http://forums.roadandtrack.com/cars/board/message?board.id=Reader&thread.id=138
The GT-R Vs ZO6/997 Turbo piece has cause quite a stir. If you don't know, R&T's Editors regularly post in the forums, and some people have gone as far as to call them blatant lairs. Crazy.
The Corvette is a shit car anyhow.
I don't agree. I just finished reading the entire 10 pages and Shaun Bailey offered up a re-match with a Pro Driver of Rhoades choice and the guy won't respond. To me the editors are winning this argument.
We should get some of those editors to come post here.
Now, this is real magazine racing and online pissing contest.
Man I can't believe I read the whole thing last night; it made me sleep in and miss a class this morning. :tounge:
Some choice excerpts:
People can't seem to accept things. I don't know where to begin in regards to everyone calling "foul" with these test results. Why is it so hard to accept, and why is it that the GT-R is the only car that people are having a problem with?
Jason_Rhoades, Your long-winded responses have only accomplished wasting peoples time in reading them. While being well-articulated...they are pointless. You are calling bluff to a royal straight flush...so you lose no matter what.
Please!!! R&T, you have the pull and power to de-rail this ridiculous denial train that is carrying so few passengers. Although, more and more reasons/excuses seem to pop-up after every defeat...I don't see how this will end. The first arguments were about "same day/same driver", and now that has turned into (the topic of this thread) "Biased test drivers." When will it end? We are now being thrown back into the days of the R32. Are there going to be restrictions put on the R35 to make things "even?" Even in stock form?
I just don't understand how people can so vehemently deny the existence of something punching them right in the face over and over. Are you here? Are you living in some other dimension that doesn't allow the words "defeat" to be tied to your brand and "victory" to the GT-R? If the GT-R were to come in last with these tests, I would be disappointed...but I would accept it. I love the GT-R, what it stands for, where comes from, the passion put into its creation and the accomplisments it has already achieved, but I don't think it can't be beaten. I'm just waiting for that day to come. 
To make things "even", all the excuses that have come-up with every defeat need to be taken into consideration and applied to another test comparison. The only thing that CANNOT happen is altering of stock form. Simple as that. So, someone from each manufacturer needs to provide a test driver for each car. I don't care who it is. Let Millen drive the GT-R since apparently he is "losing his touch" (yeah...ok), Jan can pilot the Z06 and some freakishly fast Porsche driver pilot the 997TT. Then, have them all switch cars until each person has gotten behind the wheel of each one. The results of that test would be very enlightening. It would be the ultimate "Battle of the brands" and think Porsche, GM and Nissan should foot the bill. They're defending thier honor, so they shouldn't have a problem with it.
You've got to hand it to Nissan. They have definitely stirred-up some controversy in the automotive world. 
Arch5, I think you've completely missed JRho's point. Mr. Rhoades now possesses something on the order of 3 or 4 SCCA national championships. He has spent a lot of time at Buttonwillow and holds some class records there. Anything else he can contribute or you can google him if you like.
He takes issue with the time differential. He has enough racing cred and lap records that it should at least give one pause. I'm nowhere near the level of driver he is, but I work with a lot of racers and lap times at local SoCal tracks is one of the metrics we use to assess performance. Millen's times are, in many cases, not at the level one would expect (I've already pointed them out along with comparative laps). This is not to denigrate Mr. Millen. He has a fabulous history of performing at a very high level in many venues. He is also, by all accounts, a very nice guy (I've only met him once, briefly at an event, not enough to comment on this from my own experience). But past performance does not guarantee future returns, or so they say. This is not an insult, just a comment on relative lap times.
I kinda got lost in his point because it was so long. I still don't think it is valid. What is he trying to say? Millen is inconsistent? Millen used hyperdrive in the GT-R? He could do better than Millen? If it's the latter, then I would also expect the GT-R's time to come down as well. That would only be logical. If "Mr. Rhoades" can push a car harder than Millen (without kissing a wall), then you must also entertain the fact that ALL THREE cars have room for improvement in "Mr. Rhoades" hands. Right? Right!
C&D ran a 2:01 around the same track in the Z06. That's ~1 sec faster...right? Ok...well, that is still a solid 4 secs slower than what the GT-R did in Millen's hands. Where is the confusion? Does this mean that Millen could've actually ran the course faster...or slower in the GT-R? Does this mean that Millen should've ran the Z06 faster than he did? Should Millen have set a new record on the track with the Z06 since this was a comparison against the GT-R? I'm a bit lost in the justification that people are trying to come-up with in order to discount that Nissan made an incredibly competitive machine that is going to be available GLOBALLY. Finally...after 40+ years...the GT-R will be state-side and compete in global markets.
Msquared,
You are obviously a stubborn idiot who cannot accept that you can be wrong, so its back to the basics for you: Show us the lap time of a bone stock Z06 doing Buttonwillow #13 that is even close to 1.58.00 (still well short of what the GT-R did) or STFU about it.
Your constant parroting of "It just can't be, it just can't be" does not change the fact the the GT-R has been setting faster lap times than both the 997 Porsche's and the Z06 at every track they are tested on. Somehow these facts continue to elude you, I guess the fantasy in your mind is more overpowering than the overwhelming evidence. Looks like pigs can fly afterall, and the fact that you didn't get the memo on that is just too bad. Welcome to the real world lamer, get to know and like the tail view of the new GT-R because its going to be seen often by the disbelievers like yourself on tracks everywhere. 
As for showing you the times of other Z06s on the same track, C&D has already shown you that it can go faster. But you can't accept that Millen went so slow in the Z06 that magazine writers beat him by a second on the same track. You keep saying those results aren't valid. So no track results I show you will satisfy you. You have experienced, highly successful race drivers telling you this R&T test is invalid, you have physics examples thrust right in front of your face, you have R&T's own editor saying that the test wasn't "at the limits," you have R&T's own skidpad results contradicting the track times, you have the test driver already trying to make a dime off the car he tested. You have a veritable mountain of evidence that the GT-R is clearly not really 5 seconds faster on this course. Yet you keep your head buried in the sand, shouting in protest. You and Burstbubble and others have demonstrated that you have no clue how a car fundamentally works: if you don't understand lateral weight transfer, which is very very simple, then you don't know anything. You've also demonstrated that you don't even know how the GT-R works: I had to show you all that ATTESA, which you fan bois toss around like it's some incredible breakthrough, doesn't even actively bias torque laterally (even though at least one other car in production already does - wanna try to guess which one?). So your ignorance is obvious. So is your unwillingness to accept anything anyone else has to say. Road and Track, here are the products of your misleading journalism. You should be proud of yourselves.
Msquared,
I never said Millen drove any of the cars to their limits, I said the opposite, but your incredible (as in NOT credible) mind seems to change the facts. If you cannot even properly quote me then how can you be expected to come to terms with all the data staring you in the face? I am willing to accept that the Z06 went slower with Millen than it did with C&D, but you know what? Who cares?????? Its still slower than the GT-R, but yes, I realize that you are too freakin stupid to figure that out. I mean, how can any of us expect you to understand that one car stops the clocks with a 1:56.90 and the other does at 2.01.00 (granting you the faster of the two times).
So now we have all agreed to whittle the Z06 time down to 4 seconds slower. Since you are incredibly moronic above the norm of most imbeciles, let's just give the Z06 another free second off at no charge. WoW it now has a 2.00.00 lap, which is three seconds slower. Hey, newsflash ya moron, that is STILL an ass whipping! Just in case you can pull out the miracle lap in the Z06, we will grant it another second off. I know you can't do math well because you are the most ignorant guy I have ever met, so I will inform you that IT STILL LOSES. Since those facts would be grasped by the average monkey by now but will obviously continue to elude you, we will miraculously give the Z06 ANOTHER second off. Holy crap, it STILL LOSES.
Which part do you not understand? Are you only crying because the Z06 time was 1 second slower than THE BEST time anyone has been able to post for it, or because you are having difficulty understanding why every timer that times the GT-R must somehow be off????
By all means, please post a stock Z06 time that beats ANY of the times that the R35 GT-R has managed at ANY of the tracks it has been run on so far, because I haven't seen one yet. The Z06 has been slower on EVERY track it has run in common with the GT-R. The trend continued at Buttonwillow, sorry that you lack the ability to comprehend the results.
I read the first few pages a week ago(or whenver this started).
Stopped reading because it was pretty obvious it was your typical "gtr can't be faster than *insert my favorite car here"
What is funny is no one has yet to post a Corvette Time that can get Near the GT-R. It really is that fast...
I'm curious to see how the ZR-1 will fare. I don't know if 600+ horsepower is enough to overcome it's chassis deficiencies, but I would be more than happy to volunteer to find out!
The GT-R is the new kid on the block, and he's come out swinging. However, the 997 and the C6 are both on platforms that began development no less than five years ago, and you can bet that both Chevrolet and Porsche will have the GT-R in the back of their heads when they create the C7 and 998. Nissan isn't building enough GT-Rs to eat into either vehicle's sales, but it will be a matter of pride for them I think to not take this assault laying down.
Sports cars are like pickup trucks: there aren't that many in a price class to chose from, and the "best" one is usually the newest to come out. So every year or two, a new vehicle comes out that is "better" than the others, and everyone "Ohhhs and ahhhs" about it for a year or so, and then something else shiny and new comes along that grabs everyone's attention. Barring a nuclear holocaust, the GT-R will not be the last sports/GT car to be developed, nor will it forever go down in history as the fastest car a human being has ever created for less than 100 grand.
Quote from: FordSVT on April 09, 2008, 06:58:28 PM
I'm curious to see how the ZR-1 will fare. I don't know if 600+ horsepower is enough to overcome it's chassis deficiencies, but I would be more than happy to volunteer to find out!
The ZR-1 won't be able to put the power down until 2nd or 3rd gear. Plain and simple.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 09, 2008, 09:16:14 AM
I don't agree. I just finished reading the entire 10 pages and Shaun Bailey offered up a re-match with a Pro Driver of Rhoades choice and the guy won't respond. To me the editors are winning this argument.
After page one Shawn Bailey pretty much answered all of the potential challenges, but people continue on apparently. I didn't read the whole thread, but it sounds like crap so I won't bother.
Quote from: CJ on April 09, 2008, 07:03:47 PM
The ZR-1 won't be able to put the power down until 2nd or 3rd gear. Plain and simple.
It's called short shifting.
Quote from: CJ on April 09, 2008, 07:03:47 PM
The ZR-1 won't be able to put the power down until 2nd or 3rd gear. Plain and simple.
AWD, a computer-operated adaptive transmission, active yaw control, and a bunch of other computers certainly have their advantages, don't they?
Quote from: the Teuton on April 09, 2008, 07:12:20 PM
AWD, a computer-operated adaptive transmission, active yaw control, and a bunch of other computers certainly have their advantages, don't they?
Yes, adding weight.
Quote from: thecarnut on April 09, 2008, 07:14:53 PM
Yes, adding weight.
What was that I heard? Did you say eliminating wheelspin?
Quote from: the Teuton on April 09, 2008, 07:18:22 PM
What was that I heard? Did you say eliminating wheelspin?
The 1993 2.5RS still handles better than the GT-R.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Raza on April 09, 2008, 07:26:49 PM
The 1993 2.5RS still handles better than the GT-R.
:rolleyes:
Did they make a 1993 RS? :lol:
No...
They did have the STi for the first time that year though.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 09, 2008, 07:18:03 PM
Umm, no, not really.
Oh darn, well, I there goes my chance of sounding smart. :cry:
Maybe I should've added a smiley to that post...
SVT, I'd have to disagree. With the new V spec coming out, and the media dominance of the likes I have never seen before, I'd say this car will go down in history.
Infact, the GT-R has completely blunted what I think, and how I feel about cars. In short, I'm less interested.
I remember reading a Motortrend article about the C6 ZO6 when it first came out. I don't know what it said (or if it was something I ate) but I began to get a nervous and uncomfortable feeling. The impression I got was the ZO6 was so good, that normal people like us would NEVER be able to obtain 10/10's driving. The car exceeded the driver, and to me, it seems like that would somehow make the car have less soul, be less involved, and be...boring.
The GT-R has hit the point of were a car is almost perfect, and now it is blunting my senses towards other cars in general. When I normally used to be in awe over M3's and 997's, I just can't seem to revive that magic anymore. I think I'm actually going to move on to other hobbies...(which I don't have)
meh, I don't have to read anything, lol. The GT-R is already legendary, it's just not been available here so it's news to most americans. In japan and europe it's a crazy car with huge followings. If the GT-R beats other cars day in day out then it's legit, i don't feel like reading virtual pooh flinging, lol.
ArchBishop: If mags make you loose your liking for cars, then stop reading them! It's not suppose to do that to you, lol. A faster car is a faster car, it should dull your senses, it should only heighten it. All mags are going to explode with massive oral diarrhea so that they can fill the pages of their mag and make people think what they want you to think. I used to get a lot of C/D but got tired of reading inflated assessments of how a car felt. Like I don't watch Top Gear thinking "oh they will fill me with valuable information" I watch it because they are funny. They have to make money by supporting their sponsors.
I need to read this stuff tonight. Looks like fun. :clap:
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 09, 2008, 08:22:21 PM
SVT, I'd have to disagree. With the new V spec coming out, and the media dominance of the likes I have never seen before, I'd say this car will go down in history.
Infact, the GT-R has completely blunted what I think, and how I feel about cars. In short, I'm less interested.
I remember reading a Motortrend article about the C6 ZO6 when it first came out. I don't know what it said (or if it was something I ate) but I began to get a nervous and uncomfortable feeling. The impression I got was the ZO6 was so good, that normal people like us would NEVER be able to obtain 10/10's driving. The car exceeded the driver, and to me, it seems like that would somehow make the car have less soul, be less involved, and be...boring.
The GT-R has hit the point of were a car is almost perfect, and now it is blunting my senses towards other cars in general. When I normally used to be in awe over M3's and 997's, I just can't seem to revive that magic anymore. I think I'm actually going to move on to other hobbies...(which I don't have)
That is ridiculous. 999 out of the 1000 Carspin posters will never even get to drive a GT-R. I am still looking forward to hopefully putting down 200whp in my Maxima one day.
Reading about cars in magazines != driving them in real life. Hell, seeing videos of cars on YouTube != reading about them in magazines. The GT-R sounds great in articles, but quite frankly it is ugly in appearance and has a less exciting engine sound than my Maxima, for Christ's sake. Maybe I am shallow but those are big things for me, and hopefully things that the V-spec will rectify.
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 09, 2008, 08:22:21 PM
SVT, I'd have to disagree. With the new V spec coming out, and the media dominance of the likes I have never seen before, I'd say this car will go down in history.
In fact, the GT-R has completely blunted what I think, and how I feel about cars. In short, I'm less interested.
I can't really argue with a person who has little passion for vehicles. I'm no old timer, but I've been following this industry my entire life, and I've seen cars come and go. There will always be something faster, or cheaper. The only thing this means is that we'll see faster cars than the GT-R in this price range within the next few years, and we'll see cars approaching the GT-R's performance for a bit less money. I wouldn't be surprised if the base C7 will be a 450 hp car with an equal power to weight ratio as the Nissan. The next EVO will probably have 350 hp and a 3100 pound curb weight for $30,000.
I've heard lots of praise for the Nissan, but you're the very first person I've heard call it a perfect car that will never be equalled that simultaneously managed to diminish their interest in the car industry. Sorry for being blunt, but it's really short sighted. Someone else can come along with a 600 hp awd car that has all sorts of fancy computers and beat the pants off of the Nissan, it's not like they broke the laws of physics.
I am I the only one who would take a Boxster S over a GTR any day of the week?
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 10, 2008, 08:55:12 AM
I am I the only one who would take a Boxster S Miata over a GTR any day of the week?
nope
Title should read 911 Turbo and Z06 take a beating.
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 10, 2008, 08:55:12 AM
I am I the only one who would take a Boxster S over a GTR any day of the week?
Make it a Cayman S and yes I would.
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 10, 2008, 08:55:12 AM
I am I the only one who would take a Boxster S Elise over a GTR any day of the week?
:ohyeah:
I haven't driven the GTR so I wouldn't know but someone on ET did say he has driven it and although it's crazy fast, it wasn't "fun" and I can actually see where he's coming from with that. But then again, you have to take it with a grain of salt since it's someone with an Elise and Elan..
Quote from: NomisR on April 10, 2008, 11:43:31 AM
:ohyeah:
I haven't driven the GTR so I wouldn't know but someone on ET did say he has driven it and although it's crazy fast, it wasn't "fun" and I can actually see where he's coming from with that. But then again, you have to take it with a grain of salt since it's someone with an Elise and Elan..
If anything his cars only further validate his synopsis
Quote from: NomisR on April 10, 2008, 11:43:31 AM
:ohyeah:
I haven't driven the GTR so I wouldn't know but someone on ET did say he has driven it and although it's crazy fast, it wasn't "fun" and I can actually see where he's coming from with that. But then again, you have to take it with a grain of salt since it's someone with an Elise and Elan..
EVERY professional review that I've seen says it's fun to drive.
Quote from: Tave on April 10, 2008, 12:53:25 PM
EVERY professional review that I've seen says it's fun to drive.
Quote from: from ET
When on other forums, especially those of which seem to have a lower median age than this one, I have been getting chastised for merely suggesting that the new Nissan GT-R doesn't give me a woody. They bite my head off (despite the fact that I have driven it and they have not), when I offer that I found the GT-R not really all that fun to drive. They start spouting off magazine racing numbers and how it beat this car or that car and that all the magazines are loving it, yadda, yadda, yadda. I try to argue that faster does not equal better or more fun to drive, but I just get flamed.
The reasoning for my disappointment is that the car is just too capable to be able to use properly. Sure, the acceleration is fun, for about 5 seconds, then you have to jam on the brakes (and other cars offer more drama when accelerating), but the reality is that the sweet spot at which the car is fun is barely, if at all, approachable on the road. Below warp speed the car is dare I say, boring.
I have felt the same about other really fast modern cars too, but at least with some of the high end cars they look great and sound good too, and they can be a status symbol also, if you are into that kind of thing.
Sure you can take it to the track, but I think you have to be nuts to drive that fast without a cage and other proper safety equipment, just because you are on the track does not mean you are immune to a big wreck that can kill you
Nissan may have raised the bar, but IMO they also raised the fun bar too, making it harder to get to.
Anyhow, I found this article on www.lateralg.org and thought it hit the nail on the head. Not trying to turn this into a GT-R discussion, but that car to me is the poster child for this issue.
Enjoy
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 10, 2008, 08:55:12 AM
I am I the only one who would take a Boxster S over a GTR any day of the week?
No. Count me in that party.
Quote from: NomisR on April 10, 2008, 12:59:10 PM
In all fairness he did say PROFESSIONAL review. I'd expect to see something from one of the dozens of major rags from any other country.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on April 10, 2008, 10:11:59 AM
Title should read 911 Turbo and Z06 take a beating.
Yeah, but according to you, the Micra is better than anything else ever made.
:tounge:
Quote from: CALL_911 on April 10, 2008, 01:22:25 PM
No. Count me in that party.
really?? I guess whatever floats your boat, but I've always found the boxters to be ugly as sin. That's just my opion, same with the carrera vert, but I find all of the other porsches really attractive, I even like the looks of the old 914 over the boxter, hmm I actually want one of those 914s the more I think about it :lol:
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on April 10, 2008, 02:11:42 PM
In all fairness he did say PROFESSIONAL review. I'd expect to see something from one of the dozens of major rags from any other country.
Yeah I know, I'm just posting what he said.
I'm not going to expect anything but great reviews from the major rags anyways because all they care about are #s
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 10, 2008, 02:35:50 PM
really?? I guess whatever floats your boat, but I've always found the boxSters to be ugly as sin. That's just my opion, same with the carrera vert, but I find all of the other porsches really attractive, I even like the looks of the old 914 over the boxSter, hmm I actually want one of those 914s the more I think about it :lol:
Ugly as sin?
You sir, need to have your eyes removed. You no longer deserve them.
(http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1689/boxsig11ra7.jpg)
Quote from: NomisR on April 10, 2008, 12:59:10 PM
I think this is the most important part of his critique:
I have felt the same about other really fast modern cars too, but at least with some of the high end cars they look great and sound good tooSo really, the GTR isn't "less fun" than any of it's competitors. It simply doesn't look or sound as good, which is fine: that's a legitimate point.
I don't understand, was he expecting Nissan to release a Miata or S2000 competitor?
And I don't get this:
and other cars offer more drama when acceleratingWhat is he talking about--more wheelspin? Less stability? A more violent "seat of his pants" feeling? Personally, I kind of like it when my car doesn't fling me off the road at WOT, but he's welcome to his preferences.
I think in a way, it's like saying, taking the best lines on a track isn't the most fun even though it may be the fastest. You want to put the car in a nice controlled drift around the corners with all the G Force and screaming tires to bring out the child in you.
Quote from: NomisR on April 10, 2008, 03:25:54 PM
I think in a way, it's like saying, taking the best lines on a track isn't the most fun even though it may be the fastest. You want to put the car in a nice controlled drift around the corners with all the G Force and screaming tires to bring out the child in you.
True, but that same point would apply to a Z06 and a Miata.
Every review I've read has had a section that says something like "So the GTR is fast, but is it fun? Do those lap times count for anything off the track?" The answer, so far, is always "YES!" even from the European rags.
It sounds like an agile, fast car with beautiful handling and great road manners. I'm not grouping you into this, but it seems like some people have only looked at spec sheets and decided for themselves that the car isn't involving, even though the people driving it say otherwise. :huh:
Quote from: FordSVT on April 10, 2008, 08:52:23 AM
I can't really argue with a person who has little passion for vehicles. I'm no old timer, but I've been following this industry my entire life, and I've seen cars come and go. There will always be something faster, or cheaper. The only thing this means is that we'll see faster cars than the GT-R in this price range within the next few years, and we'll see cars approaching the GT-R's performance for a bit less money. I wouldn't be surprised if the base C7 will be a 450 hp car with an equal power to weight ratio as the Nissan. The next EVO will probably have 350 hp and a 3100 pound curb weight for $30,000.
I've heard lots of praise for the Nissan, but you're the very first person I've heard call it a perfect car that will never be equalled that simultaneously managed to diminish their interest in the car industry. Sorry for being blunt, but it's really short sighted. Someone else can come along with a 600 hp awd car that has all sorts of fancy computers and beat the pants off of the Nissan, it's not like they broke the laws of physics.
Well said!
Quote from: Raza on April 10, 2008, 02:46:22 PM
Ugly as sin?
You sir, need to have your eyes removed. You no longer deserve them.
I see them every day here in OC and I find them ugly, ok, I was a bit harsh to say ugly as sin, but I find them being one of the ugliest roadsters on the market. And people saying they rather have a boxster s over the GT-R? The front of the Boxster is good, but I just find the sides and the back to be extremely plain and boring, can't find anything to like about the back. I just can't see myself paying 55K+ for a Porsche (that i dont' even like the looks of) that sure is great around the track, but other 55K cars can probably beat it. Or some kid in his "suped" up ricer can beat me on a highway pull? Yea I understand that the Porsche will flat out kill any ricer on a track, but when spending 55K I feel the car should not have to bow down in any regards to some kid who slapped on a turbo on his 4banger.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 10, 2008, 03:51:48 PM
I see them every day here in OC and I find them ugly, ok, I was a bit harsh to say ugly as sin, but I find them being one of the ugliest roadsters on the market. And people saying they rather have a boxster s over the GT-R? The front of the Boxster is good, but I just find the sides and the back to be extremely plain and boring, can't find anything to like about the back. I just can't see myself paying 55K+ for a Porsche (that i dont' even like the looks of) that sure is great around the track, but other 55K cars can probably beat it. Or some kid in his "suped" up ricer can beat me on a highway pull? Yea I understand that the Porsche will flat out kill any ricer on a track, but when spending 55K I feel the car should not have to bow down in any regards to some kid who slapped on a turbo on his 4banger.
Do you want to race, then? Because I've yet to be beaten out in my Box. Granted, I haven't gone head to head with a Corvette yet, but you're vastly underestimating the Boxster.
Quote from: Tave on April 10, 2008, 03:45:26 PM
True, but that same point would apply to a Z06 and a Miata.
Every review I've read has had a section that says something like "So the GTR is fast, but is it fun? Do those lap times count for anything off the track?" The answer, so far, is always "YES!" even from the European rags.
It sounds like an agile, fast car with beautiful handling and great road manners. I'm not grouping you into this, but it seems like some people have only looked at spec sheets and decided for themselves that the car isn't involving, even though the people driving it say otherwise. :huh:
Well, another thing I think is about the electronic nannies, eg. stability control, AWD, etc etc sometimes takes out the raw excitement of just you and the car. I personally prefers a car w/o any of those, I'd take a Zonda over an Enzo because I think it would be more fun to drive.. and it actually looks really bad ass too.
Oh and yes, it does apply to Z06 and Miata in some ways. Personally, I think Miatas are really fun. I almost considered getting an used Miata as a daily driver and it could be a cheap fun track car too. At least with that, I don't have to worry about running into the dirt. That's what scares me.
True enough. I myself prefer cars without ABS.
I'll be interested to read more reviews about this car. I bet we will be able to tell if the tech helps or gets in the way once we have enough time and opinions.
The one thing I'll say is this: Nissan sure did their homework. I got sick of hearing about the GTR in pre-production; it seemed like it took forever to reach its release date. How many videos were there of camoed mules lapping the 'Ring? Man there were tons. I really wanted to tell Nissan, "Put up or shut up. Enough already. Give me something tangible or get off the pot.
Well, their commitment is paying huge dividends, and I hope it continues. They worked hard and they deserve it.
That's why I'm getting excited about the Camaro. GM could be using its time to give us something really special.
Quote from: Raza on April 10, 2008, 03:54:25 PM
Do you want to race, then? Because I've yet to be beaten out in my Box. Granted, I haven't gone head to head with a Corvette yet, but you're vastly underestimating the Boxster.
that would be fun, but my car is in the shop (I want it back :( ), but I have a feeling that my friend's turbo civic (I know, don't laugh) could possibly keep up with you on the freeway. Boxster S's are not slow by any means, but they're definitely not the fastest.
Quote from: Tave on April 10, 2008, 04:21:04 PM
True enough. I myself prefer cars without ABS.
I'll be interested to read more reviews about this car. I bet we will be able to tell if the tech helps or gets in the way once we have enough time and opinions.
The one thing I'll say is this: Nissan sure did their homework. I got sick of hearing about the GTR in pre-production; it seemed like it took forever to reach its release date. How many videos were there of camoed mules lapping the 'Ring? Man there were tons. I really wanted to tell Nissan, "Put up or shut up. Enough already. Give me something tangible or get off the pot.
Well, their commitment is paying huge dividends, and I hope it continues. They worked hard and they deserve it.
That's why I'm getting excited about the Camaro. GM could be using its time to give us something really special.
Well, the thing is, i'm sure the tech helps, helps a lot. And it seems from the reviews, it's not intrusive. Either that, or it makes them look SOOOOOO GOOD, that they don't care. I'm thinking 2nd part has a lot to do with it.
i was just really suprised when they showed how the drivetrain was layed out with the transmission integrated with the diff in the back. Has anyone else don that before? Just seems genius.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 10, 2008, 05:09:08 PM
i was just really suprised when they showed how the drivetrain was layed out with the transmission integrated with the diff in the back. Has anyone else don that before? Just seems genius.
Not with a front engine AWD car I don't think, but it's relatively common for RWD sports cars to do that.
Really? Which ones, I wasn't aware it was common. If you mean MR cars, then yea I understand, but do you mean FR cars that have the transmission in the back?
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 09, 2008, 12:20:33 AM
The Corvette is a shit car anyhow.
First the VQ obliterating the N54, then the K-series being a vastly superior engine to any German 4-banger ever made, now this?
I'm confused, are you misinformed, or really
that dumb?
Quote from: NomisR on April 10, 2008, 04:55:23 PM
Well, the thing is, i'm sure the tech helps, helps a lot. And it seems from the reviews, it's not intrusive. Either that, or it makes them look SOOOOOO GOOD, that they don't care. I'm thinking 2nd part has a lot to do with it.
Right, I was speaking more towards your point. I know it "helps," the question is whether or not it helps from an enthusiast's perspective. I think time will tell.
