Godzilla (as they call it) Vs whatever it seems

[LeonOfTheDead]

just found this on leftlanenews:

Corvette engineers say ZR1 will best Nissan GT-R's Nürburgring lap time (http://www.leftlanenews.com/corvette-engineers-say-zr1-will-best-nissan-gt-rs-nurburgring-lap-time.html)

Nissan GT-R laps Nurburgring in 7 minutes 29 seconds (http://www.leftlanenews.com/nissan-gt-r-laps-nurburgring-in-7-minutes-29-seconds.html)

i have to express my doubts about this.
up to now, the record-holder is the Pagani Zonda F Clubsport, which run the 'ring in 7:27.82 the september 25th 2007. the record was registered with some judges from the guinness IIRC. i know there'are some radicals/donkevoorts and others which run even faster, but theyr aren't proper road cars, and in some cases they aren't standard models neither. another supercar accredited for a previous record is the Porsche Carrera GT with 7:30. not an official record btw. what i would like to point out is that both the zonda and the carrera gt weight more or less 1,2-1,3 tons, have a carbon fiber chassis, over 612 hp the german and 650 hp the italian and a very good downforce, even if the zonda doesn't have a proper vacuum effect.
the other contenders like the radicals etc have less hp, let's say 350 hp maybe more in some cases, but weight something like 500 kg.
now the nissan comes up with this thing, the new GT-R, fast, for sure, but just a second behind the zonda?! with standard tires?! it weights 500 kg more, have 200 hp less, but the plus of the dsg gearbox and the all-wheel-drive. but i am pretty sure they aren't so powerful to match the time. otherwise, a supercar doesn't make sense anymore...
what i find even more weird is that no one is going to doubt this numbers, even with the new ZR1 coming next.
in a private test in a small circuit in italy, Franciacorta, the lapped a bmw 320si with standard tires (which are already sportier than standard ones) with the same car but equipped with the slick tires of the WTCC cars. considering the road car is setted specifically for those "standard" tires so it wasn't tunned to fit slicks, they managed to cut the lap time by almost 10 seconds, on a track which is long something like 2,8 km. i am wondering what a semislick can cut from the time on the Nordshleife, almost 21 km long.
opinions?

[Niko_Fx]

I love how they keep claiming that the ZR1 this, the ZR1 that.... Given the GT-R's weight, it would need 714hp to match the ZR1's power-to-weight ratio.

They should be ashamed that they're trying to defeat the GT-R with so much power.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I love how they keep claiming that the ZR1 this, the ZR1 that.... Given the GT-R's weight, it would need 714hp to match the ZR1's power-to-weight ratio.

They should be ashamed that they're trying to defeat the GT-R with so much power.

i suppose the zr1's engine could be more reactive and with the torque better distributed on the range of the engine, btw, this underline even more my disappointment: a "tunned" vette pretending to be faster then the latest gt-r pretending to be better the probably better supercar on the market right now. i am sure they both are two amazing cars to drive, even if i find them both ugly.

[clutch-monkey]

well, i already have doubts about the GTR's time as it is (to be fair, it'd still be ridiculously fast if they did it properly) so maybe chev could pull some numbers out it's ass, with neither of them realising how irrelevant a nurburgring time is in practical terms.

[orne]

Yea Leon, I had pretty much the same thought when I heard of that.

I suppose the definitive test was if made by an independent party(Sport-Auto magazine comes to mind) to a random car. We really can't be sure of what kind of changes those specific test cars have, from engine experiments which could compromise reliability to suspension setups that would be undriveable on the road.

Still, what they have achieved with the GTR is impressive and appears to defy physics!

[LeonOfTheDead]

well, i already have doubts about the GTR's time as it is (to be fair, it'd still be ridiculously fast if they did it properly) so maybe chev could pull some numbers out it's ass, with neither of them realising how irrelevant a nurburgring time is in practical terms.

i prefer the "jaguar's attitude" to the ring. they use it as a benchmark since it creates all sort of difficult situations of an open road but in safe condition, paying no attention to the time the are able to achieve.

[Ferrer]

i prefer the "jaguar's attitude" to the ring. they use it as a benchmark since it creates all sort of difficult situations of an open road but in safe condition, paying no attention to the time the are able to achieve.
Exactly.

I don't care what time does the GT-R get. I still can't like it.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I don't care what time does the GT-R get. I still can't like it.

karma: +1

[Roentgen]

I know very little about the ring and how they record the times, but would it have anything to do with the driver? Maybe a good driver will get around faster, even in a slower car, and vice versa...?

[P4g4nite]

I've never raced around it but I hear that track isn't all billiard table flat, I suspect that with it's super tricky AWD the GTR is able to turn power into forward momentum more often than high powered RWD cars. Maybe.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I know very little about the ring and how they record the times, but would it have anything to do with the driver? Maybe a good driver will get around faster, even in a slower car, and vice versa...?

you are right, but in this case they both used professional drivers with ton of laps about the track in their career.


I've never raced around it but I hear that track isn't all billiard table flat, I suspect that with it's super tricky AWD the GTR is able to turn power into forward momentum more often than high powered RWD cars. Maybe.

it's sure the driver of the gt-r could be less worried about how much power the tires are ready to deliver to the ground in every moment since there is an army of cpu to think about that and split the power to every single tire, but IMO, the supposed pro given by the AWD isn't equivalent to the 500 kg gap in weight and the fact that the carbon fiber in the gt.r isn't used as a structural element but almost only to save weight so in body panels and some components, AFAIK. the race car of the 24 hours race aren't equipped with TC or similar gadgets, deliver at least 600 hp and are RWD except for an RS4, at least in the last two edition, and speaking about the contender for the overall win. the drivers used in this test are usually the same guys who every year race in this event and sometime are test-driver of the same factory on the ring, so i think an AWD system it's an help, but not so relevant to cut down a time at a supercar level.

[P4g4nite]

The 'ring has something like 100 turns, the GTR has shown that it can do straights as well as anything and if it's AWD is giving it an advantage over traction problem parts that will translate into a huge amount over such a long lap.
Furthermore, it isn't lagging that far behind in power. Motortrend's tests indicate it has at least 507bhp and even as much as 570 not outside the realm of possibility, with more torque than a Z06.

Not saying Nissan are definately on the level but this car has been out performing what the numbers would suggest in each test since it came out.

[LeonOfTheDead]

The 'ring has something like 100 turns, the GTR has shown that it can do straights as well as anything and if it's AWD is giving it an advantage over traction problem parts that will translate into a huge amount over such a long lap.
Furthermore, it isn't lagging that far behind in power. Motortrend's tests indicate it has at least 507bhp and even as much as 570 not outside the realm of possibility, with more torque than a Z06.

Not saying Nissan are definately on the level but this car has been out performing what the numbers would suggest in each test since it came out.

even if i consider the usual fact that japanese sport cars have more hp that what the automakers say, it's still very heavy. and i found it's very silly to say one of your car has let's say 450 hp and then selling it with 500 hp just to surprise some enthusiast. it's a trick like when they introduced a new model in a very very low numbers at the beginnig, so they are all sold out in a short time and then everyone will get mad for that car just because no one can have it.
the only real thing i'm surprised with is it's price. i guess the decided to use the GT-R as a big add campaign, taking a very little profit from its selling numbers, but huge profits from its reputation.

[2ndclasscitizen]

even if i consider the usual fact that japanese sport cars have more hp that what the automakers say, it's still very heavy. and i found it's very silly to say one of your car has let's say 450 hp and then selling it with 500 hp just to surprise some enthusiast. it's a trick like when they introduced a new model in a very very low numbers at the beginnig, so they are all sold out in a short time and then everyone will get mad for that car just because no one can have it.

Or more likely, it's a case of honesty, rather than optimism. For instance, the 1000hp Bugatti spec the Veyron at is a guaranteed minimum output, not a figure you'll get if it wasn't made on a Friday arvo by the apprentice, it will have at least 1000hp. Nissan's probably doing the same, being slightly conservative in their quoted output so people don't get disappointed if their car doesn't make as much power as the brochure says.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Or more likely, it's a case of honesty, rather than optimism. For instance, the 1000hp Bugatti spec the Veyron at is a guaranteed minimum output, not a figure you'll get if it wasn't made on a Friday arvo by the apprentice, it will have at least 1000hp. Nissan's probably doing the same, being slightly conservative in their quoted output so people don't get disappointed if their car doesn't make as much power as the brochure says.

the veyron prodeces circa 1060 hp to be sure to have the declaired 1001 hp.
the difference is of the 6%, not really much. for the GT-R the difference between declared and tested seems to be as far as 20%...it's no more optimism. and i also think this is a kind of problem you could have only with extreme products like the veyron, a gt-r is pretty a standard car for a lot of reasons (from an engineering point of view). imo, they can be pretty sure about how much power the engines will have, without the need to add so much power just "to be sure". also, when i read about the 1060 hp of the veyron, it seemed clear from the article that the difference between 1001 and 999 hp is more "psychological" than mechanical, so they needed this kind of trick.

