Nissan: GT-R News

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-24-2008 | 04:15 PM
  #1881  
Viscous's Avatar
now with 7 gears
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 544
Likes: 4
these gt-r's can bore me any time, please. looking forward to giving the thumbs up to the first one i see on the street.
Old 06-24-2008 | 07:11 PM
  #1882  
Ikko's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
From: Bronx, NY
Originally Posted by Viscous
these gt-r's can bore me any time, please. looking forward to giving the thumbs up to the first one i see on the street.
As ugly as it is?!?!?
Old 06-25-2008 | 01:25 PM
  #1883  
F23A4's Avatar
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,905
Likes: 1,674
NEW JERSEY!!!!
Old 06-25-2008 | 01:40 PM
  #1884  
Mokos23's Avatar
Race Director
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
dang it, no chicago!
Old 06-25-2008 | 11:20 PM
  #1885  
Viscous's Avatar
now with 7 gears
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 544
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by Ikko
As ugly as it is?!?!?
you're in the minority if you think it's UGLY.
Old 06-26-2008 | 12:07 AM
  #1886  
Costco's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,869
Likes: 3,489
Originally Posted by msl82
If you look closely at the pic of the guy driving it off the barge, you will notice he is yawning because the GT-R is such a bore to drive.
I see you still haven't come up with anything remotely close to a clever comeback to the standard "GT-R is ugly" or "I'd prefer [x] over the GT-R because of [x]."

What is that, the 32nd time you've made a post that ended in "....because the GT-R is boring to drive." Thinly veiled sarcasm taken, give it a break already.

You're starting to remind me of a particular Hyundai fanboy around these parts.

...... and just for good measure, it still looks like the front was designed by 1 person, the fenders by another, the rear by yet another.... etc. etc.
Old 06-26-2008 | 09:39 AM
  #1887  
fsttyms1's Avatar
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 81,383
Likes: 3,063
From: Appleton WI
Originally Posted by Viscous
you're in the minority if you think it's UGLY.
Im in the minority too.
Old 06-26-2008 | 09:49 AM
  #1888  
mrdeeno's Avatar
Suzuka Master
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 3
From: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Originally Posted by I Go To Costco
I see you still haven't come up with anything remotely close to a clever comeback to the standard "GT-R is ugly" or "I'd prefer [x] over the GT-R because of [x]."
How do you expect someone to form a comeback to someone's personal opinion?

What is that, the 32nd time you've made a post that ended in "....because the GT-R is boring to drive." Thinly veiled sarcasm taken, give it a break already.
The reason I use this comeback for people who say it is "boring to drive" is because it is not THEIR personal opinion, but what they get from a road test or magazine editor or something.

Andy why do I need to give it up? As soon as someone here personally posts that they have driven it and says that his PERSONAL opinion is that it really is "boring to drive" compared to xxx, then maybe I'll give it up. But until then, if you don't want to see me mention that it's "boring to drive", then don't read my posts or ignore it...no one's holding a gun to your head.

With that said, I'm falling to sleep looking at those pictures because even watching someone else driving it is boring!
Old 06-26-2008 | 11:41 AM
  #1889  
Ikko's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
From: Bronx, NY
Originally Posted by Viscous
you're in the minority if you think it's UGLY.
The only thing this car got going for it, is the power/drivetrain!!
Old 06-26-2008 | 11:50 AM
  #1890  
808havok_tsx's Avatar
Racer
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 453
Likes: 2
From: Honolulu, HI
Originally Posted by eccjak
i know where that is too! i'm gonna' drive extra slow if i pass by there.
Old 06-26-2008 | 12:13 PM
  #1891  
MaximaPower's Avatar
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 0
From: H-town
to each his own but man i dont see whats not to like...
Old 06-26-2008 | 12:26 PM
  #1892  
srika's Avatar
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 59,071
Likes: 11,069
From: Chicago
now thats a really nice pic of the car - the color, shadows, and lighting really do a good job in masking its ugliness.
Old 06-26-2008 | 12:38 PM
  #1893  
fsttyms1's Avatar
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 81,383
Likes: 3,063
From: Appleton WI
Originally Posted by MaximaPower
to each his own but man i dont see whats not to like...
Because seeing it in person its too blocky/bulky looking. Big to the electronic wizardry and the powertrain, but looks
Old 06-26-2008 | 12:39 PM
  #1894  
Mokos23's Avatar
Race Director
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
i can't believe a $70K Nissan still has hood props and not hydraulic ones wtf?
Old 06-26-2008 | 01:03 PM
  #1895  
MaximaPower's Avatar
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 0
From: H-town
Originally Posted by fsttyms1
Because seeing it in person its too blocky/bulky looking. Big to the electronic wizardry and the powertrain, but looks
in the pics it looks blocky and bulky too but aggressive, which is wat i like.....i haven't had the pleasure of seeing one in person

but same could be said about the R34 when it came out...big and bulky compared to R33/32
Old 06-26-2008 | 01:09 PM
  #1896  
dom's Avatar
dom
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 47,710
Likes: 801
From: Toronto, Canada
Originally Posted by MaximaPower
to each his own but man i dont see whats not to like...
I don't see whats not to like either. That is stunning.
Old 06-26-2008 | 01:22 PM
  #1897  
Mokos23's Avatar
Race Director
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
well there is no other coupe on the road that looks like the GT-R
Old 07-01-2008 | 12:02 AM
  #1898  
is300eater's Avatar
I shoot people
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 22,519
Likes: 3,073
From: Vancouver BC
Is Nissan lying about GT-R horsepower? Pretty much.

...so the GT-R may actually have more than 480hp!!!

from New York Times Wheels blog

June 30, 2008, 2:28 pm
How Much Power Does the Nissan GT-R Really Have?

By Ezra Dyer

Tags: gt r, horsepower, Nissan

It seems like the only time you hear about car companies fudging horsepower numbers, it’s when they’re busted advertising more beans than are actually present in the under-hood burrito. Mazda got in trouble for exaggerating the 2001 Miata’s power output. Ford had to recall the 1999 SVT Mustang Cobra when owners realized its motor fell about 20 horsepower short of its official numbers. In the early 2000’s, Hyundai offered its customers extended roadside assistance and warranties after several models suffered double-digit horsepower deficits.

I have a theory on where all those phantom ponies went: They’re under the hood of the new Nissan GT-R.

Like those other cars, the GT-R’s stated power — 480 horsepower — is a long way from reality. But in the case of the Nissan, the truth is that the car seems to have more power than they’re letting on. The question is, how much more?

Nissan knows, but the company is not saying. Peter Bedrosian, regional project manager for product planning, said that Nissan tests every GT-R production engine on a dynamometer, then records the horsepower and torque for that particular car.

“And can owners find out how much power their car’s motor puts out?” I asked.

That’s a no. I presume that the power printouts are sealed in a lead capsule and buried deep inside Mount Fuji under dead of night. So we’ll just have to make an educated guess.

Thanks to the principle of substitution, we can look at several aspects of the GT-R’s performance and deduce roughly what kind of firepower would be required to accomplish such feats.

For a corollary, the former N.B.A. point guard Spud Webb could dunk (and maybe, for all I know, still can). Spud Webb is 5-foot-7. If Webb told you his vertical leap was only 20 inches, you would conclude that Mr. Webb was understating his abilities and that someone of his height would need at least a 40-inch vertical to win the 1986 NBA Slam Dunk Contest, which he did.

Likewise, the Nissan GT-R laps Germany’s Nürburgring Nordschleife in 7 minutes 29 seconds, which is very nearly the fastest time ever recorded by a production car. For reference, the Corvette Z06, which has 505 horsepower and weighs a whopping 700 pounds less than the GT-R, is 13 seconds slower, with a time of 7 minutes 42 seconds. So, the car with 25 fewer horsepower and 700 more pounds of weight is much, much faster than its rival? Something is rotten in the state of the S.A.E. horsepower laboratories.

I’ll grant you that there are many variables involved in a lap of the Nordschleife, and Nissan will point out that the GT-R has a sophisticated all-wheel-drive system that allows it to power neatly out of corners, while the Z06 is rear-wheel drive. But still … 13 seconds? We could presume that, based on this statistic alone, the GT-R must have at least as much power as the Z06, about 500 horses. But that still wouldn’t be close.

A clearer picture emerges at the drag strip. Basically, your quarter-mile time is influenced by a host of factors, most importantly the success of your launch off the line. But trap speed — the speed at which you finish the quarter-mile — is closely tied to horsepower and a car’s power-to-weight ratio.

It’s algebra: If you know your car’s weight, and you know the speed it reached in a quarter-mile, you can pretty much predict the amount of power required to produce that trap speed. Trap speed doesn’t lie. And the GT-R’s trap speeds give lie to that 480-horsepower rating.

The GT-R can hit 122 or 123 miles per hour in the quarter-mile. It weighs about 4,000 pounds, with driver. There are many calculators and equations devoted to divining horsepower numbers, and given this weight and trap speed, most of them peg the GT-R’s output between 550 horsepower on the conservative end and 580 horsepower on the “maybe on a cool day with a tailwind” side. But I would eat my time slips if this car doesn’t have at least 550 horsepower.

So why won’t Nissan just fess up? Maybe it’s for insurance reasons. Maybe it’s to appease the Japanese government, which regards the GT-R as a pavement-eating menace to civilized mankind. Or maybe it’s because it’s just more fun not to know. It adds to the legend. Because when someone asks you how much power your car makes, hard stats are boring. It’s much more entertaining to say, “480 horsepower, officially,” then, in a conspiratorial tone, confide, “but everyone knows it’s got more.”
Old 07-01-2008 | 12:11 AM
  #1899  
Costco's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,869
Likes: 3,489
Wasn't it pretty obvious? It took that writer that long to comment about it?
Old 07-01-2008 | 06:21 AM
  #1900  
F23A4's Avatar
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,905
Likes: 1,674
Indeed, Ezra Dyer is
Old 07-01-2008 | 08:35 AM
  #1901  
Mokos23's Avatar
Race Director
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
Old 07-01-2008 | 09:05 AM
  #1902  
fsttyms1's Avatar
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 81,383
Likes: 3,063
From: Appleton WI
Motortrend dynoed it a few issues back and they concluded it was creating more HP than Nissan was advertising. (not really knowing how much drivetrain loss it had but estimated something on the low side like 10%)
Old 07-01-2008 | 09:13 AM
  #1903  
Mokos23's Avatar
Race Director
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
it's due to insurance that's why
Old 07-01-2008 | 09:33 AM
  #1904  
srika's Avatar
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 59,071
Likes: 11,069
From: Chicago
i'm in shock!!
Old 07-01-2008 | 09:46 AM
  #1905  
DAYTA's Avatar
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 76
From: In a NSX down by the river...
Originally Posted by fsttyms1
Motortrend dynoed it a few issues back and they concluded it was creating more HP than Nissan was advertising. (not really knowing how much drivetrain loss it had but estimated something on the low side like 10%)
10% drivetrain loss on a AWD platform? I highly doubt that. An average AWD car loses about 25% through the transmission, so I'd wager that if it a was REALLY efficient platform, it'd be closer to 15% (similar to an efficient RWD car).

Last edited by DAYTA; 07-01-2008 at 09:48 AM.
Old 07-01-2008 | 09:49 AM
  #1906  
Mokos23's Avatar
Race Director
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
possibly
Old 07-01-2008 | 11:57 AM
  #1907  
vishnus11's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,622
Likes: 2
From: Lexington
The excuses are getting old...

- The GT-R is too heavy (despite the fact that it ways the same as a Ferrari 599GTB, and I don't see anyone complaining about that)

- The GT-R has no soul (because the folks on this forum that are saying that have driven one right?)

- The GT-R is ugly (please get your eyes checked. Distinctive, yes...ugly, no way. For ugly, please see Chrysler Sebring, Pontiac Aztek, and Ssanyong whatever)

- The GT-R has a hood prop (if Ferrari had one in the Scuderia people would praise its lightweight)

The fact that this car brings all these lame excuses out of the woodwork just highlights the fact that this car pushes the boundaries of what can be done, and folks are having to resort to all sorts of excuses to compensate.
Old 07-01-2008 | 12:01 PM
  #1908  
srika's Avatar
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 59,071
Likes: 11,069
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by vishnus11
- The GT-R is too heavy (despite the fact that it ways the same as a Ferrari 599GTB, and I don't see anyone complaining about that)

- The GT-R has no soul (because the folks on this forum that are saying that have driven one right?)

- The GT-R is ugly (please get your eyes checked. Distinctive, yes...ugly, no way. For ugly, please see Chrysler Sebring, Pontiac Aztek, and Ssanyong whatever)

- The GT-R has a hood prop (if Ferrari had one in the Scuderia people would praise its lightweight)

The fact that this car brings all these lame excuses out of the woodwork just highlights the fact that this car pushes the boundaries of what can be done, and folks are having to resort to all sorts of excuses to compensate.
the counter-excuses are getting old... :P
Old 07-01-2008 | 12:50 PM
  #1909  
majin ssj eric's Avatar
Punk Rocker
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,579
Likes: 79
From: St Simons Island, GA
I think the car is simply stunning. To each his own, but I'd rock one in a millisecond....
Old 07-01-2008 | 01:07 PM
  #1910  
cmschmie's Avatar
Living the Dream
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,924
Likes: 130
From: near Charlotte

Originally Posted by vishnus11
- The GT-R is too heavy (despite the fact that it ways the same as a Ferrari 599GTB, and I don't see anyone complaining about that)

- The GT-R has no soul (because the folks on this forum that are saying that have driven one right?)

- The GT-R is ugly (please get your eyes checked. Distinctive, yes...ugly, no way. For ugly, please see Chrysler Sebring, Pontiac Aztek, and Ssanyong whatever)

- The GT-R has a hood prop (if Ferrari had one in the Scuderia people would praise its lightweight)

The fact that this car brings all these lame excuses out of the woodwork just highlights the fact that this car pushes the boundaries of what can be done, and folks are having to resort to all sorts of excuses to compensate.
- The GT-R is heavy, too heavy is subjective

- "No soul", I thought this at first, may have been to first one to post it. But it's performance is truly amazing, I guess that can equate to soul.

- Whether the GT-R is ugly or not is again subjective. You like how it looks, I don't.

- Hood prop, never heard this. Whoever has a problem with a hood prop needs his head examined
Old 07-01-2008 | 05:59 PM
  #1911  
Maximized's Avatar
Suzuka Master
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
Anyone catch the lap times in the latest C&D? I am still skeptical of Nissan's published times and the C&D tests only further that suspicion.
Old 07-01-2008 | 06:16 PM
  #1912  
srika's Avatar
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 59,071
Likes: 11,069
From: Chicago
... what was the C&D time?
Old 07-01-2008 | 06:19 PM
  #1913  
Maximized's Avatar
Suzuka Master
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
ButtonWillow 2.7 mile config 13

Z06: 2:01.7
Viper (ACR): 1:55.7
GTR: 2:01.1
GT2: 1:59.7
Old 07-01-2008 | 08:13 PM
  #1914  
Costco's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,869
Likes: 3,489
Originally Posted by cmschmie



- The GT-R is heavy, too heavy is subjective

- "No soul", I thought this at first, may have been to first one to post it. But it's performance is truly amazing, I guess that can equate to soul.

- Whether the GT-R is ugly or not is again subjective. You like how it looks, I don't.

- Hood prop, never heard this. Whoever has a problem with a hood prop needs his head examined


The Aztek and Sebring are butt fugly, while the GT-R is ugly. Its quite a broad spectrum, with the Aztek being on the very very far end.... it pretty much is the end. The GT-R is hardly attractive IMO, in person it looks huge, I like wide stances but it looks very tall for a coupe. Sleek looking is the absolute last thing that comes to mind.

My car when it was new costs 1/3 of the GT-R and it has hood shocks. Minor detail but when you're working on your car its a welcome sign of attention to detail, or a lack thereof in this case, but its not a HUGE deal. Its just that whenever someone makes a note of something, GT-R fans blow it WAY out of proportion and make it sound as if people are making it a big deal, when in reality its the other way around. For reference, see: comparison of GT-R's looks to Aztek's looks

And its just like how people praise the NSX-R for its weight-saving mesh shift boot Love the NSX-R but its so corny to point something like that out.

So basically what he's saying is "if there are haters, then you're doing something right." I guess the Ackalacks and 50 Cents of society would be inclined to agree...

I don't see anyone complaining or even commenting about the driving feel or driving dynamics of the GT-R. What people ARE complaining about is a lack of a manual transmission (which many of us have or have driven before), weight, which many of us also have experience with, and the looks, which literally are as clear as day.

For the record I used to think the new Evo X was ugly, whereas I really liked the Evo IX and pretty much every Evo before it (same goes for the R34 and its predecessors) except one thing that never grew on me was the looks of the GT-R and the Evo X has an option of a 5-speed which is better than no manual and has happened to grow on me.
Old 07-01-2008 | 09:38 PM
  #1915  
vishnus11's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,622
Likes: 2
From: Lexington
Originally Posted by Maximized
Anyone catch the lap times in the latest C&D? I am still skeptical of Nissan's published times and the C&D tests only further that suspicion.
So your skeptical of Edmunds, R&T, MT, EVO, CAR, and pretty much every major publication in the world who has posted performance data for the GT-R that IS QUICKER than Nissan's published times?

