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)
|
Replying to: thenebean (Mar 21, 2008 4:07 am) This has nothing to do with the GTR vs. 911, but I have to side with redsoxgirl that Nissan has a lot of "baggage" and challenge your defencse of the company. Case in point, I still own a 1995 Nissan Maxima SE 5-speed which has been relocated to our second home. We were just there over the Easter holiday and I drove it much of the time while my wife had our MDX. I took it to the local Nissan dealer for its annual inspection and they gave me both an 2008 Altima and Maxima to test drive while I was waiting. I'm sorry, Nissan may have inserted more do-dads in the interiors and increased the raw horsepower of the cars over the past 13+ years, but they sure as hell don't have anything that is as fun to drive as my 3,001 lb, 5 passenger, sport suspensioned, manual transmissioned 154,650 miles on the odometer Maxima SE. CVT transmissions? They can stick those where the sun doesn't shine. And the former "4-door sports car" isn't even a distant shadow of itself. The current Maxima is far more likely to be cross shopped against a Toyota Avalon or Buick whatever than a BMW 3/5 series. I knew Nissan was heading the wrong way 6 years ago when I test drove the 350Z against the Honda S2000. Similar "objective" performance numbers, according to the C&D, R&T, MT, the Bible and the Koran. But the S2000 was a 2,800 lb razor sharp 9,000 rpm ground up sports car and the 350Z coupe was a 3,300 lb (that's right 3000 lbs more than my Maxima) dull attempt to make money out of Nissan's spare parts bin. Same engine as the Maxima, Altima and Pathfinder. Yeah, that's how you reincarnate the spirit of the Z. And the convertible version of that car isn't a "roadster" it is an embrassing 3,600+ lb boat that even a castrated enthusiast wouldn't own. Somebody should be shot, and you can repeat that in 6-7 languages. I won't necessarily hold all of these recent transgressions against Nissan with respect to "objectively" evaluating the 3,900 lb GT-R when it finally comes out. But for someone who still thinks my 1995 Nissan Maxima was one of the best car purchase decisions that I ever made (right up there with my S2000 and 911S), I can't see how any warm blooded enthusiast can't be disturbed by the rest of Nissan's 2008 product line. There is not a single model that I would trade my 1995 Maxima even up for. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Mar 26, 2008 3:42 am) The GT-R actually has more in common with the Infinity platform than any other Nissans (Maxima, 350Z, etc). And the Infinities already get the pass because they are all Front-Midship RWD. I hate FWD altogether, so no Maxima, Accord, or Avalon is fit for comparison here. Frankly, I'd say Nissan and Toyota are more performance-oriented than Honda. They both have a line of RWD luxury GT cars. (Infinity and Lexus). Honda has FWD Acura's. So Honda built the S2000. Good for them. What else do they have that is RWD and sporty? Do they even have a GT car?
|
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Mar 26, 2008 6:58 am) I don't know by who's judgement at Nissan that the Maxima is "supposed" to compete with the Avalon, but they too should be shot (figuratively speaking) When I bought my 1995 Maxima SE 5-speed, it did compete effectively against the 328i in performance and the 528i in size. I will not defend FWD over RWD, but by your "objective performance is all that matters" standard, the Maxima was a couple tenths quicker 0-60, faster in the slalom, comparable on the skidpad. Granted, the BMW "felt" better with it's tighter steering and 50/50 weight balance, but hey, that "feel" doesn't matter if it can't be quantified at the track, right?? Most of the other buyers of Maxima's, especially the SE 5-speed model, that I knew back in the mid 1990's were more than capable of buying BMW's 3/5 series, Mercedes E classes, Audi A6's, etc. The Maxima was positioned below these other marquees in absolute luxury, but was still a JAPANESE built car of great fit and finish quality and very good driving dynamics. And the Maxima sales volumes for the 4th generation were at least triple or more what their pathetic sales are today. So, in turning the Maxima into a bloated Love Boat, Avalon competitor, the company pissed away hundreds of thousands of units in sales and any of the respect it once had as the "Japanese BMW". That, by the way, isn't my term, it's the cover story from the June 1994 Car and Driver. Has the Infiniti G picked up some of the gap vacated by the Maxima? Probably. But Nissan is now home to lower end cars like the Altima and Sentra that have virtually none of the professional demographic appeal of the former Maxima. And the 350Z is simply a heavily discounted, heavily weighted, wannabe sports car. Nothing compelling or inspirational whatsoever. Even a recent Wall Street journal article described Nissan's corporate strategy as competing with Kia and Hyundia for the low end of the market. "Former Maxima owners wouldn't recognize the place" was a not so humorous comment. Again, this is way off topic. But, frankly, it does raise the question of why it is the "Nissan" GTR rather than the "Infiniti" GTR? I can spend $70k-$100k on a sports car. Or $40-60k on a sports sedan. But what in the hell would I even look at besides a GTR when I stop by the Nissan dealership? At least if they got me into an Infiniti dealership with the GTR "halo" car, they could try to talk me into an M45. Of course I'd reject it out of pocket due to a slushbox only transmission, which is far more offensive to me than FWD, but that again is another issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Mar 26, 2008 7:38 am) They apparently tossed that option around some. But this car is Infinity-platformed. Nissan badge or not. Maybe they thought Nissan needed the help more. I've said this before, any car company can come out with one good product, even if the rest of their line sucks. Conversely, some good companies can come up with one bad product, but people still buy it because of the badge. Name-branding doesn't always hold true to form. Is the Z06 a good car? Yes. Does it make me wanna buy a Malibu? Not really. S2000 yes, Accord no. And so on... So if your argument is this car doesn't make you want a 350Z, I'm with ya. But if the 350Z makes you not want a GT-R, not totally following that logic.
|
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Mar 26, 2008 7:58 am) I generally agree - it's not a case that the 350Z makes me not "want" a GTR - I'd let the GTR qualties, or not, speak for themselves. But the fact that Nissan engineers blew it, in my opinion, on the 350Z means I am more hestitent to give them the benefit of the doubt until I actually drive the car myself. It's like the new house we are building. I had several DC area architects tell me,"sure, we can do a Frank Lloyd Wright Prairie style house". But when we looked at their portfolios, they were full of wannabe McMansions and "nice trys but not quites". We went with an achitect from Oregon who has been doing it "Wright" for about 20 years. Could we have ended up with a dud design? Sure, but the likelihood was a boatload lower than if we went with a local architect that would have needed to create a career masterpiece just to come close to a bad day at the drawing board from the architect we chose. And, thankfully, he got it plenty Wright for us. If Nissan's engineers have managed to create a 911 / 430 Modena competitor with almost no serious sports car resume behind them, then sincere congratulations to them. It's not easy to come out of college and go straight to the big leagues without proving yourself in AA ball. Had the 350Z truly been a "reincarnation" of the spirit of the 240Z, they probably would at least have had a few less skeptics in the crowd. Going back to redsoxgirl's post, I think we would all do well to reserve final judgement until we actually drive the car for ourselves. I'm not going to disregard that opportunity because it is badged a Nissan. But neither am I going to vote it into Cooperstown before opening day.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Mar 26, 2008 11:03 am) Nissan's interior and exterior leave me wanting. Same story with Mitsu. Evo X runs great, but they have a lot of useless plastic everywhere you look. So it may very well be with the GT-R. Performance-wise, I'd say this car has already 'arrived.' Pre-season is over, we know how fast the US-spec version will be. And its screwing with our ranking system. All this car is proving to me that all of our performance/weight ratios have not yet topped out. We are far from the pinnacle of automotive engineering as of yet. Don't like the styling? Me neither. But wait a few, because this car will force other brands to react performance-wise. It may end up being true that Honda's next-gen NSX blows the doors off this GT-R. Fine with me. An affordable supercar war is a good thing to have. Even if I buy the car that beats the GT-R, I still want the GT-R around as the car to be beaten. You can't play ball without a competitor.