[LeonOfTheDead]

and also with a such amount of power, even a little difference in air temperature or pressure con affect by some percentages the value of the power, and so the risk to obtain less than 1001 hp comes up again

[2ndclasscitizen]

a gt-r is pretty a standard car for a lot of reasons (from an engineering point of view).

Not really. Plasma-lined cylinder bores, transfer case-less active AWD, DSG gearbox, and on and on and on.


imo, they can be pretty sure about how much power the engines will have, without the need to add so much power just "to be sure".

Not without blueprinting and dynoing every engine they make they can't. Which was my point.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Not really. Plasma-lined cylinder bores, transfer case-less active AWD, DSG gearbox, and on and on and on.

these stuff are all already existing, while the dsg for the veyron was the first with 7 gears, and such a torque to handle, and it's a real engineering task to dissipate that amount of heat generated by the powertrain with 13 radiators in a car relatively small. avoiding the car to take off is another big problem, stopping it at 400 km/h is another one, avoiding all the mechanisms to destroy themselves for the power and torque, the same for brakes and tires...that was my point.
what you quote are stuff i would call "mechanical technology" that is to say tasks of construction or production matters. but imo the GT-R simply use, maybe first time on a "production car", already existing technology for other applications


Not without blueprinting and dynoing every engine they make they can't. Which was my point.

that would be only another test, but if an engine developed a certain power, if the process of building it doesn't have some problems (machineries supposed to built the engine are electronically controlled so you can know if there was some problem) there aren't reasons to say other engines built by the same machineries develop different powers. and i'm pretty sure almost every engine is tested (as for any other mobile parts) just to see if it works before to mount it on the car. in this way you can reduce the researching area if you find any problem.

[Kitdy]

I don't care what time does the GT-R get. I still can't like it.

What's your issue with it?

[Ferrer]

What's your issue with it?
It doesn't look good, it's not elegant, it has no flair. It's a computer on wheels.

Oh and it has a stupid gearbox, weights too much, and I don't want four wheel drive.

[kingofthering]

It doesn't look good, it's not elegant, it has no flair. It's a computer on wheels.

Oh and it has a stupid gearbox, weights too much, and I don't want four wheel drive.

I'm sure they said the same thing about the Audi Quattro coupe when it first came out. ;)

[70cuda88]

It doesn't look good, it's not elegant, it has no flair. It's a computer on wheels.

Oh and it has a stupid gearbox, weights too much, and I don't want four wheel drive.

i agree with 4 out of 7 dentists on this one

[2ndclasscitizen]

these stuff are all already existing, while the dsg for the veyron was the first with 7 gears, and such a torque to handle, and it's a real engineering task to dissipate that amount of heat generated by the powertrain with 13 radiators in a car relatively small. avoiding the car to take off is another big problem, stopping it at 400 km/h is another one, avoiding all the mechanisms to destroy themselves for the power and torque, the same for brakes and tires...that was my point.
what you quote are stuff i would call "mechanical technology" that is to say tasks of construction or production matters. but imo the GT-R simply use, maybe first time on a "production car", already existing technology for other applications

There's nothing really advanced and ground breaking about the engineering in the Veyron. It's all fairly standard stuff, just built bigger and tougher. Having lots of radiators isn't an amazing technical feat. Aerodynamics have been around for a long time.

[LeonOfTheDead]

There's nothing really advanced and ground breaking about the engineering in the Veyron. It's all fairly standard stuff, just built bigger and tougher. Having lots of radiators isn't an amazing technical feat. Aerodynamics have been around for a long time.

are you kidding me?
do you think it's normal to have thirteen radiators on a car? the heat developed from a powertrain good for over 1000 hp isn't just 5 times bigger than what a 200 hp golf gti can produce. and it's not only more in quantity but also in its "power", so more dangerous. even the radiator of the steering begins to be an issue, all that weight and power are not so easy to handle in a roundabout as it could seems. example: ferrari was considering to use a KTM radiator for the steering of the v12 cars to bring down costs. so not a very small radiator, and they aren't so heavy, powerful or AWD (up to now).
the aerodynamics of a car isn't that of a plane, but the Veyron' shape and the speed it can achieve make it more similar to a plane (well, to a wing to say the truth) than to a car at high speed, so it wasn't something already seen. and automakers are still having problems of vibrations and noises at speed higher than 300 km/h, btw.
developing a gearbox good for that torque isn't usual, since the standards required from this car aren't those of a tunned mercedes or of a race car, first of all, quality issues would destroy the marque since the car costs so much money. then the only dsg previously avaible was the one you could find in the quoted golf...not very similar cars.
there were also no tires good for this kind of speed-acceleration-weight, and just to give you an example they employed the B.Engineering Edonis, which was of course lighter and less powerful, but it stressed the tires more than "standard" supercars.
all this problems raised the weight, so all was then even more stressing for the parts just engineered, and the process was to start again.
i am not a fan of the veyron, but vw's engineers are not so fools to need 5 years to develop that car. as an example, Riccardo, the producer of the gearbox, used to have 70 engineers just to develop the veyron's trasmission.
saying the veyron is just a bigger supercar is like to say every car is like it's predecessor just a little nicer-faster-etc

[2ndclasscitizen]

But none of that technology is break-through, it's just been engineered bigger and stronger. A radiator is not advanced engineering, nor is having a lot of them. Active aerodynamics were first explored on F1 years ago.

[whiteballz]

I have to agree with 2ndCC, yes its cool that they built stuff stronger, but its all been done in smaller scale before - and 70 people on just the 'box? No wonder the f*cking thing costs so much.

[LeonOfTheDead]

But none of that technology is break-through, it's just been engineered bigger and stronger. A radiator is not advanced engineering, nor is having a lot of them. Active aerodynamics were first explored on F1 years ago.

who did mention active aero?!


I have to agree with 2ndCC, yes its cool that they built stuff stronger, but its all been done in smaller scale before - and 70 people on just the 'box? No wonder the f*cking thing costs so much.

it costs that much because of more than 70 people working on a very difficult project. probably a wrong one, since it was a marketing idea, but nearly perfectly executed.

the car may not be perfect, this is not my point, what I am saying is that the EXECUTION of the project is excellent, from the engineering point of view, because, i am talking about engineering, not simply about a car. and i'm beginning to think you don't have sufficient insight on the subject. I'm not doubting your knowledge about cars at all, it could be perfect, but it does not pertain to the argument.

Knowledge about cars =/= knowledge about engineering.

[2ndclasscitizen]

the car may not be perfect, this is not my point, what I am saying is that the EXECUTION of the project is excellent, from the engineering point of view, because, i am talking about engineering, not simply about a car. and i'm beginning to think you don't have sufficient insight on the subject. I'm not doubting your knowledge about cars at all, it could be perfect, but it does not pertain to the argument.

Knowledge about cars =/= knowledge about engineering.

:rolleyes: Pull your head out of your arse. You're opinion of engineering seems to be being able to make things stronger is more advanced engineering than being able to develop new technologies.

[LeonOfTheDead]

:rolleyes: Pull your head out of your arse. You're opinion of engineering seems to be being able to make things stronger is more advanced engineering than being able to develop new technologies.

thank you for you kind words.
my opinions, based on what I have learned in my engineering career up to now, would not be swayed by your "arguments" since they aren't different from so many others i have already heard, and typical of who doesn't know what he is talking about, as Murphy said.
i hoped to have an interesting and technical conversation with someone, but it seems you were the wrong individual. at first i would've liked to know about your technical and/or engineering background, if any, but this was before you started to make shallow, childish and, in the end, offensive comments.

[NSXType-R]

Well one way to settle the argument would be to put the GT-R on a dyno and figure out how much real wheel hp it has.

Or rip the engine out of the bay and see how much it puts out.

It already does 0-60 in about 3.5 seconds, give or take.

I find it hard to believe too, doing the Nurburgring in that time. But since it already does 0-60 in that time, I don't have much to doubt.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Well one way to settle the argument would be to put the GT-R on a dyno and figure out how much real wheel hp it has.

Or rip the engine out of the bay and see how much it puts out.

It already does 0-60 in about 3.5 seconds, give or take.

I find it hard to believe too, doing the Nurburgring in that time. But since it already does 0-60 in that time, I don't have much to doubt.

i would probably doubt even that 0-60 time.
i don't know the source but if this test was made on a 1/4 mile race track, the time is surely affected by the tires deposited on the track surface.
i guess the GT-R is so preceded by his fame that we (well, they) want it to be superb whatever it takes. the simply fact that is the first gt-r truly commercialized out of Japan probably are over-exiting a lot of journalists and enthusiasts, like if they don't want do be disappointed at all. sure this car is fast, but this is just too much. i already expressed my ideas btw.
if i try to be nice with the gt-r, i could say that an italian magazine managed to sprint a 430 from 0 to 64 in 3,6 seconds. given a little advantage to the nissan for the AWD and the DSG, and a little advantage to the 430 for the amazing electronic differential (and also a really fast gearbox), since the cars have similar powers, it's not so impossible a 0-60 in 3,5 secs for the japanese, but it's still a little heavier. but, it could be.

[NSXType-R]

i would probably doubt even that 0-60 time.
i don't know the source but if this test was made on a 1/4 mile race track, the time is surely affected by the tires deposited on the track surface.
i guess the GT-R is so preceded by his fame that we (well, they) want it to be superb whatever it takes. the simply fact that is the first gt-r truly commercialized out of Japan probably are over-exiting a lot of journalists and enthusiasts, like if they don't want do be disappointed at all. sure this car is fast, but this is just too much. i already expressed my ideas btw.
if i try to be nice with the gt-r, i could say that an italian magazine managed to sprint a 430 from 0 to 64 in 3,6 seconds. given a little advantage to the nissan for the AWD and the DSG, and a little advantage to the 430 for the amazing electronic differential (and also a really fast gearbox), since the cars have similar powers, it's not so impossible a 0-60 in 3,5 secs for the japanese, but it's still a little heavier. but, it could be.

But many have tested the GT-R and have verified the 0-60 claim.

[LeonOfTheDead]

But many have tested the GT-R and have verified the 0-60 claim.

so i guess my 430-GT R comparison was right.
but those car were imported from J, right? it's a news of this days that the US spec and EU spec GTRs are going to be tunned in a different (maybe better, their opinion) way with probably a better handling, even if it shouldn't affect the 0-60 time appreciably.

[NSXType-R]

so i guess my 430-GT R comparison was right.
but those car were imported from J, right? it's a news of this days that the US spec and EU spec GTRs are going to be tunned in a different (maybe better, their opinion) way with probably a better handling, even if it shouldn't affect the 0-60 time appreciably.

Not sure about that.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Not sure about that.

about what?

[h22a]

so i guess my 430-GT R comparison was right.
but those car were imported from J, right? it's a news of this days that the US spec and EU spec GTRs are going to be tunned in a different (maybe better, their opinion) way with probably a better handling, even if it shouldn't affect the 0-60 time appreciably.

unless you can provide some sort of evidence that US spec GTR's are different to EU spec, assumptions are useless.
I doubt all tests have been done with Japanese delivered nissans

[kingofthering]

these stuff are all already existing, while the dsg for the veyron was the first with 7 gears, and such a torque to handle, and it's a real engineering task to dissipate that amount of heat generated by the powertrain with 13 radiators in a car relatively small. avoiding the car to take off is another big problem, stopping it at 400 km/h is another one, avoiding all the mechanisms to destroy themselves for the power and torque, the same for brakes and tires...that was my point.
what you quote are stuff i would call "mechanical technology" that is to say tasks of construction or production matters. but imo the GT-R simply use, maybe first time on a "production car", already existing technology for other applications



that would be only another test, but if an engine developed a certain power, if the process of building it doesn't have some problems (machineries supposed to built the engine are electronically controlled so you can know if there was some problem) there aren't reasons to say other engines built by the same machineries develop different powers. and i'm pretty sure almost every engine is tested (as for any other mobile parts) just to see if it works before to mount it on the car. in this way you can reduce the researching area if you find any problem.
Ahh... but the key ingredient is price; the GT-R brings all those fancy-schmancy gizmos to a price that the average Joe, with a bit of saving-up, could buy. Unlike the Bugatti, which costs as much as 10 GT-Rs and requires a special invitation.


Well one way to settle the argument would be to put the GT-R on a dyno and figure out how much real wheel hp it has.

Or rip the engine out of the bay and see how much it puts out.

It already does 0-60 in about 3.5 seconds, give or take.

I find it hard to believe too, doing the Nurburgring in that time. But since it already does 0-60 in that time, I don't have much to doubt.

Motor Trend found that it was significantly higher than 480 at the crank. Something closer to 600.

[Kitdy]

Motor Trend found that it was significantly higher than 480 at the crank. Something closer to 600.

I thought it was 510 or something.

[NSXType-R]

Motor Trend found that it was significantly higher than 480 at the crank. Something closer to 600.


I thought it was 510 or something.

Yeah, they said it felt way higher than 480. I think Car and Driver said the same too.

Are manufacturers allowed to underestimate the power figures?

[kingofthering]

Yeah, they said it felt way higher than 480. I think Car and Driver said the same too.

Are manufacturers allowed to underestimate the power figures?

Yes. The Japanese did it for years; according to Fleet500, so did the Americans, but that's a bit disputed.

[Kitdy]

Yes. The Japanese did it for years; according to Fleet500, so did the Americans, but that's a bit disputed.

The American car manufactures did under quote, but since they did and they also used Gross HP, their claimed ratings were probably somewhat close to the Net HP of said engines.

Or maybe not.

Anyways, it was sorta like an over quote and under quote at the same time if you think in terms if Net HP.

[P4g4nite]

Leon, what the heck is this thread about? besides a collection of your finest GTR conspiracy theories.

[clutch-monkey]

thank you for you kind words.
my opinions, based on what I have learned in my engineering career up to now, would not be swayed by your "arguments" since they aren't different from so many others i have already heard, and typical of who doesn't know what he is talking about, as Murphy said.
i hoped to have an interesting and technical conversation with someone, but it seems you were the wrong individual. at first i would've liked to know about your technical and/or engineering background, if any, but this was before you started to make shallow, childish and, in the end, offensive comments.
he's right so far as i can see though.
going by your argument, you could say GM's LS7 is pushing engine technology foward because they made it all lighter and more fuel efficient.
never mind those are metallurgical advances :rolleyes:

i would probably doubt even that 0-60 time.
i don't know the source but if this test was made on a 1/4 mile race track, the time is surely affected by the tires deposited on the track surface.
because no-one else tests 0-60 times at drag strips, right?

[john14]

I believe many European, American and Australian people don't like the Nissan Skyline GT-R just because it's an Asian car. I hate the fact that so many Europeans, Americans and Australian are so biased to cars from their own continent and think cars that were made, designed and engineered in other continents are really bad. That attitude stinks.

[h22a]

I believe many European, American and Australian people don't like the Nissan Skyline GT-R just because it's an Asian car. I hate the fact that so many Europeans, Americans and Australian are so biased to cars from their own continent and think cars that were made, designed and engineered in other continents are really bad. That attitude stinks.

take it easy bro. its only a select group of narrow minded people hating on the GTR. I can assure you the majority off people on UCP probably like the GTR, just not the hype following it.
chill out on the sweeping statements;)

[Rockefella]

I believe many European, American and Australian people don't like the Nissan Skyline GT-R just because it's an Asian car. I hate the fact that so many Europeans, Americans and Australian are so biased to cars from their own continent and think cars that were made, designed and engineered in other continents are really bad. That attitude stinks.

Although harsh, you have a point. The same way I'm sure you'd have a bias if Australia or Ireland (I believe you're of Irish descent) played [insert team here] in the Olympics. Naturally, you're closer to the homeland/ancestry.

I like to consider myself a non-partisaned person, but my biggest qualm with the skyline is it's following. I hate things that become really trendy or overly popular to the point that it gets sick. I don't have an iPod, I hate drifting/street-racing, I hate the New York Yankees, etc. For this same reason, I wouldn't be caught dead saying the Nissan Skyline is my favorite car. For one, I don't want two 15 year old wannabe-gangsta homies come up to me and be all, "oh sh1t hell yeah man teh skyline is sickk they hav like 1400 hp" and second, I'm not a fan of it's path from the natural roots of a sports car. It's heavy, it's too digitalized and computer controlled, and it's too hyped whether this hype is granted or not. And before someone replies with this, the Corvette suffers from hype like this, as does a Ferrari or McLaren F1 or ...

[LeonOfTheDead]

unless you can provide some sort of evidence that US spec GTR's are different to EU spec, assumptions are useless.


i'm looking for that article, i just can't find now, sorry. what i was saying was that probably, as this article said, J and US cars would be different. so even J and EU ones. i will continue to searching it later.


Ahh... but the key ingredient is price; the GT-R brings all those fancy-schmancy gizmos to a price that the average Joe, with a bit of saving-up, could buy. Unlike the Bugatti, which costs as much as 10 GT-Rs and requires a special invitation.

as i said, it's the real thing that surprise me, and i guessed it is a sort of marketing idea, and a good one: no profit on the car, but a huge ad, really more expensive.


Motor Trend found that it was significantly higher than 480 at the crank. Something closer to 600.

if they tested the car on the dyno, the number could be more accurate. and between 510 and 600 hp there is a huge difference.


Leon, what the heck is this thread about? besides a collection of your finest GTR conspiracy theories.

i just want to dismount the "the hype following it" as h22a said. i don't like the car that's for sure, but what i really don't like is the fact that a lot of people are simply drolling on every statements, sometimes very unofficial, saying the car did something better than another car, or that it has 600 hp or what else. it's becoming too much of a legend. i simply want some official, verified facts, as for every car so groundbreaking. i did the same some years ago with the Veyron, just i wasn't on this forum since i joined last year.


he's right so far as i can see though.
going by your argument, you could say GM's LS7 is pushing engine technology foward because they made it all lighter and more fuel efficient.
never mind those are metallurgical advances :rolleyes:

i said anything about the Corvette up to now, and by the way, it's not only about metallurgical technologies, since even if you could create an even lighter engine, it doesn't mean that it can works without suffering too much the heat dispersion, since you need mass/volume to disperse it, or maybe it could also brake itself since it could be too tiny for the forces generated. so, a lighter and more fuel efficient engine it's a huge improvement, yes. i am afraid you don't seem to understand that.
and i would really appreciate if you, and others, could give some reason why my arguments seem to be wrong, not just saying "fail" and nothing more. it's not a conversation/discussion in this way. i am trying to give a lot of technical explanations for my arguments, and i am very sorry that i can express everything i would like to say because of my english.


because no-one else tests 0-60 times at drag strips, right?

i was referring to the opposite situation. since a lot of cars leave a layer of rubber on the road surface, the grip is higher because of a major chemical affinity. on the other side, running on a surface of the same kind of your tires will allowed a major transfer of rubber from your tires to the ground, so they would deteriorate very early.


I believe many European, American and Australian people don't like the Nissan Skyline GT-R just because it's an Asian car. I hate the fact that so many Europeans, Americans and Australian are so biased to cars from their own continent and think cars that were made, designed and engineered in other continents are really bad. That attitude stinks.

i truly like the NSX, or the Mitsu "i", i am interested in Toyota's hybrid technology and in the Mazda's idea of continuing the development of the Wankel engine even with hydrogen. so it's not my case. i am not interested from which country a car comes, but it has to be built properly, no matter of which kind of car it is.


take it easy bro. its only a select group of narrow minded people hating on the GTR. I can assure you the majority off people on UCP probably like the GTR, just not the hype following it.
chill out on the sweeping statements;)

you steal those words from my mouth.:)


sorry for the very long post.:o

[henk4]

I like to consider myself a non-partisaned person, but my biggest qualm with the skyline is it's following. ...

maybe it becomes time to develop some independent judgement;)

[Rockefella]

maybe it becomes time to develop some independent judgement;)

Damn you Henk, I should have worded that a bit better. :p

[henk4]

Damn you Henk, I should have worded that a bit better. :p
well it is always a bit strange when you say I don't like it because other people like it too much...

[Rockefella]

and i would really appreciate if you, and others, could give some reason why my arguments seem to be wrong, not just saying "fail" and nothing more. it's not a conversation/discussion in this way. i am trying to give a lot of technical explanations for my arguments, and i am very sorry that i can express everything i would like to say because of my english.

Look at the country icon next to their Username. The common theme of Australia in your quotes will explain all of these issues. The only way to beat Australians is with humiliation, that's why ECC runs **** on MSN against them.

[Rockefella]

well it is always a bit strange when you say I don't like it because other people like it too much...

Understood. When I said I was non-partisaned, obviously I'll have tastes, but meant it in I try to enter a choice as unbiased as possible. I guess as an example, as a Democrat and unlike most involved in the voting process, when I look at this current election I weigh the candidates not by party affiliation but by who will benefit America most. I'm not going to leave John McCain out in the wind because he's a Republican, even though he's obviously at a disadvantage since I agree more with Democratic party principles than I do with Republicans.

In the post I made, I only highlighted the problems with the car, as I would have problems with any other car. The skyline is an engineering masterpiece, and amazingly good at what it does for that price point, don't get me wrong. I just said I wouldn't be caught dead announcing it's my favorite car, because one of my distastes is hopping on the bandwagon and liking something for reasons unknown besides, ''everyone else is doin' it''.

To make a conclusion, and to link my two points together since it seems to drift off. My point with the Presidential election is similar to that of my entering into the skyline debate. I, a Democrat look at John McCain the same way I look at Obama. I will look at their credentials, talking points, and strategy for reform, and decide from there. HOWEVER, naturally and as I stated, Obama/Clinton would obviously be at an advantage because my partial allegiance for Democratic values carries through to Democratic candidates and is rivaled by the Republican party, putting John McCain at an IMMEDIATE disadvantage. So to create a segway, the Skyline is the proverbial John McCain. I know the Skyline's past, the same way I know the Republican trend. I know it'll come in with hype, I know it'll come in heavy, have electronics and some 'omfg wtf how?' 4wd system, but I disregard this when the car is first revealed. But, these same trends will reveal themselves again in the car seeing as a nameplate in design will not change drastically but only improve itself. Since the trends are still there, being partisaned didn't lead me to disliking the car to a certain extent, but to eventually deciding that it's not the best car for ME.

[clutch-monkey]

i'm looking for that article, i just can't find now, sorry. what i was saying was that probably, as this article said, J and US cars would be different. so even J and EU ones. i will continue to searching it later.
no you are right, suspension at least is different for US market cars (and retro fitted to jap market ones)

i just want to dismount the "the hype following it" as h22a said. i don't like the car that's for sure, but what i really don't like is the fact that a lot of people are simply drolling on every statements, sometimes very unofficial, saying the car did something better than another car, or that it has 600 hp or what else. it's becoming too much of a legend. i simply want some official, verified facts, as for every car so groundbreaking.
a lot of the facts are official, or enough so that it doesn't matter.
that said, a lot of the figures are slightly suspect but it's nothing major; it doesn't matter which way you look at it, it's still a fast car. just completely undesirable, imo.
the one thing that i have disregarded to this point is the nurburgring time, lol.

i said anything about the Corvette up to now, and by the way, it's not only about metallurgical technologies, since even if you could create an even lighter engine, it doesn't mean that it can works without suffering too much the heat dispersion, since you need mass/volume to disperse it, or maybe it could also brake itself since it could be too tiny for the forces generated. so, a lighter and more fuel efficient engine it's a huge improvement, yes. i am afraid you don't seem to understand that.
and i would really appreciate if you, and others, could give some reason why my arguments seem to be wrong, not just saying "fail" and nothing more. it's not a conversation/discussion in this way. i am trying to give a lot of technical explanations for my arguments, and i am very sorry that i can express everything i would like to say because of my english.
your english is fine
it's just the concepts behind your english seem fuddled or erroneous :confused:

Look at the country icon next to their Username. The common theme of Australia in your quotes will explain all of these issues. The only way to beat Australians is with humiliation, that's why ECC runs **** on MSN against them.

try sports maybe :D

[LeonOfTheDead]

JDM Nissan GT-R benefits from U.S. market tweaks - Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/05/01/jdm-nissan-gt-r-benefits-from-u-s-market-tweaks/)

[LeonOfTheDead]

Understood. When I said I was non-partisaned, obviously I'll have tastes, but meant it in I try to enter a choice as unbiased as possible. I guess as an example, as a Democrat and unlike most involved in the voting process, when I look at this current election I weigh the candidates not by party affiliation but by who will benefit America most. I'm not going to leave John McCain out in the wind because he's a Republican, even though he's obviously at a disadvantage since I agree more with Democratic party principles than I do with Republicans.

In the post I made, I only highlighted the problems with the car, as I would have problems with any other car. The skyline is an engineering masterpiece, and amazingly good at what it does for that price point, don't get me wrong. I just said I wouldn't be caught dead announcing it's my favorite car, because one of my distastes is hopping on the bandwagon and liking something for reasons unknown besides, ''everyone else is doin' it''.

To make a conclusion, and to link my two points together since it seems to drift off. My point with the Presidential election is similar to that of my entering into the skyline debate. I, a Democrat look at John McCain the same way I look at Obama. I will look at their credentials, talking points, and strategy for reform, and decide from there. HOWEVER, naturally and as I stated, Obama/Clinton would obviously be at an advantage because my partial allegiance for Democratic values carries through to Democratic candidates and is rivaled by the Republican party, putting John McCain at an IMMEDIATE disadvantage. So to create a segway, the Skyline is the proverbial John McCain. I know the Skyline's past, the same way I know the Republican trend. I know it'll come in with hype, I know it'll come in heavy, have electronics and some 'omfg wtf how?' 4wd system, but I disregard this when the car is first revealed. But, these same trends will reveal themselves again in the car seeing as a nameplate in design will not change drastically but only improve itself. Since the trends are still there, being partisaned didn't lead me to disliking the car to a certain extent, but to eventually deciding that it's not the best car for ME.

i understand you argument. and i agree.
i have the same problem in our election in italy, since i am what here could be called a democratic, but since our democratic party lacked of good a candidate, i looked also at the republican party...but i didn't find nothing good or new. besides my political misadventure, your comparison with the GT-R is very good. it's not my kind of car but i would be able to clean it from its following, maybe i could at least appreciate some of its peculiarity as i did in the end with the Veyron, which still isn't my favorite supercar, or "I wouldn't be caught dead announcing it's my favorite car" ;)

[henk4]

i understand you argument. and i agree.
i have the same problem in our election in italy, since i am what here could be called a democratic, but since our democratic party lacked of good a candidate, i looked also at the republican party...but i didn't find nothing good or new. besides my political misadventure, your comparison with the GT-R is very good. it's not my kind of car but i would be able to clean it from its following, maybe i could at least appreciate some of its peculiarity as i did in the end with the Veyron, which still isn't my favorite supercar, or "I wouldn't be caught dead announcing it's my favorite car" ;)

each analogy has its flaws, but in this case the comparison with the pure choice between two presidential candidates in the USA, based on their personalities is incorrect, because under the American system you will not only elect the president but he will also choose his cabinet and advisers, which will mostly originate from the party that gave him the candidacy in the first place. And on top of that they will choose a running mate too.
And as far as Italy is concerned, the continuos reemergence on scene of Mr. B. never fails to baffle me. I know Italians are less organised but that they are really stupid too....

[Rockefella]

each analogy has its flaws, but in this case the comparison with the pure choice between two presidential candidates in the USA, based on therr personalities is incorrect, because under the American system you will not only elect the president but he will also choose his cabinet and advisers, which will mostly originate from the party that gave him the candidacy in the first place.

When nit-picking yes, but I tried to convey this in more general terms. It's hard for something to remain valid up until the very smallest details are debated. That's why discussions/arguments never end here. It becomes a battle of who can prove the error in the smallest of details here.

[henk4]

It becomes a battle of who can prove the error in the smallest of details here.

hence we recently got this thread about the flawless GTR that appeared to have a flaw?

[Rockefella]

hence we recently got this thread about the flawless GTR that appeared to have a flaw?

Sure, but I don't bother getting involved in those threads due to lack of closure.

[henk4]

Sure, but I don't bother getting involved in those threads due to lack of closure.

yes, I just surprised myself, finding me in THIS thread:)

[faksta]

Are manufacturers allowed to underestimate the power figures?

Even some of our possy Lada's are underestimated in power matter, to reduce the annual tax paid by car owners, which is counted on an hp basis.

I don't think, though, that GT-R owners need such 'services' badly, so I guess here is another reason :)


I hate things that become really trendy or overly popular to the point that it gets sick. I don't have an iPod, I hate drifting/street-racing, I hate the New York Yankees, etc. For this same reason, I wouldn't be caught dead saying the Nissan Skyline is my favorite car. For one, I don't want two 15 year old wannabe-gangsta homies come up to me and be all, "oh sh1t hell yeah man teh skyline is sickk they hav like 1400 hp"

In general, that's my point, too. :)

[Rockefella]

yes, I just surprised myself, finding me in THIS thread:)

Can't avoid them all. ;)

[LeonOfTheDead]

Can't avoid them all. ;)

oh guys, it seems you are disliking my thread...;)

[Rockefella]

oh guys, it seems you are disliking my thread...;)

I'm just bored. I woke up at 6am with nothing to do so I had to hijack something. :)

[henk4]

oh guys, it seems you are disliking my thread...;)

in spite of all good intentions, threads on the GTR invariably will head into the wrong direction....;)

[LeonOfTheDead]

in spite of all good intentions, threads on the GTR invariably will head into the wrong direction....;)

Pieter, this is one of the smartest thing you ever said. and usually you say a lot of smart things...but this, oh...:D

[kingofthering]

i'm looking for that article, i just can't find now, sorry. what i was saying was that probably, as this article said, J and US cars would be different. so even J and EU ones. i will continue to searching it later.



Which amounts to moving the steering wheel to the right side (;) ), some minor suspension tweaks, and the removal of the goddamned 118 m.p.h. speed limiter.

[LeonOfTheDead]

some minor suspension tweaks

which you don't know how much difference they can do.
probably more than what you can imagine. when a new car is presented to the media, the automaker choses the place for their test drive also thinking about the kind of the road and road surface they are going to "use" in order to highlight some characteristics of the car, and maybe hide others. even some journalists, and i am not a fan of them, recognize sometimes that they are driving a car very comfortable for example, but on a too perfect road without any kind of imperfections and with the best kind of asphalt available.
not the case of the GT-R, but even moving the steering wheel on the other side could be disastrous for the balance if it wouldn't be done properly, but i never heard of such a case up to know, fortunately.

[kingofthering]

which you don't know how much difference they can do.
probably more than what you can imagine. when a new car is presented to the media, the automaker choses the place for their test drive also thinking about the kind of the road and road surface they are going to "use" in order to highlight some characteristics of the car, and maybe hide others. even some journalists, and i am not a fan of them, recognize sometimes that they are driving a car very comfortable for example, but on a too perfect road without any kind of imperfections and with the best kind of asphalt available.
not the case of the GT-R, but even moving the steering wheel on the other side could be disastrous for the balance if it wouldn't be done properly, but i never heard of such a case up to know, fortunately.

Erm... a better question is: Who doesn't do it?

Why would a car company intentionally choose a road that would highlight the car's flaws? That's like BMW telling journalists, "Hey, this new 5-series has shit styling and ride quality, you're better off spending your Euros at the Mercedes Benz dealership!"

[LeonOfTheDead]

Why would a car company intentionally choose a road that would highlight the car's flaws?

not intentionally, i hope, but even if a car has a bad handling, setting the test drive on a highway will only put doubts on journalists, smart ones at least.
for the italian debut of the Audi S8 a couple of years ago, they created a sort of "autocross" slalom with street cones to test the car with the ESP disabled. an epic fail, since EVO wrote "it seems it has been bitten by a tarantula, it's totally uncontrollable" or something like that. i use to trust that magazine.

now they (lot of automakers) are paying too much attention to nurburgring tests and times, but imo in this way they are only underlining how much the car is focused only on such a kind of use.
i am not saying that a car that goes as fast as hell on the ring is a bad car on a standard road, but since the automaker, or its commercial office, is so obsessed with the ring, i could doubt they payed enough time or attention to other aspects. that's why i prefer the "jaguar's attitude" as i said before, and i don't like the nissan's (or even porsche's) obsession started since the R34 broke the 8 minute wall on the ring. it's just a time, and it doesn't mean one car is better or faster in a general way, or even funner to drive.
they same magazine in 2001 IIRC tested all the more important 911 of the previous 40 years, and finally they choosed the first 911 2.7 RS, which i guess it's a little slower around the ring than the (at the time) bran new GT2 or of the 996 Turbo, among others

btw, i guess we understood one another.:)

[whiteballz]

Look at the country icon next to their Username. The common theme of Australia in your quotes will explain all of these issues. The only way to beat Australians is with humiliation, that's why ECC runs **** on MSN against them.


You werent there when quiggs was pwnt by me.. So you fail.

As always, I like the GTR, its a beast of a car, and wether its a quick as people claim or not, i dont think it matters - its a damned sight quicker than alot of things, and having seen a few on the streets, they have a huuuuge presence on the road (yes that includes the sheer size of it!)

[Ingolstadt]

i prefer the "jaguar's attitude" to the ring. they use it as a benchmark since it creates all sort of difficult situations of an open road but in safe condition, paying no attention to the time the are able to achieve.


Exactly.

I don't care what time does the GT-R get. I still can't like it.

I guess it's because Jaguar's purpose of existence wasn't to tackle the ring's time. What would you do, if the new GTR was marketed as the most comfortable GT?


......3.5 sec ..... I thought it was 510 or something.


Motor Trend found that it was significantly higher than 480 at the crank. Something closer to 600.

There goes another reason for fans to shout about .. :" Turbo charging a 3.8 liter car all the way to 600 hp without turbo lag is awweessoommee! "

[Ferrer]

I guess it's because Jaguar's purpose of existence wasn't to tackle the ring's time. What would you do, if the new GTR was marketed as the most comfortable GT?
Yes but even if the the GT-R follows a completely different approach from a Jag, the Nissan is a sportscar, I can't quite see the point of setting insanely fastest times in the Nurburgring.

The thing is I'm not a racing driver, nor do I have the talent of one, so I'd say lap times on a race track are pretty much meaningless for a road car so you won't be racing anyone or anything.

What I want in a road car is enjoyment. I don't care if I can shave 0.00001 of a second thanks to the GT-R's advanced four wheel drive system. We've seen the Nissan can do that, but can it do enjoyment? I'm not sure.

Therefore for this reason (and others), for me the Jag is the better car.

[Ingolstadt]

Yes but even if the the GT-R follows a completely different approach from a Jag, the Nissan is a sportscar, I can't quite see the point of setting insanely fastest times in the Nurburgring.

The thing is I'm not a racing driver, nor do I have the talent of one, so I'd say lap times on a race track are pretty much meaningless for a road car so you won't be racing anyone or anything.

What I want in a road car is enjoyment. I don't care if I can shave 0.00001 of a second thanks to the GT-R's advanced four wheel drive system. We've seen the Nissan can do that, but can it do enjoyment? I'm not sure.

Therefore for this reason (and others), for me the Jag is the better car.

True, but 'Enjoyment' will forever be impossible to gauge quantitatively. Putting lap records of nurburgring is at least 1 million times more meaningful than posting 0-60 figures, 60-0 figures, 1/4 figures, cd figures and whatever power to weight ratio stuffs, because for a sportscar, the main thing is the ability of the car itself, hence to have a common ground, and to have the track record listed for comparison, all bhp figures or torque and all the above mentioned would be rendered meaningless, or to say, it's actually a summary of all the figures to showcase the performance of the car.

I for one, do accept the establishment of using a common race track to shout about a car's potential capability. The GTR is a very good example, on papers, it might have loose out to alot of other cars, average buyers won't be able to even slightly guess their car, under such affordable cost, can actually go faster around a track compared to the likes of porsche or a ferrari 430... that. totally makes more sense to me than out right torque, hp figures.

I too, would like an enjoyable drive more thanone that could terrorize porsches on the nurburgring ... but it would be almost impossible for nissan to sell me based on an Enjoyable index figure.

