Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Nissan GT-R Article Comments - 2009 Nissan GT-R vs. 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo
990 messages, Last post on Sep 05, 2009 at 6:04 AM
You are in the Nissan GT-R Forum. Your Host is claires
2009 Nissan GT-R vs. 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo - Balance and body control of the GT-R are extraordinary through faster, bumpy bends that will have the 911 unsettled enough to make the driver lose confidence. I had a number of heart-in-mouth moments in the Turbo trying to keep up with the GT-R, even with the Porsche's suspension set to its harder Sport setting. (more)
|
Check out our comparison of these two coupes and tell us what you think! 2009 Nissan GT-R vs. 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo
|
|
|
Replying to: KarenS (Dec 14, 2007 9:27 am)   Anyway, it was a good article overall, and I'm glad someone from this continent got the chance to test this new and great car. However, I think Edmunds may be stepping into a little proverbial do-do by stating, "Is It Too Good? Which begs the question: Does the Nissan's ability reduce the driving pleasure? Not at all. You can turn all the systems off if you so choose, and it's still supremely well balanced, no doubt a delight for a racing driver on a track. It doesn't feel as heavy as it is — it weighs a chunky 3,800 pounds, 170 or so more than the Porsche. But its supreme Nürburgring lap time of 7:38, a full 2 seconds faster than the Turbo (and on a partly wet track) is solely down to its completely planted feel, its awesome grip and traction, and the natural way it goes about maintaining speed through corners." The reason why this kind of journalism is bad, is that when a journalist tries to sidestep the laws of physics in an initial car test, it comes back to bite him in the rear when everyone else reports back on the same car with a report that doesn't sidestep the laws of physics. Notice the link I quoted above. Specifically that which I highlighted in bold. Since it is physically impossible (based on Newton's Laws of Inertia) for a front-engined sportscar to have a "supremely well balanced chassis" (the weight of the engine on the steering rack will make steering feel numb compared to rear-engined cars because of the weight of the engine load on the steering rack) and for the car to have a "natural way it goes about maintaining speed through corners" (the weight of the engine on the front suspension components will make steering feel sloppy and unbalanced compared to the rear-engined cars for the same reason), other automotive critics and journalists are more than certain to report that the GT-R is decidedly "unbalanced" and "unnatural" in it's chassis responses when compared to the rear-engined competition. And when Car and Driver, Motor Trend and Road and Track report back the correct laws of physics regarding the GT-R (which are the same laws that they report about any front engined sportscar), Edmunds will have to somehow recant this part of the Comparison Test when Edmunds does a Full Test. Car and Driver, Motor Trend and Road and Track will report back that although the GT-R is a fantastic car, it's front-end weight bias will make it's steering more numb and its chassis less balanced than the rear-engined cars it will compete against. Stating that the GT-R is the best car Edmunds has ever driven based on "all-around ability" is also asking for trouble. There are better cars. The Lexus IS-F? The old Acura NSX? 2008 Porsche Cayman? The first two are almost just as fast, have better handling for the NSX, better comfort and comparable handling for the Lexus, better handling, shifting and braking for the Porsche Cayman and especially the GT3. Comparing these two sub-par sportscars then adding on the "Best of the Best," and "Almost as fast as any car on earth" are also decisive, because that seems to imply that these two cars are actually competitive with both the Porsche GT3 and Chevrolet Corvette Z06 -- two better cars that are lighter, more competent, weigh over 500 pounds less, are true exotics, and cost just a little more than the tested cars. The GT-R's 7,000 redline is too low. Lower than the Benz AMG M156, Corvette Z06 LS7 and especially the Porsche GT-3's redline. No mention of the deficiency was mentioned; just the fact that the engine redlines at 7K. The GT-R and Porsche turbo are too heavy. No mention of these chassis deficiencies were mentioned; just the weights themselves. The GT-R has a dashboard meant to 'wow' adolescents and was designed by a video game designer who works for Sony Playstation -- the #1 gaming choice for 12-16 year-olds throught the globe. There was no mention of this fact in the article. On the good side, there was a nicely written intro to the drive of the GT-R, very imaginative. I felt as if I was a passenger with Bill Thomas on the Autobhan as I was reading it. Although AWD was mentioned, I would have liked to have read more of the handling benefits of it when compared to other, RWD sportscars. I'd give the review and the GT-R 4 stars out of 5... |
|
|
Replying to: pmc4 (Dec 15, 2007 2:53 pm) In fact, the GT3 runs about $20k less than the 911 Turbo. And, if I'm not mistaken, the Corvette Z06 well less than the GT-R. And both make it around Nurburgring faster. If anyone, Edmunds or other, wants to make a real claim regarding the "best of the best", they also better include the 500+ hp RWD 911 GT2. The 911 Turbo is a very fine car, but is not the pinnacle of sport in Porsche's 911 line-up by at least two rungs. Some would claim it might even be below the much lighter 911 C2S w/ X51. Personally, as far as the GT-R goes, Nissan can keep it. Nearly two tons in a two seater  (my nearly 500 lb lighter 911S Cabriolet seats my family of four). For the relative handful of $70k GT-R's that Nissan will sell, I think they would have been better off taking that money and putting it into making the 350Z a real sports car in the $35k range. It also carries an extra water buffalo in weight compared to the Cayman, Honda S2000 and Boxster.