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Mar 26, 2008 7:38 am) I can tell that you don't like the 350z and you do like the S2000, and everyone has their opinion. you've made it quite obvious. there's a saying about opinions though...  Nissan has changed since the mid nineties. the market doesnt call for it to be the "japanese bmw" and survive by being profitable. if you recall, in the mid to late nineties, nissan was floundering and big time. Now, nissan makes cars that appeal to a larger market, and what a surprise, they are back in the black, instead of bleeding money out the wazoo. unfortunately, you no longer like them, but people like you are in the minority - most people use cars as a means to get from point A to point B. Infiniti, which was just in its infancy in the early to mid nineties is now the "japanese bmw" which you can find quoted in many of today's automotive magazines. the G35/37 is commonly compared to the 3 series, and the M is frequently compared to the 5 series. companies do evolve - and so while nissan doesnt seem to be your cup of tea anymore (as you have so emphatically stated in your past posts) perhaps you will find that same passion you have for your 95 maxima in the new infinitis. and as far as the "slushbox" transmissions - im with you - i far prefer manual to automatic. unfortunately, our kind is few and far between these days, and we dont buy enough cars apparently to make companies keep the manual gearbox around. that's not nissan, thats everyone. as always, my two cents at least... -thene 
|
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Mar 26, 2008 11:44 am) I just hope the industry metric for performance dosn't go overboard with raw speed and horsepower at the expense of other driving dynamics. For example, AMG seems committed to putting 600+ hp and 700+ ft lbs of torque in vehicles with chassis and suspensions that are tested by half that amount. After about an hour of stomping on the gas pedal of a 2+ ton automatic transmissioned SL65, I would have experienced all of the fun I was ever going to have in that car. I never got tired of driving my far less powerful S2000. The latest direction of going to paddle shifting SMG's and DSG's is another example. They are supposedly the "best" performing transmssions in a track setting, but I've yet to meet one I'd like to have in my daily driver or sports car. I am willing to give up the ultimate performance and "launch control" gimmickry for a short throw six speed that fits my hand like a glove and keeps me in direct control of the enitre shifting sequence. At least if I mess up, I know it's my fault and not the computer programmers. I might think differently if I was buying a GTR or 911 turbo to test my best times at Nurburgring, but I am a long way off of being a good enough driver to do that. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: thenebean (Mar 26, 2008 12:38 pm) Which, I'll repeat, is why, in Nissan indeed does have some significant baggage to overcome with it's brand image when attempting to market at $75k+ sports car. I think I read the same WSJ article a couple of months ago that habitat was referring to. I tried doing a search on WSJ.com, but couldn't locate it. It pointed out the significant shift that has occurred in Nissan's product line, compared to Honda or Toyota. It essentially said, the compnay execs are going to try to compete with Kia and Hyundai with their new products. And, although the company has improved it's financial position, the WSJ article claimed this was far more through cost cutting in low end models than engineering or marketing prowess. It questioned whether Nissan had mortgaged it's future by going downscale and trying to compete with even lower cost Korean and Chinese producers. You should try to find the article and read it for yourself before you pat Nissan on the back. What this suggests to me is that the GT-R is NOT a long term player. It's a limited production halo car that has absolutely no relationship to anything else in the Nissan line-up. If it was produced by Kia as their one shot at glory car, would you buy it? Nissan may be great at building cheap cars that get people for "point a to point b" as you put it. But that's not why Porsche is the most profitable company in the world and why Ferrari has a 2-3 year wait list on every model. Nissan may be able to sell out their limited production a few hard core fans, but let's see how they do year after year. I have a tough time envisioning the lone heart surgeon or business executive in the Nissan showroom rubbing elbows with about 50 "mainstream" Nissan customers negotiating over payment plans on $10k-$15k econo-boxes. And I have an even tougher time envisioning the survival and continued evolution of the GT-R if Nissan gets whacked again in the balance sheet and income statement. Hell, even Acura let the NSX die a miseable death and that was a more revolutionary car when introduced in 1991 than the GT-R is today. |
|
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