And before you jump on the 'pre-production prototype' or 'Nissan juiced them' bandwagon, remember that a large portion of these test were done with CUSTOMER cars.

C&D is the only publication to have reported above average 0-60 times, even though they themselves tested a quicker GT-R. They speculate that the example they tested might have been abused or crippled in some way, but either way, this is the same publication that picked a M3 over a 911TT.

I remember R&T getting 0-60 times of 4.0seconds and 1/4 times of 12+ for the Z06 when other major mags were getting low 3s. Doesn't mean that I should be skeptical of Chevy. Just means that on THAT day in THAT car, R&T happened to get time that were far above average for what that particular vehicle could do.
Old 07-01-2008 | 09:43 PM
  #1916  
srika's Avatar
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 59,071
Likes: 11,069
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by vishnus11
So your skeptical of Edmunds, R&T, MT, EVO, CAR, and pretty much every major publication in the world who has posted performance data for the GT-R that IS QUICKER than Nissan's published times?

And before you jump on the 'pre-production prototype' or 'Nissan juiced them' bandwagon, remember that a large portion of these test were done with CUSTOMER cars.

C&D is the only publication to have reported above average 0-60 times, even though they themselves tested a quicker GT-R. They speculate that the example they tested might have been abused or crippled in some way, but either way, this is the same publication that picked a M3 over a 911TT.

I remember R&T getting 0-60 times of 4.0seconds and 1/4 times of 12+ for the Z06 when other major mags were getting low 3s. Doesn't mean that I should be skeptical of Chevy. Just means that on THAT day in THAT car, R&T happened to get time that were far above average for what that particular vehicle could do.
did you see the lap times above?
Old 07-01-2008 | 10:21 PM
  #1917  
Maximized's Avatar
Suzuka Master
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
Originally Posted by vishnus11
So your skeptical of Edmunds, R&T, MT, EVO, CAR, and pretty much every major publication in the world who has posted performance data for the GT-R that IS QUICKER than Nissan's published times?

And before you jump on the 'pre-production prototype' or 'Nissan juiced them' bandwagon, remember that a large portion of these test were done with CUSTOMER cars.

C&D is the only publication to have reported above average 0-60 times, even though they themselves tested a quicker GT-R. They speculate that the example they tested might have been abused or crippled in some way, but either way, this is the same publication that picked a M3 over a 911TT.

I remember R&T getting 0-60 times of 4.0seconds and 1/4 times of 12+ for the Z06 when other major mags were getting low 3s. Doesn't mean that I should be skeptical of Chevy. Just means that on THAT day in THAT car, R&T happened to get time that were far above average for what that particular vehicle could do.
Actually if you read a lot of the articles on the GTR, they clearly state that the cars are "pre-production". The R&T/Millen article used a pre-production vehicle for example.
Old 07-01-2008 | 10:27 PM
  #1918  
Maximized's Avatar
Suzuka Master
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
Originally Posted by srika
did you see the lap times above?
The times are interesting. They show the Z06 and GTR to be fairly well matched at ButtonWillow. I'd like to see a Z06 running RE070's for comparison. The stock Goodyears on the Z06 are an old tire.
Old 07-02-2008 | 12:25 AM
  #1919  
Costco's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,869
Likes: 3,489
Originally Posted by vishnus11
So your skeptical of Edmunds, R&T, MT, EVO, CAR, and pretty much every major publication in the world who has posted performance data for the GT-R that IS QUICKER than Nissan's published times?

And before you jump on the 'pre-production prototype' or 'Nissan juiced them' bandwagon, remember that a large portion of these test were done with CUSTOMER cars.

C&D is the only publication to have reported above average 0-60 times, even though they themselves tested a quicker GT-R. They speculate that the example they tested might have been abused or crippled in some way, but either way, this is the same publication that picked a M3 over a 911TT.

I remember R&T getting 0-60 times of 4.0seconds and 1/4 times of 12+ for the Z06 when other major mags were getting low 3s. Doesn't mean that I should be skeptical of Chevy. Just means that on THAT day in THAT car, R&T happened to get time that were far above average for what that particular vehicle could do.
Going in the same vein, you've also driven both cars?

Price had a huge part in the rating... IIRC
Old 07-02-2008 | 09:38 AM
  #1920  
phil2's Avatar
has Gloryhole Girls in
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,473
Likes: 1
From: Ballston Lake, NY






















Quick Reply: Nissan: GT-R News



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:23 PM.