Sign In Join 



Are The Japanese Poised to Dethrone the 911 AND the Z06?

194 messages,  Last post on Nov 24, 2008 at 12:05 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Nissan GT-R, Automotive News, Motorsports, Coupe


Messages Page 2 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
20
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#5 of 194
Re: Ummm... no. [bigmclargehuge] by lemmer
Mar 10, 2008 (5:22 am)
Reply

Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Mar 10, 2008 3:58 am)

Remember when the Mitsubishi 300GT VR4 was "mopping up" everyone when it came out in 1990? The initial road tests confirmed this. After the new wore off, people noticed that it was a porky, 4WD technogeek mobile that really wasn't much fun to drive. People went back to their Corvettes and 911s while the 3000 faded away. I have no idea if this will happen again, but people quickly forget the recent past. How many times as the latest "sports car of the future" been heralded as the one to dethrone Vettes and 911s over the past 40 years anyway?
#6 of 194
Re: Ummm... no. [lemmer] by bigmclargehuge
Mar 10, 2008 (7:01 am)
Reply

Replying to: lemmer (Mar 10, 2008 5:22 am)

IMHO, that isn't quite relevant. Because you're forgetting the the VR4 for a while was mopping up the 964s and the C4 Corvettes. So nobody really got bored with the VR4, Porsche just responded with the 993 and Corvette with the C5. If anything, the VR4 forced the competition to respond with better performing vehicles. And really, they did it by just getting more power. The VR4 could have continued to mop up the competition if they kept updating it past 330hp. That engine is capable of 400+hp. Mitsu just decided to go another route.
 
They gave up on the aging 3.0L V6 coupe and focused on the 2.0L I-4 sedan. The Evolution has proved to be a very capable and fast car, and it is even more of a techno-geek mobile. The FQ-400 is more than a match for anything in its price range.
 
The VR4 fans just switched to sedans, the EVOs and the STIs, and a few others. And they are increasing in numbers. This new GT-R is going to be wildly popular, until Porsche and Corvette come up with something comperable.
 
Nobody gets bored with the fastest production car in its class.
#7 of 194
Re: Ummm... no. [bigmclargehuge] by lemmer
Mar 10, 2008 (7:46 am)
Reply

Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Mar 10, 2008 7:01 am)

Within a year of its introduction, C&D and R&T had the 3000 GT VR4 coming in last in comparison tests even behind the aged C4. I remember one test where it finished behind a 968 (with its NA 4-cylinder placed in a 1975 chassis). It wasn't even in the running with the other Japanese cars. It never mopped up much of anything, other than straight line acceleration to around 50 mph thanks to the AWD. With 300 reliable hp from a 300ZX, Supra, or C4 the VR4 became the answer to the question that nobody asked. Maybe they are better now, but at the time Mitsubishi was infamous for adding more boost than their drivelines and engines could handle. I think Chrysler first gave them that idea as they started doing this with the Conquest.
 
And how about resale? Price a '94 911 versus a '94 VR4. Started out new maybe 50% more, now worth 3-5 times as much.
 
That being said, I have higher hopes for the GT-R. I am just not ready to jump on the bandwagon before they even roll them out.
 
#8 of 194
Re: Ummm... no. [lemmer] by bigmclargehuge
Mar 10, 2008 (8:35 am)
Reply

Replying to: lemmer (Mar 10, 2008 7:46 am)

They've been rolled out, just not in the US. The recent tests are being done on production cars, not prototypes.
 
Could it be that in 1992 the Corvette got the LT1 engine and got bumped up by 50hp? And that this 911 you speak of was modified with a lighter chassis?
 
And you aren't really making any point with the resale values. There are still VR4s in good condition that go for 2/3 of their original purchase price. That's because its still a good platform, can be tuned-to-race at 600hp by an expert, or makes a great collectors item.
 
And what '911' are you talking about? A used 911 could be anything up to a 70K 993 GT2.
 
So where exactly are the 300ZX and the Supra now? I'll tell you, they got replaced by more advanced sedans, Evo and STI, just like the VR4. Same market, same fate.
 
The GT-R is what the 3000GT could have been with 10 years of improved technology. And guess what's currently mopping up the competition? I already said I expect Porsche and Corvette to make a comeback. But the GT-R is raising the bar again.
#9 of 194
Re: Ummm... no. [bigmclargehuge] by bumpy
Mar 10, 2008 (9:17 am)
Reply

Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Mar 10, 2008 8:35 am)

So where exactly are the 300ZX and the Supra now?
 
Those and the 3000GT got caught in the mid-90s vise of escalating insurance on one side and the appreciating yen on the other side. The NSX was always a top-dollar, low-volume halo car, and it did exactly what Honda expected of it.
#10 of 194
Re: Ummm... no. [bumpy] by bigmclargehuge
Mar 10, 2008 (9:33 am)
Reply

Replying to: bumpy (Mar 10, 2008 9:17 am)

Funny how only the low-end and high-end performance coupes survived.
 
I'm actually a big fan of that entire era of twin-turbo V6s. 300ZX, Supra, VR4. They could have all been great performers had they stuck around. Oh well, more stagetime for Nissan.
#11 of 194
Re: Ummm... no. [bigmclargehuge] by lemmer
Mar 10, 2008 (10:11 am)
Reply

Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Mar 10, 2008 9:33 am)

I guess my point got lost in there somewhere. To put it more simply, basic sports & GT cars like Corvettes and 911s (or even Miatas) stick around over the long haul. The latest and greatest technological tour-de-force has a really short shelf life.
 
Toyota pretty much gave up on the sports & GT market. The 300ZX got replaced (eventually) by the 350Z, a simpler non-turbo car. The RX-7 was replaced (eventually) by the far simpler non-turbo RX-8. See the minor trend going on here?
 
Any chimp can run heavy boost on a crappy car and brag about its performance. It didn't work on Porsche 924s in the 70s, Renault Fuegos and Chrysler K cars in the '80s or various Mitsubishis in the '90s.
 
I'll reiterate that I am not convinced this is happening with Nissan now. I am just a little skeptical.
#12 of 194
Re: Ummm... no. [lemmer] by bigmclargehuge
Mar 10, 2008 (10:45 am)
Reply

Replying to: lemmer (Mar 10, 2008 10:11 am)

There is something to be said for the Corvette's longevity even though for about 20 years it was only a name and a shadow of its former self.
 
You have to admit, there were plenty of years that the Corvette was just 'plugging along.' I think that mid-70's to mid-90's Corvettes just should never have existed. Honestly, if they just let it die when the first emissions controls took it down to ~200hp I would have tipped my hat to them. And if they resurrected it in its current form, it would have been all the more exciting.
 
But remember how the 3000GT's life story went. Introduced; put up a fight, competition fights back, 3000GT is updated, is epitomized in 1997-99 model year, and then die off before they become obsolete. Thats the exact same story for the Supra and the 300ZX. We'll always remember them as never having 'plugged along' for 20 years.
 
I don't think Mitsu is in the right place right now to develop a supercar. Acura and Toyota might have something special for us. If the GT-R is not your cup of tea, we are only a few years from having more variety.
 
If your comparison is right, we are at the very beginning of another 10-year battle between GT-R, NSX, Supra, Corvette, 911, and anyone else that wants to join the party. And the last model year of the 3000GT was significantly better than the first, so look for the 2019 GT-R to blow the doors off the current one.
 
10-year life span? Who cares, this is going to be bliss.
#13 of 194
Re: Ummm... no. [bigmclargehuge] by lemmer
Mar 10, 2008 (11:01 am)
Reply

Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Mar 10, 2008 10:45 am)

The scary thing is that from my hurried analysis 76-79 looks to be the best 4 year sales period (and of the worst performing cars) in Corvette history.
 
In cars I consider great, quite often the NA version is considered equally fun to drive as compared to the turbo version. This can be argued with 300s, RX-7s, MR-2s, 911s and so on. I don't know what any of this means to the GT-R other than technology and all out performance isn't the end all be all when measuring the worth of sports & GT cars. That being said, I sure would love to lap a track or even just drive down the street in a GT-R.
#14 of 194
Re: Ummm... no. [lemmer] by bigmclargehuge
Mar 10, 2008 (11:34 am)
Reply

Replying to: lemmer (Mar 10, 2008 11:01 am)

Off-topic; I'm glad you said that, because I was actually looking to pick up an N/A Gen-2 MR-2 without ever having driven one. So you've given me at least a little confidence.
 
On-topic; I agree that I wish the GT-R was a much lighter car and didn't get reviews saying it is like a video game to drive. But it is what it is, and I'm glad it's here.
 
If I got really bored with the GT-R, I'd start looking at what the aftermarket had to offer. Stiffer springs? Turbo intake and exhaust? Perhaps it could be made to feel more visceral. If it is so easy to drive at its current level, maybe take it up a notch until it feels challenging again (safety first though!)
 
Now if they want to throw the Turbo or GT-3 engine in the Carrera, in the 70K range, I'd be all over those even if they are slightly slower. Thats still crazy fast and fun. But we all know thats not going to happen.

Messages Page 2 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
20
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement