analogy between committing a crime and using launch control, take a second and please tell me the ethical ramifications of using launch control in a car versus, say, breaking and entering.

Posted by: Razor Mar 12 2009, 12:02 PM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Mar 12 2009, 03:45 PM) *
Razor, your thinking constantly astounds me. If you want to make an analogy between committing a crime and using launch control, take a second and please tell me the ethical ramifications of using launch control in a car versus, say, breaking and entering.


Let's make it less extreme then, just for you. Mommy says don't take cookies from the cookie jar. You can, and you do. You don't get cookies for a week as a result. Better?

Posted by: clarkma5 Mar 12 2009, 12:06 PM

No, because the consequences don't compare. The consequences of voiding your nissan warranty and destroying your transaxle is $18,000 + labor to repair it. There's a reason I chose breaking and entering, as a crime it's of at least somewhat equal consequence based on how big the fines are and so on.

The idea behind the VDC thing is that Nissan not only gave you the "void warranty button" to push, but they so aggressively touted the car's performance that they were basically selling the car based on advertising a feature that you can't use. That's what pisses me off about the whole launch control thing.

Beyond that, I'm irritated that Nissan is selling a performance car that requires the driver to leave the electronic aids on. Every other performance car that does that is frowned upon by enthusiasts for good reason, but this thing gets a pass and I don't think that makes sense.

Posted by: 350Z Mar 12 2009, 12:10 PM

How about binge drinking? We all know it can have serious repercussions but im fairly sure we have all done it?

Posted by: Razor Mar 12 2009, 12:12 PM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Mar 12 2009, 04:06 PM) *
Beyond that, I'm irritated that Nissan is selling a performance car that requires the driver to leave the electronic aids on. Every other performance car that does that is frowned upon by enthusiasts for good reason, but this thing gets a pass and I don't think that makes sense.


That's fair enough. I guess what it comes down to is, they didn't design it for people like you. They designed it for people like SpeedyK and myself.

Posted by: clarkma5 Mar 12 2009, 12:18 PM

I find that insulting to speedyK.

Posted by: moe Mar 12 2009, 12:36 PM

umm...has no one heard of the new programming? it's faster, and it doesn't even need launch control. there's an article on how insideline did it to their long-term gt-r.

Posted by: clarkma5 Mar 12 2009, 12:39 PM

Yeah I know of it. It doesn't fix pretty much everything that's wrong with the car (the huge weight and large size, the reliance on driver aids, the fron-a-pickup-truck interior, the lack of a manual gearbox option), nor does it fix the debacle that was Nissan's release of this vehicle to the public.

Anyway, my strong dislike of this vehicle is blatantly obvious so I should stop bothering. It saddens me that this is so readily accepted by enthusiasts as a great car when to me it stands for so many of the things wrong with modern performance...too big, too heavy, too complex.

Posted by: Mitlov Mar 12 2009, 02:08 PM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Mar 12 2009, 01:39 PM) *
Yeah I know of it. It doesn't fix pretty much everything that's wrong with the car (the huge weight and large size, the reliance on driver aids, the fron-a-pickup-truck interior, the lack of a manual gearbox option), nor does it fix the debacle that was Nissan's release of this vehicle to the public.


But at least it's safe! ...I kid, I kid...

QUOTE
Anyway, my strong dislike of this vehicle is blatantly obvious so I should stop bothering. It saddens me that this is so readily accepted by enthusiasts as a great car when to me it stands for so many of the things wrong with modern performance...too big, too heavy, too complex.


But different enthusiasts can enjoy different types of performance motor vehicles, right? There's no one "right way" to do modern performance, is there? Some people love muscle cars, some people love rally cars, some people love sportbikes, some people love Caterhams, some people love 500-horsepower supersedans, and some people love manga-inspired technology-loaded road-rockets. I think all of these genres are legitimate takes on modern performance.

If you don't like this particular genre (EVO X, GT-R, etc), then feel free to not like it. But don't be saddened that others do.

Posted by: Razor Mar 12 2009, 02:35 PM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Mar 12 2009, 04:18 PM) *
I find that insulting to speedyK.


Hardy har har, fucker. Just because we both like the way this car works?

Posted by: moe Mar 13 2009, 02:27 AM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Mar 12 2009, 11:39 PM) *
Yeah I know of it. It doesn't fix pretty much everything that's wrong with the car (the huge weight and large size, the reliance on driver aids, the fron-a-pickup-truck interior, the lack of a manual gearbox option), nor does it fix the debacle that was Nissan's release of this vehicle to the public.

Anyway, my strong dislike of this vehicle is blatantly obvious so I should stop bothering. It saddens me that this is so readily accepted by enthusiasts as a great car when to me it stands for so many of the things wrong with modern performance...too big, too heavy, too complex.


i think it's partly the love it/hate it reactions, and the controversy surrounding the car that makes it so damned cool

Posted by: Mitlov Mar 13 2009, 07:23 AM

QUOTE(moe @ Mar 13 2009, 03:27 AM) *
i think it's partly the love it/hate it reactions, and the controversy surrounding the car that makes it so damned cool


QUOTE(Mitlov @ Jun 25 2008, 04:46 PM) *
The fact that the GT-R continually sparks this degree of anger and distrust among "old schoolers" and "purists" makes it even cooler in my mind...it's iconoclasm on four wheels.


Raspberry.gif

Posted by: Uwe Mar 14 2009, 06:43 AM

QUOTE(moe @ Mar 13 2009, 11:27 AM) *
i think it's partly the love it/hate it reactions, and the controversy surrounding the car that makes it so damned cool

If you think that the car is cool especially because others think of it as an ugly and overweight portaloo then your definition of coolness is fundamentally different from mine.

Posted by: Razor Mar 14 2009, 10:18 AM

QUOTE(Uwe @ Mar 14 2009, 10:43 AM) *
If you think that the car is cool especially because others think of it as an ugly and overweight portaloo then your definition of coolness is fundamentally different from mine.


Just that it's contested. Would you think the same if your beloved Porsches were though of in the same way?

Posted by: Uwe Mar 14 2009, 11:08 AM

QUOTE(Razor @ Mar 14 2009, 07:18 PM) *
Just that it's contested. Would you think the same if your beloved Porsches were though of in the same way?

Yes I would think the same. It doesn't make a car cool if it has a lot of fanboys. Neither does it make it cool as well if it "continually sparks this degree of anger and distrust among [insert category here]" as Mitlov likes to say. Coolness has nothing to do with these things.

Posted by: moe Mar 15 2009, 10:17 AM

coolness is entirely subjective, and impossible to define. stop trying.

Posted by: Uwe Mar 15 2009, 12:39 PM

QUOTE(moe @ Mar 15 2009, 07:17 PM) *
coolness is entirely subjective
I never denied that.

QUOTE(moe @ Mar 15 2009, 07:17 PM) *
and impossible to define
No. Everyone can define it for himself.

QUOTE(moe @ Mar 15 2009, 07:17 PM) *
stop trying.
What exactly?

Posted by: maxima302 Mar 16 2009, 11:00 PM

QUOTE(Uwe @ Mar 14 2009, 12:08 PM) *
It doesn't make a car cool if it has a lot of fanboys.


... then we should shut down this forum, because there are so many VW "fanboys" here its ridiculous. God forbid anybody says anything bad about the Golf GTi. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: clarkma5 Mar 17 2009, 12:04 AM

There was a big GTI fanbase here a few years ago. Now I don't really see it. Most people have moved onto being interested in more serious machinery, including the GTI owners. I mean, I know that me and cyclone and ozi still like our cars, but for the most part we're eyeing different machinery...I'd rather be in a tuned Miata, a 370Z, or a Porsche...something that's less of an all-rounder than the GTI and more focused. Probably just bomb3r who's still hung up on his.

(I know I said I was done with this thread but the topic changed tongue.gif )

Posted by: Mitlov Mar 17 2009, 07:36 AM

QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Mar 17 2009, 01:04 AM) *
There was a big GTI fanbase here a few years ago. Now I don't really see it. Most people have moved onto being interested in more serious machinery, including the GTI owners. I mean, I know that me and cyclone and ozi still like our cars, but for the most part we're eyeing different machinery...I'd rather be in a tuned Miata, a 370Z, or a Porsche...something that's less of an all-rounder than the GTI and more focused. Probably just bomb3r who's still hung up on his.


True, but at the end of the day, we're still a bunch of VAGinas.

Posted by: moe Mar 17 2009, 08:43 AM

no, you guys are a bunch of VAGinas. in a brief moment of weakness, i admitted to wanting to buy the new scirocco...i have since rectified this mistake.

Posted by: Mitlov Mar 17 2009, 09:46 AM

QUOTE(moe @ Mar 17 2009, 09:43 AM) *
no, you guys are a bunch of VAGinas. in a brief moment of weakness, i admitted to wanting to buy the new scirocco...i have since rectified this mistake.


Bah. It's like heroin addiction. Once you've partaken, you're always recovering, never recovered.

Posted by: dukenukem Mar 17 2009, 10:34 AM

QUOTE(Mitlov @ Mar 17 2009, 10:36 AM) *
True, but at the end of the day, we're still a bunch of VAGinas.

I am not in this we.

Posted by: Mitlov Mar 17 2009, 10:56 AM

QUOTE(dukenukem @ Mar 17 2009, 11:34 AM) *
QUOTE
True, but at the end of the day, we're still a bunch of VAGinas.

I am not in this we.


No, no, you're not. In the Team America: World Police trichotomy of human nature, you're definitely a dick. Raspberry.gif

Posted by: maxima302 Mar 17 2009, 11:10 AM

QUOTE(dukenukem @ Mar 17 2009, 11:34 AM) *
I am not in this we.


Oh me either. While I don't hate them, I fail to see anything remotely exciting about them.

Posted by: Razor Mar 17 2009, 12:04 PM

QUOTE(maxima302 @ Mar 17 2009, 03:10 PM) *
Oh me either. While I don't hate them, I fail to see anything remotely exciting about them.


You should hear mine and see if your mind changes. tongue.gif

Posted by: Bjorn Mar 17 2009, 12:20 PM

^I'm in a similar boat to maxima302.

Although Lambo and some of the Audi lineup is exempt, as are the new TDIs.

(I don't consider Porsche a VAG product)

Posted by: maxima302 Mar 17 2009, 05:49 PM

QUOTE(Razor @ Mar 17 2009, 01:04 PM) *
You should hear mine and see if your mind changes. tongue.gif


Been there, done that... the R32 is probably the best of the bunch I suppose. I'm on a V8 kick right now though smile.gif

Posted by: moe Mar 17 2009, 05:57 PM

until the new scirocco came out, vw hadn't made a car i truly cared about since the corrado. i liked the scirocco for all of two days, convincing myself it was going to be my next car, and then hyundai launched the genesis coupe...haha

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)