Last post on Nov 24, 2008 at 1:05 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
Nissan GT-R, Automotive News, Motorsports, Coupe
#165 of 194 Re: why no follow up posts [lemmer]
May 06, 2008 (2:28 pm)
Power/weight ratio is fast becoming less meaningful for road-courses. Especially when you throw AWD into the mix. Forget the 'Ring times for a second, and look at how that translates to other road courses. GT-R has the Z06 and 911 Turbo by several seconds; whenever, wherever.
Even with a comparatively pathetic power/weight ratio, just look at how the R33 lines up against the C6 Z51. Similar track times, 100 less hp. Same weight. AWD.
I doubt they will modify the car heavily for a 'hot lap' and not put it into production that way. They don't want to be embarrased in all the other journalist tests. Their reputation is on the line, and it has to be repeatable.
For example, Porsche wouldn't dare lie about using cut tires for their 7:32 GT2 run. They tend to always be modest and conservative with their numbers. They obviously don't want to get BS called on them.
Though I don't take those bystander times seriously. For all we know they might have quoted the V-spec doing a 7:25 and that was the lap that the GT-R did 7:29.
ZR1 will likely be 1/4-mile King. No argument here.
#166 of 194 Re: why no follow up posts [bigmclargehuge]
May 06, 2008 (3:01 pm)
Do you know of any reliable road course comparisons done with the GT-R other than the one by R&T?
The American car companies have a storied 40-50 year history of using outright ringers and loaning them to car magazines (who were sometimes willing accomplices). The Germans have historically been conservative. The old guard Japanese (Honda and Toyota) have historically been accurate or slightly conservative. Some of the others (Nissan, Mazda, Mitusbishi) have been known to be optimistic with test data and hp numbers.
#167 of 194 Re: why no follow up posts [lemmer]
May 06, 2008 (3:33 pm)
Both against the GT3 though.
Yes, there was a point where I had essentially lost all hope for American automotive journalism and the obvious pro-big 3 bias they had. I guarantee in some of those tests, the winning car had the fattest envelope waiting in the glove compartment when the reviewer got in, if you catch my drift. But from what I can see these days, its either getting better or they're hiding it better.
As far as Nissan goes though, they were always highly conservative with the GT-R's power ratings. They certainly didn't inflate those numbers for the purpose of selling more cars. They underrated the R34 by about 50hp.
#168 of 194 Re: why no follow up posts [bigmclargehuge]
May 07, 2008 (6:10 am)
A little off topic, but sometimes I still wonder about the car magazines. There was much rejoicing over the new Malibu - the new Camry/Accord killer (or at least their equal). I rode in a new Malibu and it looked and felt like a late '90s Buick. Nice for old people, I suppose.
Was the prior GT-R underrating part of the whole 280 hp limit deal?
#169 of 194 Re: why no follow up posts [lemmer]
May 07, 2008 (6:56 am)
Yeah, I guess you're right about the mags. Maybe not much has changed.
Yes, the 'gentlemen's agreement' was that no Japanese manufacturer would go over 280hp or so. Since this left them at a severe disadvantage to German manufacturers, the only people who benefitted from such an agreement were the ones who broke it.
Nissan was getting closer to 280hp at the wheels in the R34. Thats why many people don't really trust the 473hp at the crank rating they are giving the R35.
I suppose you could argue motive there for Nissan. But they also undercut it's acceleration. Edmunds beat the 0-60 and 1/4-mile that Nissan posted. I think their conservatism with this car has more semblance to the marketing strategy of the car they benchmarked against, the 911.
Switching gears a little bit, I don't judge a car on the brand because of the Z06 example. GM makes BS products if you ask me, but the Corvette plant in Kentucky has a phenominal attention to detail in comparison to the rest of the company (except for Holden). If they paid as much attention (years ago) to what customers want in all of their vehicles as they do for the Z06, that company would never have reported a loss. Thats my take anyway.
Similar to Nissan, they can pay a lot more attention to the GT-R assembly line, and market it totally differently from their other cars.
#172 of 194 handling not fun
May 30, 2008 (6:11 pm)
The critics who drove the GT-R probably drove the ZO6 and other crap that you people regard as supercars so of course the GT-R would have felt almost unrealistic. The critics complain that the other cars don't have good handling but when they get a car with the handling of a GT-R they say it is no fun. You people do realize that you can switch of the VDC anytime you want?
#174 of 194 Too much hype!?
Jul 30, 2008 (7:53 am)
I own a 2009 GT-R and a 2007 Z06. The Z06 was $3,000.00 more than the GT-R "out-the-door." Other than a Diablosport Predator tune, the Z06 is completely stock. The GT-R CANNOT keep up with the Z06 on road courses or 1/4 mile drags. My best 0-60: in the Z06= 3.8; in the GT-R= 4.1. Road course times: GT-R is consistently 2-3% slower in overall times. 1/4 mile is no contest! Z06 best is 11.8 sec. for me. GT-R is 12.4!! R&T, etc. are on drugs or being paid to help sell the GT-R!