Either that, or you're right about #2 :lol:
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 10, 2008, 05:24:18 PM
Really? Which ones, I wasn't aware it was common. If you mean MR cars, then yea I understand, but do you mean FR cars that have the transmission in the back?
The C5 and C6 Corvette does for one, and the Porsche 928 did, and even as far back as the "real" Bugattis, which all had rear mounted transaxles.
And yes, I mean front engined cars with the transaxle in the back.
But I think the GTR is the first AWD front engined car to do that.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 10, 2008, 05:09:08 PM
i was just really suprised when they showed how the drivetrain was layed out with the transmission integrated with the diff in the back. Has anyone else don that before? Just seems genius.
If the car had been well balanced from jump street they wouldn't have had to take such drastic measures...
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 10, 2008, 05:30:47 PM
The C5 and C6 Corvette does for one, and the Porsche 928 did, and even as far back as the "real" Bugattis, which all had rear mounted transaxles.
And yes, I mean front engined cars with the transaxle in the back.
But I think the GTR is the first AWD front engined car to do that.
I believe Ferrari has been doing it with their front engine cars (550/575, 456 and 599) as well.
Quote from: MX793 on April 10, 2008, 06:53:13 PM
I believe Ferrari has been doing it with their front engine cars (550/575, 456 and 599) as well.
Yes, they have.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on April 10, 2008, 06:46:24 PM
If the car had been well balanced from jump street they wouldn't have had to take such drastic measures...
I don't know many front engine AWD vehicles that have a weight ratio like the GTR does, isn't it pretty difficult to make a front engine AWD car to be less front heavy?
MX793, Soup DeVille: Oh, I didn't know that. I think I prefer the design, I would assume it eliminates some problems
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 10, 2008, 07:18:05 PM
I don't know many front engine AWD vehicles that have a weight ratio like the GTR does, isn't it pretty difficult to make a front engine AWD car to be less front heavy?
MX793, Soup DeVille: Oh, I didn't know that. I think I prefer the design, I would assume it eliminates some problems
Well, the S2000 and the Miata both boast a 50/50 weight distribution, and they have their gearboxes in normal places, but those are also much smaller cars with lighter motors...
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 10, 2008, 07:18:05 PM
I don't know many front engine AWD vehicles that have a weight ratio like the GTR does, isn't it pretty difficult to make a front engine AWD car to be less front heavy?
MX793, Soup DeVille: Oh, I didn't know that. I think I prefer the design, I would assume it eliminates some problems
How does it eliminate problems? Now there are two driveshafts running the length of the car instead of one.
Quote from: thecarnut on April 10, 2008, 07:23:49 PM
How does it eliminate problems? Now there are two driveshafts running the length of the car instead of one.
Compare the layout to an Audi or subaru drivetrain and look at how far forward the engineers had to place the engines on those cars so that the front differential lined up with the front axle line.
It solves that problem for starters.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 10, 2008, 07:29:45 PM
Compare the layout to an Audi or subaru drivetrain and look at how far forward the engineers had to place the engines on those cars so that the front differential lined up with the front axle line.
It solves that problem for starters.
Oh. I thought he was talking about reliability problems.
And Audi has moved their engines back in the B8 and I didn't think Subarus were that nose heavy.
Quote from: thecarnut on April 10, 2008, 07:31:19 PM
Oh. I thought he was talking about reliability problems.
And Audi has moved their engines back in the B8 and I didn't think Subarus were that nose heavy.
Back, yes: but not as far back as they might like to.
I'm not panning either Subarus or Audis here; I'm just using them as a means to illustrate one problem inherent in making an AWD front engined car achieve good balance.
Nissan has come up with an innovative solution to that problem.
Quote from: thecarnut on April 10, 2008, 07:31:19 PM
Oh. I thought he was talking about reliability problems.
And Audi has moved their engines back in the B8 and I didn't think Subarus were that nose heavy.
The WRX has 57.5% of its weight over the front wheels, which is slightly better than your typical FWD (which might have 59-62% over the front).
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 10, 2008, 07:19:59 PM
Well, the S2000 and the Miata both boast a 50/50 weight distribution, and they have their gearboxes in normal places, but those are also much smaller cars with lighter motors...
You're comparing to FR cars, I'm talking about AWD cars. It's really easy to make FR cars 50/50, that's why there are so many FR and not all sports cars are MR.
With the tranny in the back it eliminated the middle split it had at the end of the transmission that was kinda funky and has the diff, transmission and other components housed in one shell probably making it more sturdy. It also allowed nissan to shift the motor to the side for better clearance.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 10, 2008, 07:18:05 PM
I don't know many front engine AWD vehicles that have a weight ratio like the GTR does, isn't it pretty difficult to make a front engine AWD car to be less front heavy?
Yes, which coupled with the fact that AWD usually equals understeer makes the GT-R such a great feat
Still I like the simplicity of working with physics rather than creating a supercomputer to work against it.
*insert picture of Homer singing "Star Spangled Banner" at the foot of a giant machine made to reverse the spin on his toilet in Australia*
I do too. Usually working with more basic physics to achieve the same effect that would have been aided with more complex technology is very beneficial and that goes for everything, not just cars.
Quote from: Raza on April 10, 2008, 02:18:17 PM
Yeah, but according to you, the Micra is better than anything else ever made.
:tounge:
:lol:
Except for the GT-R!
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 10, 2008, 03:51:48 PM
I see them every day here in OC and I find them ugly, ok, I was a bit harsh to say ugly as sin, but I find them being one of the ugliest roadsters on the market. And people saying they rather have a boxster s over the GT-R? The front of the Boxster is good, but I just find the sides and the back to be extremely plain and boring, can't find anything to like about the back. I just can't see myself paying 55K+ for a Porsche (that i dont' even like the looks of) that sure is great around the track, but other 55K cars can probably beat it. Or some kid in his "suped" up ricer can beat me on a highway pull? Yea I understand that the Porsche will flat out kill any ricer on a track, but when spending 55K I feel the car should not have to bow down in any regards to some kid who slapped on a turbo on his 4banger.
