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: bigmclargehuge (Jul 11, 2008 9:29 am) The performance numbers in the C&D article I scanned were substantially below Nissan's claims and "hyped" numbers. Was that a bad apple or lemon that they tested? You tell me - and then please explain how that is a good excuse. Look at BMW and Porsche and you will rarely, if ever, see an actual road test of a production vehicle that is not significantly BETTER than the manufacturer's published or promoted figures. I don't have any axe to grind with the GT-R. How can I? I've never driven one myself. And after 14 years and 155k miles I continue to tout my 1995 Maxima SE 5-speed as perhaps the best near luxury sport sedan to ever come out of Japan. But I was equally dissapointed in the 350Z, hyped as a "reincarnation of the 240Z", WHEN I ACTUALLY DROVE ONE. So, for you, or anyone, to proclaim the GT-R a XYZ beater just because of what you've read shows a lack of self discipline and srutiny. I suspect you haven't even driven the 911 Turbo, GT-3, GT-2 or any of the other cars you think it has supplanted? Call that pretending or fantasizing, but it's hardly "fact".
|
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Jul 11, 2008 9:29 am)  Cooked numbers. That's how. Plus, we're talking about 2 entirely different beasts. GT-R is an automatic (DSG) transmission, the GT2 is a manual. GT-R is an AWD. GT2 is RWD. GT-R = Nissan. GT2 = Porsche.  Let me reiterate. Nissan HAS done a great job with the GT-R's hype. It has posted some impressive numbers. However, what I've been finding is that the numbers aren't matching up. Due to the fact that I'm way to lazy to scour the internet and find those articles, you'll simply have to take my word for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Jul 11, 2008 10:33 am) The Turbo is rediculously inconsistent on track times. Its disappointing actually. Had you bothered to look at the test I indicated, where Car and Driver could not get the Turbo to beat a Z51 Corvette? No, not a Z06, a Corvette of the 435hp ilk. There's your example. Like I said, the GT-R even on its worst day can almost catch a GT2. On its worst day, the Turbo can't catch a 46K Chevy. What's your excuse? What do I have to do to communicate to you, I don't want a GT-R? I like light cars. But this car is fast. I dealt with it. Nobody said 'better', nobody said 'more fun'. You guys think the GT-R is cooking numbers, yet it remains firmly in front of the Turbo and Z06. And right behind the GT2. Nobody has denied that. Sure, you say I'm bench racing, but y'all got no evidence that the Turbo doesn't suck on occasion too. And don't pull the 'well I drove one, so its faster' crap. What does it matter if you, I, or anyone has driven them when we're talking speed? How can I say it 'feels' faster? No, numbers are the only thing that count when we're talking 'fast'. And please, I'm sorry the 350Z broke your heart, but we've heard that a hundred times from you this year. Its also totally unrelated. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: madmanmoo (Jul 11, 2008 11:09 am) As one other member first brought up. You're basing your cooked numbers argument on a false premise. Rinse and repeat doesn't exist. Your 'analysis' of the GT-R vs. GT2 did nothing to explain how the GT-R is able to keep up if they are cooking the numbers. If its almost as fast as the fastest Porsche.... its fast. It doesn't go around a track powered by hype. It uses gasoline and tires same as the GT2. I'm not taking your word for it because, all the available evidence supports that it is in fact a 'Turbo beater', on any track, including the Nordscleiffe. The Turbo got owned already. Next.
|
|
|
|
|
Please watch. Japanese-spec customer-owned GT-R against 911 Turbo press car. Porsche was trying to cook something on this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtLCMQTq9Xo&NR=1 My favorite quote: "that was a against a press car, which Porsche meticulously prepped because they knew what we were going to do to it." Spoiler: the GT-R laps the short track a second faster. Sorry, the GT-R that will be available for you and me to buy, is faster than the 2008 Turbo. One bad 0-60 time has never interfered with its ability to lap tracks. Whereas the Turbo sometimes just forgets to go fast. |
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Jul 11, 2008 2:15 pm) Do you work for Nissan?? The C&D 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for the GT-R in the article I referred to are BELOW what they have tested a 911S at. Not a 911 Turbo, not a GT3, not a GT2. A plain old 911S like the one in my garage. Reread that if necessary. And let me say for the record that I am, indeed, opinionated. Not biased towards a particular brand, as I still think the 8 year old Honda S2000 is a better performing car than a brand new Porsche base Boxster. What I am perhaps biased upon is that "tossing around" a 2 ton sports car without a manual transmission is not something I dream about at night. I wish my 911S weighed 200 lbs less. But it's still a friggin African Cape water buffalo less in weight than a fat assed GTR. You can tell me how great of a job Nissan has done in compensating for that weight through AWD and suspension engineering. But my point in bringing up the the 350Z is that is exactly what Nissan and the press tried to claim. the Z does post some similar numbers to the S2000 and yet, in the hands of anyone that appreciates a nimble sports car, has nothing of the subjective feel. It's closer to my (350 lb lighter) 5 passenger Maxima than it is to the S2000. Until I get my own butt in a GT-R, I'm not giving Nissan the benefit of the doubt that it shouldn't be compared to the M6 and SL63 instead of the GT2, GT3 or Ferrari 430. But all personal subjectivity aside, where is Nissan's response to a GTR that can't even match a 911S, let alone the rest of the 911 line in that 0-60 / 1/4 mile drag racing title. I'm not the one that thinks "fast" is the holy grail, but since you apparantly think that is the "factual" standard, perhaps you could ask them to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Jul 11, 2008 4:33 pm) Why do you care so much about 0-60 anyway? Need something to cling to as a Porsche owner since Nissan started producing better track cars? One 0-60 time. One. Thats all you have to go on. And on the same day, it outran a Z06 around a track. I honestly don't care about one bad 0-60 time. And what do you mean re-read? I'm supposed to keep track of your car? Stop it with your silliness. Its still nearly as fast as a GT2 on its slowest day. Meaning, that the slowest test ever of the GT-R, it still would have beaten the Turbo around Buttonwillow. It competes with the elite of the elite. The Turbo, on its best day can't keep up with the GT2. There's a big gap in that performance. On its worst day, it can't beat a Z51. Speaking of Z51, there's a car that can do 0-60 in 4.1 seconds too under ideal conditions. Though Chevy quote's 4.5 seconds. Why? Because 4.1 is just on a good day, same with the C2S. Nine times out of ten, the GT-R will outrun you. By a lot. And your Cabriolet can't do it that fast anyway. The AVERAGE 0-60 time for your car is probably the 4.6-4.7 range that Porsche estimates. Its absolutely rediculous for you two to be claiming that there will be anything less than a spread of 0-60 times. You realize that when they put down a test number, they do it a number of times and take the best time, right? Tell me you've comprehended this. Once in a while, you'd outrun a Z06, or a Turbo, or an effin Veyron. How do I know this? Because 0-60 times are not repeatable. You have a range. Your competitor has a range. One day you might be on the fast end of your range and they might be on the slow end. Then you beat them. It happens. If you don't understand it, stop arguing. I know how this stuff is likely to work (i.e. facts), you know your opinions. Let's not cross over into unfamiliar territory. I don't care about the subjective feel of the 350Z vs. S2000. That is still no basis to discredit the GT-R as a track car. Enough already. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Jul 11, 2008 4:33 pm) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzEivL1Kruo&feature=related Quote: Now we could go up and down and get the optimum figures from the cars, but it seems to me that real world performance is what you can do given one chance Wait... 3.8 from the GT-R? 4.6 from the GT3? 5.2 from the M3? Preposterous! According to you experts, they have all cooked the numbers from the factory. Because for one blast down the highway, they didn't get their optimum numbers. Why do some performance tests come up with ideal numbers? Because they only write down the best times. 3.8 on the first try was 'very impressive' according to the Autocar driver (who is actually very impartial). Its likely that on a first try very few cars would do that good. Certainly not the Carrera S by a long shot. I looked at the test data of the Viper ACR, GT2, GT-R, Z06 comparison. And guess what? Only one acceleration test. 5 braking tests, but only one acceleration test. It didn't have a bad day, it had 1 bad run. 1 bad run to 60 and the witch-hunt begins.
|
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Jul 11, 2008 7:31 pm) Don't bother answering, as speculation really isn't my point. What is my point is that you fall squarely into the category of magazine reading, You-tube watching fantasizers that are ready to jump to a factual proclamation of superiority without ever having put your own butt into the drivers seat. Free country and that's your perogative. But please understand that there are some sports car enthusiasts and actual owners out there that actually think driving a car, rather than simply reading about it, is necessary to have an informed opinion. Jumping to the conclusion that Nissan has dethroned Porsche, Ferrari or anybody else based upon some pre-production runs at the Ring, cooked or legitimate, is IMO, immature. Fortunately, those that proclaimed Tiger Woods the greatest golfer to ever live based upon his first Masters win in 1997 have yet to be dissapointed. But those that were equally quick to proclaim Michele Wie the female Tiger Woods have had to hide their faces in embarassment as she can't even seem to make a cut. You think the GT-R is the automotive equivalent to Tiger Woods? I have my doubts. Unlike Tiger, who had father Earl training him to compete from the age of 3, Nissan as a company has had an embarrasingly weak sports car engineering department for the last 3 decades. The GT-R may have been one hell of an accomplishment for 2008, but hey, on a good day I can beat Tiger for a hole or two with some lucky shots. Frankly, if I were the speculating type, I'd give Acura better odds with the new NSX as being a long term contender. But I'm not. I'll hold my final judgement until I'm behind the wheel.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Jul 12, 2008 4:53 am) My understanding > yours. What throne? I said just the Turbo has been owned. Which is real. There are consistent track times that show the Nissan can go around any track, up to and including the Nordschlieffe faster than the Turbo. And with the GT-R being as fast around a track as a GT2 at Buttonwillow on stock tires and no extra horsepower, there is no reason they couldn't get a similar 'Ring time on stock tires and stock boost. Your speculation was again attempted, and again shot down. But please understand that there are some sports car enthusiasts and actual owners out there that actually think driving a car, rather than simply reading about it, is necessary to have an informed opinion. Give up on that already. It is ludicrous to think my opinion should change about which car is faster based on sitting in it. One has nothing to do with the other. My mind can't even comprehend how you think those two are related. Having worked on drag racing cars, it has been demonstrated that I just plain know more than you. The mechanical advantages are of interest to me without having sat in anything. They are things I have to know, to know my competition. The one bad 0-60 time isn't an excuse, thats just the nature of racing. If you had any knowledge of such things whatsoever, you'd have given that up already. Jumping to the conclusion that Nissan has dethroned Porsche, Ferrari or anybody else based upon some pre-production runs at the Ring, cooked or legitimate, is IMO, immature. And I'm certainly not the only one here doing that. Once again, you keep nagging about 0-60 times and Nurburgring times, yet think that the 'value' of a car is subjective. If you want to think that Porsches are more fun, more power to you, but sitting in one doesn't make it faster. If you want to have a conversation about looks, comfort, quality, reliability... we can have that discussion. But don't mix speed with subjective feel. Nissan as a company has had an embarrasingly weak sports car engineering department for the last 3 decades. The GT-R may have been one hell of an accomplishment for 2008, but hey, on a good day I can beat Tiger for a hole or two with some lucky shots. You are drastically misinformed. The GT-R was among the fastest production cars in the world in 1989. Then again in 1997. Nissan is no stranger to producing Porsche-beaters. At that time, there was not a single 911 that could compete. Now, at least there is the GT2. You're exaggerating about this car being the 'automotive Tiger Woods'. Don't put words into my mouth. Its beatable. The GT2 can handle it pretty thoroughly. It just exists in a notch above the Turbo class and any rational person should be able to see that after a year of evidence to that affect. And for the final time, I DON'T WANT A GT-R. I like light cars. But its fast. Ugly, heavy, but fast. |
|
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