[clutch-monkey]

i think of the GTR as the object which spurs advancements in marques i actually care about :D

[henk4]

i think of the GTR as the object which spurs advancements in marques i actually care about :D

you mean by kicking their ass?

[LeonOfTheDead]

Yes but even if the the GT-R follows a completely different approach from a Jag, the Nissan is a sportscar, I can't quite see the point of setting insanely fastest times in the Nurburgring.

The thing is I'm not a racing driver, nor do I have the talent of one, so I'd say lap times on a race track are pretty much meaningless for a road car so you won't be racing anyone or anything.

What I want in a road car is enjoyment. I don't care if I can shave 0.00001 of a second thanks to the GT-R's advanced four wheel drive system. We've seen the Nissan can do that, but can it do enjoyment? I'm not sure.

Therefore for this reason (and others), for me the Jag is the better car.

i agree. the GT-R is becoming more and more a sort of surgeon instruments, very precise without any room for errors. but such cars (like a 430/430 Scuderia and others) with the time passing, let the driver thinking he is not a fundamental part of the game. the car is good, no matter who is driving. for sure only a few people can push the car at those lap times, but it becomes like racing with a good esp turned on, no matter if you fail a break, it will recover the car trajectory and you won't have to be worry about the guard rail or the tire wall.
i think it's why the Porsche GT3 RS, even if it's not my favourite car, is a true sport car, it's analogical, it requires you all your attention and ability to let it go really fast. that is a sort of challenge, if you want to do it, on a race track, but it will still be very fast even if you are not pushing 110%. i'm figuring out that the GT-R will be fast, period. and so not so exiting, no so thrilling, a sort of videogame (see that silly monitor showing you parameters the average driver even doesn't know what they stand for, and also, why not standard analogical and more involving instruments?) in which the only purpose is the top time.
probably the GT-R is comfortable enough to drive in everyday traffic jam without suffering the noises or the hard set up or an irregular engine, but that's another bad point. i want that a supercar (so something more exotic) is also uncomfortable, i want it makes noise, to be hard and that even the more distracted driver has to notice it. while if we are talking about a more comfortable GT, like a Jag, it is not comfy and silent in everyday drive, it is a sofa, it's cosy, and since i would be relaxing, i even don't care other drivers to notice my car. a thing that they do, btw. the simply fact that a car is usable in every situation makes it a little less desirable, like if it was too much easy to choose it and drive it. like "ballerina shoes" for girls. it's the more immediate shoes to use to go out and being nice, more comfortable than with high heels, but it's not a good looking shoes and it's the most common one. they both are idiot/situation-proof and not enough exclusive.

[Ingolstadt]

i think of the GTR as the object which spurs advancements in marques i actually care about :D

You got me vote for good post. :p

[Ferrer]

True, but 'Enjoyment' will forever be impossible to gauge quantitatively. Putting lap records of nurburgring is at least 1 million times more meaningful than posting 0-60 figures, 60-0 figures, 1/4 figures, cd figures and whatever power to weight ratio stuffs, because for a sportscar, the main thing is the ability of the car itself, hence to have a common ground, and to have the track record listed for comparison, all bhp figures or torque and all the above mentioned would be rendered meaningless, or to say, it's actually a summary of all the figures to showcase the performance of the car.

I for one, do accept the establishment of using a common race track to shout about a car's potential capability. The GTR is a very good example, on papers, it might have loose out to alot of other cars, average buyers won't be able to even slightly guess their car, under such affordable cost, can actually go faster around a track compared to the likes of porsche or a ferrari 430... that. totally makes more sense to me than out right torque, hp figures.

I too, would like an enjoyable drive more thanone that could terrorize porsches on the nurburgring ... but it would be almost impossible for nissan to sell me based on an Enjoyable index figure.
You do have a point. A lap time on a race track can be an indicator of the cars capabilities, much like the top speed, 0-60 times or braking distances. And I admit that those also play a part when I'm looking at a car.

But what I don't understand is the obssesion with lap times. I don't know, it's a bit like the Veyron and the 400km/h top speed. It's amazing that it can achieve it but when it becomes the "attribute" of the car it's a bit like they're missing the point. Much like the GT-R and it's amazing 'ring times.

[NSXType-R]

On a sidenote, has the Veyron ever lapped the Nurburgring? That would be an interesting lap time to see.

[LeonOfTheDead]

On a sidenote, has the Veyron ever lapped the Nurburgring? That would be an interesting lap time to see.

the veyron lapping the ring...i never heard about something similar. i never heard about any kind of lap time to say the truth. imo, there's something behind this, a sort of prohibition from VW to its clients. like Ferrari that AFAIK prohibited to the customers to resell the car for two years from the original purchase. top gear had to "rent" the Enzo for their test drive, and Maserati decided to do an official test drive of the MC12 only after one british folk who bought it, Frank something, let some british magazine to test his car, but only for a few miles and at low speed.
i'm interested too in a Veyron lap time, even on another track, it would bring a better prospective on its performance.

[Badsight]

Gordon Murray , the designer of the Mclaren F1 praised the Veyron as a technical achievement

& rubbished it as a nasty car to drive (user unfreindly)

good at accellerating . good at braking . average at going fast down a road

its a car that appeals to HP meatheads . much like the GTR appeals to technical fans

[LeonOfTheDead]

Gordon Murray , the designer of the Mclaren F1 praised the Veyron as a technical achievement

& rubbished it as a nasty car to drive (user unfreindly)

good at accellerating . good at braking . average at going fast down a road

i have an article from R&T in which he didn't exactly praise the Veyron.


its a car that appeals to HP meatheads . much like the GTR appeals to technical fans

i don't think so, i am (also) a technical person -> fan, and i am not so interested in the GT-R.

[NSXType-R]

i have an article from R&T in which he didn't exactly praise the Veyron.

Although on Wikipedia (last time I read it) he took some of those comments back.

[nist7]

in a private test in a small circuit in italy, Franciacorta, the lapped a bmw 320si with standard tires (which are already sportier than standard ones) with the same car but equipped with the slick tires of the WTCC cars. considering the road car is setted specifically for those "standard" tires so it wasn't tunned to fit slicks, they managed to cut the lap time by almost 10 seconds, on a track which is long something like 2,8 km. i am wondering what a semislick can cut from the time on the Nordshleife, almost 21 km long.
opinions?

Very interesting point.

If sticky tires can improve time by 10 seconds on just 2.8km, then 21.6km would cut time considerably.

But seeing that Nissan claims wet sections on the track on their 7:38 time, and seeing how long the 'Ring is, it may not be all that implausible to shave 10 seconds off. Had they used any stickier tires...I think it would've gained way too much time to be of any credibility at all.

Heck, there is a huge, and I mean HUGE internet war over the Nissan GT-R. There are people who believe that everything Nissan did is a lie and then there those who believe the GT-R is the Godzilla that will crush and revolutionize the world as we know it....:p

On a related note, I'm still waiting for the absolute street-legal car record of 6:55 set by the Radical SR8 to be bested by the Caparo T1 ;)

[Kitdy]

On a related note, I'm still waiting for the absolute street-legal car record of 6:55 set by the Radical SR8 to be bested by the Caparo T1 ;)

Yeah that interests me as well. The Caparo should be able to do away with it quite handily I would assume.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Very interesting point.

If sticky tires can improve time by 10 seconds on just 2.8km, then 21.6km would cut time considerably.

But seeing that Nissan claims wet sections on the track on their 7:38 time, and seeing how long the 'Ring is, it may not be all that implausible to shave 10 seconds off. Had they used any stickier tires...I think it would've gained way too much time to be of any credibility at all.

Heck, there is a huge, and I mean HUGE internet war over the Nissan GT-R. There are people who believe that everything Nissan did is a lie and then there those who believe the GT-R is the Godzilla that will crush and revolutionize the world as we know it....:p

On a related note, I'm still waiting for the absolute street-legal car record of 6:55 set by the Radical SR8 to be bested by the Caparo T1 ;)


Yeah that interests me as well. The Caparo should be able to do away with it quite handily I would assume.

Nissan used Dunlop SP Sport 600 DSST tires instead of the standard Bridgestone Potenza RE070R (source:La Nissan GT-R e il 'Ring: ecco il video dell'impresa (http://www.autoblog.it/post/14178/la-nissan-gt-r-e-il-ring-ecco-il-video-dellimpresa) )

I believe both the Caparo and the Radical aren't considered for the same contest as they both can't take speed bumpers. Despite they street legal nature of a car, usually the speed bumpers are used as a method to decide if a car is to be considered a only-track-day car or a standard car. the sound emissions are also a parameter in some tracks, as the 'ring IIRC.

[NSXType-R]

Nissan used Dunlop SP Sport 600 DSST tires instead of the standard Bridgestone Potenza RE070R (source:La Nissan GT-R e il 'Ring: ecco il video dell'impresa (http://www.autoblog.it/post/14178/la-nissan-gt-r-e-il-ring-ecco-il-video-dellimpresa) )

I believe both the Caparo and the Radical aren't considered for the same contest as they both can't take speed bumpers. Despite they street legal nature of a car, usually the speed bumpers are used as a method to decide if a car is to be considered a only-track-day car or a standard car. the sound emissions are also a parameter in some tracks, as the 'ring IIRC.