Well, if 1-uping ricers is what you care about I can see why you're in love with the GTR.
I don't see why everyone complains about electronics, done well abs and other electronic vehicle controls can feel perfectly natural. I never liked abs either, until i drove a vehicle with a good performance oriented abs system.
I've never had abs engage in my EVO or my Z, and the electronic center diff in the evo is unnoticable. All it does is provide exceptional handling and performance that feel perfectly natural to the driver.
The GT-R weighs 3800#.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on April 11, 2008, 06:21:30 PM
The GT-R weighs 3800#.
There have been alot of cars that pushed 4000 lbs that were fantastic drivers cars. The first one that comes to mind and perhaps the best example is the M5. Even the last generation car was 4000 lbs. Thanks to excellent weight balance and chassis tuning it is often billed as a car that defies its curb weight.
I've had light cars that didn't benefit from the low weight. Personally it's all in the tuning for me. I'd take a 4000lb M5 over a 3000lb sedan with lackluster chassis tuning.
Quote from: R-inge on April 09, 2008, 07:03:48 PM
After page one Shawn Bailey pretty much answered all of the potential challenges, but people continue on apparently. I didn't read the whole thread, but it sounds like crap so I won't bother.
:hesaid:
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on April 11, 2008, 06:55:23 PM
There have been alot of cars that pushed 4000 lbs that were fantastic drivers cars. The first one that comes to mind and perhaps the best example is the M5. Even the last generation car was 4000 lbs. Thanks to excellent weight balance and chassis tuning it is often billed as a car that defies its curb weight.
M5 is a great handling car for it's weight but you can definately feel the weight in corners.
Again, no matter how much electronic doodads you add, you still can't beat physics.
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 11, 2008, 03:50:08 PM
Well, if 1-uping ricers is what you care about I can see why you're in love with the GTR.
hmm.. wonder where people thought I was in loved with the GTR :wub: :tounge: when I like it a lot but still find other cars a bit more desirable. Anyways, the whole point was that I thought the porsche boxster is really bland to me (I made the mistake of saying it was "ugly as sin"). But I think you miss the point about the ricer comment. If I was to buy a $55K sports car it better be fast enough that only other expensive cars can beat it in any aspect. Like if I buy a nice "fast" sports car that I paid a lot for, then some kid who dropped about $8K into his car beats me at the light I'd have a lot of buyers remorse.
That's an unrealistic expectation. In a straightline contest, any number of $10,000 Novas could destroy all but the fastest supercars. In an autocross, a well sorted Caterham could do the same.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 11, 2008, 10:04:26 PM
Like if I buy a nice "fast" sports car that I paid a lot for, then some kid who dropped about $8K into his car beats me at the light I'd have a lot of buyers remorse.
Not really because you're not going to have a lot of people gawking at the Civic with 8k in mods or kids trying to lick it.
I don't see many people gawking at boxsters either, def more so than civic, lol. But you live in SoCal do you really do a double take or stare at boxsters on the road? Especially if they aren't a 'S' model?
Soup DeVille: It's expected from a Muscle car, but a turbo (insert ricer boy car) ? I guess if I wanted to spend $55K on a roadster I'd get a C6 vert.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 12, 2008, 12:53:10 AM
I don't see many people gawking at boxsters either, def more so than civic, lol. But you live in SoCal do you really do a double take or stare at boxsters on the road? Especially if they aren't a 'S' model?
Soup DeVille: It's expected from a Muscle car, but a turbo (insert ricer boy car) ? I guess if I wanted to spend $55K on a roadster I'd get a C6 vert.
Well, that's true, hell, I don't even give 911 a second look unless it's a turbo or GT3. And even then, it's a short glance. Only Porsche that would really attract my attention is the Carrera GT, I've only seen about 3-4 on the road so far..
But then again, I don't think Lambos really gets my attentions either now because they're so common as are F430s..
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 12, 2008, 12:53:10 AM
I don't see many people gawking at boxsters either, def more so than civic, lol. But you live in SoCal do you really do a double take or stare at boxsters on the road? Especially if they aren't a 'S' model?
Soup DeVille: It's expected from a Muscle car, but a turbo (insert ricer boy car) ? I guess if I wanted to spend $55K on a roadster I'd get a C6 vert.
:hesaid:
Just to make sure, are you telling me that a F430 is in the same league as a Boxster when you see it on the road?
It's not that I think the Boxster is a bad car, this all stemmed from (i forget who) but someone saying that they rather have a Boxster than the GTR. And that really got me going like "what?" And to clarify something I didn't mention in my last post, is it doesn't take much to get another car going faster than the boxster S. Yea the boxster s is great around a track, but on the streets you won't be pushing it to the limits and if the person is then it's really unsafe, lol. Is the owner of the boxster s tracking his car all the time? I don't know. But most owners of any sports car just deals with it on the road so a guy in an RSX or TSX for that matter suped up will keep up or beat a boxster s with less money on the streets. I've always felt that if it's a high priced sports car it should not let other cars that are modified still beat on it. Everyone keeps giving exuses, but it happens. It's just not as common for someone to put together their own car that is fast, it's a lengthy process but deffinitly not as expensive. There are a ton more reasons why a person would buy a boxster outside of speed, I know that. But couldn't porsche at least make it go 0-60 in 4.6 seconds??? I mean its MSRP is 55K, after the dealer markup, taxes and registration you'll probably be paying $65K...
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 12, 2008, 01:16:29 AM
Just to make sure, are you telling me that a F430 is in the same league as a Boxster when you see it on the road?