|
|
|
Replying to: KarenS (Dec 14, 2007 9:27 am) I've read the entire article and all I could come up with was " so ! " If this car is $40K less than the Porsche Turbo, that would put it at between$90K & $110K. Look on any Porsche dealerships site.. the Turbo coupe goes for $130-150K. I own a 2006 C2S. I expect 20 years from now , when I close the door, it will continue to sound like a fine swiss watch/ bank vault combo. The Nissan's motor will still be purring... but the body panels will be rusted through and the interior will be trash. As someone on this site stated , so to the point.and with such an obvious perspective " you get what you pay for ". I prefer build quality. Evolution, not revolution and nothing with such Godzilla grotesque lines. European design suites me just fine. Classic Porsche yes!!!! Chromedome |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: chrmdome (Dec 16, 2007 7:39 pm) The GT-R is far more likely to appeal to someone who might be looking at a Corvette Z06 or a Dodge Viper. Comparisons to more upscale brands such as Porsche, Ferrari, Aston Martin and others is a nice marketing ploy by Nissan, but its absurd to think that most purchasers of a 911 Turbo or GT3 or Ferrari 430 are going to be influenced to consider a grotesquely heavy GT oriented car, just because of impressive track performance. Especially one that, as you put it, looks like it was designed by a carryover make up artist from the Godzilla movies. I am not a Porsche or European snob. As a former Boxster S owner, I think the Honda S2000 is a pretty impressive car for $20,000+ less. The former NSX was also a worthy competitor. But Nissan is on a completely different tract than Honda/Acura and not one that would ever appeal to me or the host of other Porsche owners I know.
|
|
|
Replying to: pmc4 (Dec 15, 2007 2:53 pm) "Stating that the GT-R is the best car Edmunds has ever driven based on "all-around ability" is also asking for trouble." I think the writer stated that this was the best car he has ever driven. Completely subjective, kinda hard to argue against. "The GT-R's 7,000 redline is too low. Lower than the Benz AMG M156, Corvette Z06 LS7 and especially the Porsche GT-3's redline. No mention of the deficiency was mentioned; just the fact that the engine redlines at 7K." If you consider the GT-3, the Benz, and the Z06 to be the benchmarks for engine redlines, more power to you. Perhaps the author doesn't consider this car's 7000 rpm redline to be a deficiency. "The GT-R and Porsche turbo are too heavy. No mention of these chassis deficiencies were mentioned; just the weights themselves." I believe he called it "chunky". "The GT-R has a dashboard meant to 'wow' adolescents and was designed by a video game designer who works for Sony Playstation -- the #1 gaming choice for 12-16 year-olds throught the globe. There was no mention of this fact in the article." Probably because it doesn't matter. I doubt that Nissan is marketing this car the 12-16 year olds. |
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Dec 16, 2007 4:09 am) Most cost estimates I've seen put the GT-R right at the Z06 price range. Motortrend has the "current Z06" listed with a lap time of 7:42 at Nurburgring, slower than the reported time for the GT-R. http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/112_0709_the_big_picture "For the relative handful of $70k GT-R's that Nissan will sell, I think they would have been better off taking that money and putting it into making the 350Z a real sports car in the $35k range. It also carries an extra water buffalo in weight compared to the Cayman, Honda S2000 and Boxster. " I suspect that Nissan will sell plenty of these over the next year.
|
|
|
Replying to: chrmdome (Dec 16, 2007 7:39 pm) The price estimates I've seen put the Nissan under $75K. That's $55-$75K less that the Porsche Turbo prices you state. Even more impressive. "I own a 2006 C2S. I expect 20 years from now , when I close the door, it will continue to sound like a fine swiss watch/ bank vault combo. The Nissan's motor will still be purring... but the body panels will be rusted through and the interior will be trash." A cars longevity depends on the care and upkeep it receives. I can assure you anything that will rust a Nissan's exterior or trash it's interior, will do the same thing to your C2S. |
|
|
Replying to: redsoxgirl (Dec 17, 2007 5:22 am) "The GT-R is far more likely to appeal to someone who might be looking at a Corvette Z06 or a Dodge Viper. " I think the car will appeal to people who like being able to say, "My car is as fast as your car for thousands less"; just like Porsches appeal to people who like being able to say, "Yeah, but my car is a Porsche".
|
|
|
Replying to: hsquared (Dec 17, 2007 8:01 pm) To that effect, Nissan even made the displacement the same, not to mentioned AWD. The only significant difference is engine placement. This car (GT-R) competes with the Porsche turbo like the Corvette Z06 competes with the Ferrari F430: two cars that are as good or better; far more reliable, cost about 1/2 and better recent performance on the racing circuits (with exception to Ferrari's F-1 program). |
|
You are here:
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Nissan GT-R Article Comments - 2009 Nissan GT-R vs. 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Nissan GT-R
2010 Porsche 911
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