But is the 'ring considered a public road or a track? If it is a track, then noise shouldn't be a problem at all.

[LeonOfTheDead]

But is the 'ring considered a public road or a track? If it is a track, then noise shouldn't be a problem at all.

it's a public road. but there're track that require a maximum noise level, because of the houses around the track and other reasons. The F1 Monza Grand Prix was going to be deleted for such a reason.

[2ndclasscitizen]

Nissan used Dunlop SP Sport 600 DSST tires instead of the standard Bridgestone Potenza RE070R

Those Dunlops don't look as though they'd be a massive amount more grippier than the Bridgies.


I believe both the Caparo and the Radical aren't considered for the same contest as they both can't take speed bumpers. Despite they street legal nature of a car, usually the speed bumpers are used as a method to decide if a car is to be considered a only-track-day car or a standard car. the sound emissions are also a parameter in some tracks, as the 'ring IIRC.

Do the Caparo or Radical come with height-adjustable suspension? But speed bumps are a piss-poor reason to say it's not a road car, especially when you consider the giant list of other problems the 2 cars have on the road.

[NSXType-R]

it's a public road. but there're track that require a maximum noise level, because of the houses around the track and other reasons. The F1 Monza Grand Prix was going to be deleted for such a reason.

Oh. Didn't know that.

[P4g4nite]

in a private test in a small circuit in italy, Franciacorta, the lapped a bmw 320si with standard tires (which are already sportier than standard ones) with the same car but equipped with the slick tires of the WTCC cars. considering the road car is setted specifically for those "standard" tires so it wasn't tunned to fit slicks, they managed to cut the lap time by almost 10 seconds, on a track which is long something like 2,8 km. i am wondering what a semislick can cut from the time on the Nordshleife, almost 21 km long.
opinions?
Nissan used Dunlop SP Sport 600 DSST tires instead of the standard Bridgestone Potenza RE070RBut the 320Si went from a normal road tyre to a racing slick, the GTR went from high performance road tyre to a different high performance road tyre.
The DSST suffix stands for Dunlop self supporting technology, meaning the Sport 600's were runflats. I don't think a huge amount of time was gained by the tyre switch, and even if they did it's still easily available runflat rubber.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Do the Caparo or Radical come with height-adjustable suspension? But speed bumps are a piss-poor reason to say it's not a road car, especially when you consider the giant list of other problems the 2 cars have on the road.

not my rules


The DSST suffix stands for Dunlop self supporting technology, meaning the Sport 600's were runflats. I don't think a huge amount of time was gained by the tyre switch, and even if they did it's still easily available runflat rubber.

they both appear to be "ultra high performance all-season tires" and I can't say how much difference there is between them, but for example BMW doesn't offer run flat tires on its M Division cars, as that kind of tires lack of sensibility more than of performance.
My point is just that the car isn't exactly standard, since, imo, the tires are very important in a high performance car lapping a track. See what happens in a lot of races. A good car and all his development can be ruined by the wrong set of tires.

[P4g4nite]

they both appear to be "ultra high performance all-season tires" and I can't say how much difference there is between them, but for example BMW doesn't offer run flat tires on its M Division cars, as that kind of tires lack of sensibility more than of performance.
My point is just that the car isn't exactly standard, since, imo, the tires are very important in a high performance car lapping a track. See what happens in a lot of races. A good car and all his development can be ruined by the wrong set of tires.
Just did a bit more reading, apparantly the Dunlops are the standard tyre on the standard version of the GTR while the Bridgestones are standard on premium "Black" spec car.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Just did a bit more reading, apparantly the Dunlops are the standard tyre on the standard version of the GTR while the Bridgestones are standard on premium "Black" spec car.

Dunlop SP Sport 7010 A/S DSST, I found this as the standard equipment but at Compare Tire Search Results (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/CompareTireResults.jsp?search=true&pagelen=20&pagenum=1&pagemark=1&skipOver=true&vehicleSearch=true&startIndex=0&autoYear=2009&minLoad=null&frontRatio=40&autoModClar=&frontDiameter=20&skipOver=true&rearWidth=285%2F&rearDiameter=20&frontWidth=255%2F&autoMake=Nissan&rearSortCode=60101&minSpeedRating=Z&frontSortCode=60049&autoModel=GT-R&rearRatio=35&speed_rating=Z&speed_rating=W&speed_rating=Y&speed_rating=(Y)&RunFlat=All) not an official source.
btw, where did you read that? can you post the link or something?
In the same way, the Zonda F which set the record is equipped with the "Clubsport" optional pack, which include carbon ceramic brakes, 650 bhp, adjustable sport suspensions and some other details. I later figured out that almost all the F are equipped with that optional, but this doesn't count.
If the tires used by Nissan are just one of those offered as standard, it would be ok. Still I hardly believe it achieved that time.
Considering Nissan has a very limited experience in modern racing cars, since they raced only the R390 ten years ago and the old R34 GT-R until 2003 IIRC, it makes, if true, all the other manufacturers with more experience in high performance cars and racing simply stupids. Of course the development of such a good car as the R34 was is a good reference, but it seems just too much.
I read a extract from a test of "Car-and-driver" in which the GT-R was confronted with the 997 Turbo and the M3. The "winner" was the M3, since it was the right compromise between the astonishing performance of the GT-R and the refinement and better feeling of the Turbo.
So, my opinion, is that the GT-R is for sure really fast, but that maybe they went a little too far, and the car is more of a racing car about pure performance and that it lacks of involvement and fun.

[The_Canuck]

It lost to the new M3 in a Car and Driver comparo, but beat the 911 turbo. Apparently the M3 is just too much fun.

[Kitdy]

It lost to the new M3 in a Car and Driver comparo, but beat the 911 turbo. Apparently the M3 is just too much fun.

I read about that on Autoblog. They said it was pretty fishy and or bogus possibly.

[The_Canuck]

I read about that on Autoblog. They said it was pretty fishy and or bogus possibly.

How can an opinion be bogus?

[Kitdy]

How can an opinion be bogus?

If BMW agrees to provide Car and Driver with a lucrative advertising contract in exchange for favourable reviews.

[LeonOfTheDead]

If BMW agrees to provide Car and Driver with a lucrative advertising contract in exchange for favourable reviews.

in that case, they would have provided them with a car equipped with the EDC electronic suspensions.

[The_Canuck]

If BMW agrees to provide Car and Driver with a lucrative advertising contract in exchange for favourable reviews.

That's always a possibility...but BMWs don't always win.

So Im assuming it's just fanboy whining.

[Kitdy]

That's always a possibility...but BMWs don't always win.

So Im assuming it's just fanboy whining.

I would think a GT-R to be a better car than the M3.

What I am interested in seeing is the breakdown of the score.

They have the fun to drive category as well as gotta have it category, which is pretty stupid. In all the objective performance categories, the GT-R would have the M3 whipped, so that means the M3 must have made up ground for practicality and subjective things.

[The_Canuck]

M3 is first column, GTR second

Vehicle
Driver comfort: 9/10 - 8/10
Ergonomics: 7/10 - 9/10
Rear Seat Comfort: 5/5 - 2/5
Rear Seat Space: 5/5 - 3/5
Trunk Space: 5/5 - 4/5
Features/Amenities: 10/10 - 9/10
Fit and Finish: 9/10 - 7/10
Interior Styling: 7/10 - 8/10
Exterior Styling: 8/10 - 8/10
Rebates/Extras: 1/5 - 0/5
As Tested Price: 20/20 - 19/20
SUBTOTAL: 86/100 - 77/100

Powertrain
Quater Mile Accel: 15/20 - 19/20
Flexibility: 3/5 - 3/5
Fuel Economy: 4/5 -4/5
Engine NVH: 10/10 - 6/10
Transmission: 9/10 - 8/10
SUBTOTAL: 41/50 - 40/50

Chassis
Performance: 19/20 - 19/20
Steering Feel: 3/5 - 4/5
Brake Feel: 4/5 - 4/5
Handling: 10/10 - 10/10
Ride: 9/10 - 5/10
SUBTOTAL: 45/50 - 42/50

Gotta Have It: 23/25 - 24/25
Fun to Drive: 25/25 - 23/25

GRAND TOTAL: 220/250 - 206/250


Some notes: M3's acceleration was 2 seconds faster from 30-50MPH
GTR noted as feeling heavy, or big.

Remember this review is trying to express waht they think is the best car, OVERALL, obviously tastes differ, and objective reviews are dull.

[Ferrer]

I would think a GT-R to be a better car than the M3.
I haven't driven the GT-R, but the M3 is a very good car. Certainly much more interesting for me than the Nissan.

[P4g4nite]

Dunlop SP Sport 7010 A/S DSST, I found this as the standard equipment but at ... not an official source.
btw, where did you read that? can you post the link or something?
In the same way, the Zonda F which set the record is equipped with the "Clubsport" optional pack, which include carbon ceramic brakes, 650 bhp, adjustable sport suspensions and some other details. I later figured out that almost all the F are equipped with that optional, but this doesn't count.
If the tires used by Nissan are just one of those offered as standard, it would be ok. Still I hardly believe it achieved that time.
Considering Nissan has a very limited experience in modern racing cars, since they raced only the R390 ten years ago and the old R34 GT-R until 2003 IIRC, it makes, if true, all the other manufacturers with more experience in high performance cars and racing simply stupids. Of course the development of such a good car as the R34 was is a good reference, but it seems just too much.
I read a extract from a test of "Car-and-driver" in which the GT-R was confronted with the 997 Turbo and the M3. The "winner" was the M3, since it was the right compromise between the astonishing performance of the GT-R and the refinement and better feeling of the Turbo.
So, my opinion, is that the GT-R is for sure really fast, but that maybe they went a little too far, and the car is more of a racing car about pure performance and that it lacks of involvement and fun.

Full spec of the car. (http://www.j-garage.com/nissan/skyline/gtr/07spec.htm)
Motorauthority article on the lap. (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/motorsport/video-nissan-gt-r-scorches-the-ring-in-729/)
Motorage article (http://motorage.search-autoparts.com/motorage/Distribution/New-Nissan-model-to-roll-off-the-factory-assembly-/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/518715?contextCategoryId=43145), the 7010's are the all season tyres with the RE070R being the summer tyre for the US market. They will come standard filled with nitrogen. That poo poo is serious.
Nissan have also had quite a lot of success at the SuperGT post GT-R, running the 350Z. I believe the car is quick because it makes considerabley more power than stated, it's gearbox is losing no time, it has all the grip it needs to apply the power more of the time and finally it has some aerodynamics.. I read that it was hitting 290km/h on parts of the 'Ring.

[kingofthering]

Considering Nissan has a very limited experience in modern racing cars, since they raced only the R390 ten years ago and the old R34 GT-R until 2003 IIRC, it makes, if true, all the other manufacturers with more experience in high performance cars and racing simply stupids. Of course the development of such a good car as the R34 was is a good reference, but it seems just too much.


Aaah... that's where you're wrong. Nissan has been in touring car racing for a while now (50+ years), from the Prince Skyline/R380s to the Primera to the GT-R GT500 cars, Nissan has done almost everything.

[The_Canuck]

Aaah... that's where you're wrong. Nissan has been in touring car racing for a while now (50+ years), from the Prince Skyline/R380s to the Primera to the GT-R GT500 cars, Nissan has done almost everything.

Thank you very much, unfortuanatly Leon said Modern racing cars. We all know of Nissan's prior experiance, but apart from the JGTC they are not in many (if any) other forms of competition at this point in time.

[clutch-monkey]

they raced the R32 GTR and the pulsar GTiR in the 90's quite a lot, the former in touring cars (when they actually used road cars) and the latter in rally.

[Rockefella]

I would consider Nissan on the bottom end of the manufacturers' racing experience spectrum. And yes, I know about the Skyline's success in the touring car series.

[clutch-monkey]

not to mention, they haven't had an exciting car since like....2002.
no the 350Z doesn't count.

[LeonOfTheDead]

it's like the Audi in the racing career of the R8. at the debut they impressed everyone since they hadn't experience in such a kind of race, but managed to end 3rd and 4th overall at the first attempting at 1999 24 Hours of Le Mans, but they didn't win or destroy all the records. Then the R8 actually won and destroyed all the records, but we must say the competition was a little...absent. Except for the Bentley (...almost the coupe version of the R8...) there wasn't an official presence of another manufacturer until 2007.
I could compare the presence of the GT-R in Nissan's offer to the 8C one in that of Alfa, even if I admit there are a lot of differences between them, but let me go on...
The 8C is the only high performance car in Alfa's line-up, the other most powerful engine is the 3.2 liter engine with 260 bhp on pretty "standard" cars. So you could be allowed to think that the 8C is rubbish, from the driving and performance point of view. But, it has been engineered, developed, and built by Maserati/Ferrari. Which have some experience in this kind of market.
While the GT-R is totally developed by Nissan, AFAIK, whit the restricted "pedigree" stated above, probably starting from the R34, a good car for sure, but also ten year old. They could have received some help by Renault which has a bigger experience in a lot of kind of racing series. But still, Renault has a very limited experience in high performance road cars.

[henk4]

I would consider Nissan on the bottom end of the manufacturers' racing experience spectrum. And yes, I know about the Skyline's success in the touring car series.

but do you also know about the R88-89-90 Group C Cars?

[henk4]

Which have some experience in this kind of market.
While the GT-R is totally developed by Nissan, AFAIK, whit the restricted "pedigree" stated above, probably starting from the R34, a good car for sure, but also ten year old. They could have received some help by Renault which has a bigger experience in a lot of kind of racing series. But still, Renault has a very limited experience in high performance road cars.

The "restricted pedigree" as you call it, started already in the sixties.....

[Ferrer]

So this has turned into a "the more racing pedigree the better" discussion?

Lamborghini must be hopeless then...

[henk4]

So this has turned into a "the more racing pedigree the better" discussion?

Lamborghini must be hopeless then...

I only commented on the assumed "limited Pedigree". Not whether it is required. And yes, looking at the Murcielago at Le Mans, Lambo is hopeless

[LeonOfTheDead]

but do you also know about the R88-89-90 Group C Cars?

yes I know about them, but I also think about them as a little too "old" :p, I took the R390 as a reference, so 1997. the Group C cars are nearly 20 years old, that's why I didn't consider them, maybe I was mistaking...


The "restricted pedigree" as you call it, started already in the sixties.....

I was referring to the last, let's say, ten years. In the same way Alfa stopped making proper sport cars some time ago, even if it has a more relevant racing program, at least in the last years and also out of Italy.
I'm not deleting their history, just saying they changed, as a lot of other automakers though. :)


So this has turned into a "the more racing pedigree the better" discussion?

Lamborghini must be hopeless then...

not at all, just a sort of not-so-off-topid digression. :)

[LeonOfTheDead]

I only commented on the assumed "limited Pedigree". Not whether it is required.

ok ok, I officially apologize for my "limited" statement...:)

[monaroCountry]

Another Nissan claim that has people calling :bs :bs :bs :bs :bs





According to Nismo, the car ran the quarter mile in 10.1 seconds; its zero-to-60-mph time is around 3.0 flat. That's faster than the Ferrari Enzo.

ROADandTRACK.com -- Ampersand - Ampersand — July 2005 (7/2005) (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=2433&page_number=1)










NISSAN GTR Z-TUNE

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/image/2005/6282005132739.jpg

Power: 495 bhp at 6800 rpm
Torque: 398 lb.-ft. of torque at 5200
Tires F-R: Bridgestone POTENZA RE01R (265/35-18)
Weight lb: 3526

[P4g4nite]

I only commented on the assumed "limited Pedigree". Not whether it is required. And yes, looking at the Murcielago at Le Mans, Lambo is hopeless
I saw them at Suzuka, the Gallardos were doing ok and the Murci had the most incredible sound so I fired up the camera to record it going past but it spun and crashed before it got near me...

[Kitdy]

Another Nissan claim that has people calling :bs :bs :bs :bs :bs

What are the other claims that people are saying this about?

[LeonOfTheDead]

What are the other claims that people are saying this about?

AFAIK the Z-Tune is almost a race car, indeed IIRC it uses some parts, even for the engine, from the JGTC cars. only 50 were made.
These facts can justify those numbers.

edit: 20 wre made, just read on the link

[Kitdy]

AFAIK the Z-Tune is almost a race car, indeed IIRC it uses some parts, even for the engine, from the JGTC cars. only 50 were made.
These facts can justify those numbers.

edit: 20 wre made, just read on the link

Digging deeper I found that Nissan intended 20 to be made but had a problem finding donor vehicles apparently and only 19 ended up being made including 2 prototypes.

The 10.1 second 1/4 mile time sounds very impressive but have found nothing to back this up. The new GT-R can do some magic for sure, but a time nearly in the 9s is pretty unbelievable. I hope it's true though.

[scubasteve87]

Idk why its so hard to believe this to be possible While I personally dislike the GTR for the same lack of passion others stated, lets not forget that Nissan is tied to F1 via Reneault, so trick launch control and a fantastic gearbox are easy to trace. Still, for a fast GT in the 80 grand range, I'll take a base 911, Zo6, 650i or XK and enjoy the cache and comfort (except the Zo6), with more passion and driver involvement. The fanboys and the computers just make this car too cliche for me.

[henk4]

Still, for a fast GT in the 80 grand range, I'll take a base 911, Zo6, 650i or XK and enjoy the cache and comfort (except the Zo6), with more passion and driver involvement. The fanboys and the computers just make this car too cliche for me.

have you driven all those cars in a direct comparison with the GTR, or are we listening to parrot speech?

[LeonOfTheDead]

lets not forget that Nissan is tied to F1 via Reneault, so trick launch control and a fantastic gearbox are easy to trace.

tricks as launch control a a fantastic hearbox aren't absolutely enough to make a car at least good.
and the gearbox used in F1 is completely different from what the GT-R uses, and probably it isn't designed by Nissan ore Renault neither. Like VW which commissioned the Veyron's DSG to Riccardo even if they developed the first DSG a couple of years before.