It's not that I think the Boxster is a bad car, this all stemmed from (i forget who) but someone saying that they rather have a Boxster than the GTR. And that really got me going like "what?" And to clarify something I didn't mention in my last post, is it doesn't take much to get another car going faster than the boxster S. Yea the boxster s is great around a track, but on the streets you won't be pushing it to the limits and if the person is then it's really unsafe, lol. Is the owner of the boxster s tracking his car all the time? I don't know. But most owners of any sports car just deals with it on the road so a guy in an RSX or TSX for that matter suped up will keep up or beat a boxster s with less money on the streets. I've always felt that if it's a high priced sports car it should not let other cars that are modified still beat on it. Everyone keeps giving exuses, but it happens. It's just not as common for someone to put together their own car that is fast, it's a lengthy process but deffinitly not as expensive. There are a ton more reasons why a person would buy a boxster outside of speed, I know that. But couldn't porsche at least make it go 0-60 in 4.6 seconds??? I mean its MSRP is 55K, after the dealer markup, taxes and registration you'll probably be paying $65K...
Of course not, there's no way I would even make that comparison.
The Boxster doesn't come close to a Ferrari. I'm just saying that some Exotics are so common in So Cal now that it doesn't draw the same attention it should.
Porsche Boxster is a really good example of this and I agree with you, to an extent. You can't really compare, say used car modded vs a brand new car because that doesn't make sense.
Also, there's more to life than just 0-60 times, just like my work, if given the time, I can train a monkey to drive a car in the straight lines fast. But around corners, that takes skills, and a properly setup car. Can the modded to death Civic handle as well or better than the stock Boxster on the track? Yes. But would it have the same type of comfort, daily driveability as the Boxster? Most likely not.
Hell, I'm sure for a new car to be modded to match the handling ability of my Lotus, would need it to give up everything that car originally was, lose most of the streetability, and basically rides like shit.. and it'll still be a Civic..
Another thing is, people don't really buy Porsches for the performance. That's why they have automatics, not even a quazi clutch based automatic transmission, because they're just buying it for the brand.
Quote from: NomisR on April 12, 2008, 01:27:24 AM
they're just buying it for the brand.
that's the exact reason why I don't look at Boxsters, if it's an S it's a bit different, but I usually don't see them and a lot of the time they're isn't much of a distinction between the two.
Ok, I think I'm not making myself clear enough. A Boxster S can beat a C6 on a really tight track, yes. But on the streets like on a midnight freeway run, It's not going to put up much of a fight. And my point is that say like a C6 vert, it's not going to give up anything to someone with a modded RSX, the boxster S will. That's my point. And a GTR will give nothing up period to even some heavily modified cars.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 12, 2008, 01:43:32 AM
that's the exact reason why I don't look at Boxsters, if it's an S it's a bit different, but I usually don't see them and a lot of the time they're isn't much of a distinction between the two.
Ok, I think I'm not making myself clear enough. A Boxster S can beat a C6 on a really tight track, yes. But on the streets like on a midnight freeway run, It's not going to put up much of a fight. And my point is that say like a C6 vert, it's not going to give up anything to someone with a modded RSX, the boxster S will. That's my point. And a GTR will give nothing up period to even some heavily modified cars.
Why do you care if someone else's car is faster than yours?
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 12, 2008, 01:43:32 AM
that's the exact reason why I don't look at Boxsters, if it's an S it's a bit different, but I usually don't see them and a lot of the time they're isn't much of a distinction between the two.
Ok, I think I'm not making myself clear enough. A Boxster S can beat a C6 on a really tight track, yes. But on the streets like on a midnight freeway run, It's not going to put up much of a fight. And my point is that say like a C6 vert, it's not going to give up anything to someone with a modded RSX, the boxster S will. That's my point. And a GTR will give nothing up period to even some heavily modified cars.
A modded DSM will wipe the floor with a GTR in a straight line, and that's a pretty cheap car. Does it make the GTR any less of a car?
Boxster S does 0-60 in 4.9 and the Corvette Convertible does 0-60 in 4.3. Do you really Civics can get faster than 4.9, but hit an invisible wall so that it couldn't get faster than 4.3?
porsche says boxster S does 0-60 in 5.1
Bleh, I can't seem to make anyone understand what I'm saying so I'll just stop here.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 12, 2008, 12:53:10 AM
I don't see many people gawking at boxsters either, def more so than civic, lol. But you live in SoCal do you really do a double take or stare at boxsters on the road? Especially if they aren't a 'S' model?
Soup DeVille: It's expected from a Muscle car, but a turbo (insert ricer boy car) ? I guess if I wanted to spend $55K on a roadster I'd get a C6 vert.
I can certainly understand the frustration of plunking down 60 large and being beaten off the line by a Subaru, but you just kind of have to admit it happens. A well modified car can be a ferocious beast.
What it won't be however, is reliable, flexible, refined, and well rounded; and that's the difference you're paying for.
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 12, 2008, 09:01:59 AM
Why do you care if someone else's car is faster than yours?
It's all about the bragging rights. :praise:
Quote from: Sigma Projects on April 12, 2008, 02:56:03 PM
porsche says boxster S does 0-60 in 5.1
Bleh, I can't seem to make anyone understand what I'm saying so I'll just stop here.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand why you care so much if a less expensive car is faster.
I don't care if another car is faster than mine. I'm going to spend my money on the car that puts the biggest smile on my face when I take it out on empty backroads for a couple hours on the weekends.
A car should make you happy. If it doesn't, then it wasn't worth the money. In some instances, a Playstation on wheels may not be the best car for someone. I'm not sure I'd go with a Boxster, either, though.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 12, 2008, 10:06:49 PM
A car should make you happy. If it doesn't, then it wasn't worth the money.
My SVT was the best $9000 I ever spent. :praise: