RANT: GTR comparisons

[impactX]

Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe

it has ricer mods like more hp (import style rice) more torque (domestic american truck style rice) and subtle changes to the body for aerodynamic and cooling purposes (extreme rice, ultimate definition of rice)

How much hp and torque are we talking about?

Originally Posted by Timpo

ok so I did some research and you're paying $80,000 extra for the following:

-carbon ceramic brakes
-rays nismo wheels
-bilstein suspension
-high grip tires
-recaro carbon seats
-removed rear seats
-titanium exhaust
-carbon rear spoiler
-carbon grill
-carbon brake duct
-carbon interior trim

not worth it

[JackyJai]

Originally Posted by Eastwood

Of course Nissan cheated. When a Porsche test driver tested the GT-R, they recorded times slower by 20 seconds than that of what Nissan claimed.

No one else except Nissan drives the GT-R on the Nurburgring now, so they can pretty much claim whatever times they want.

Even though they outright lied about everything regarding the GT-R, it hasn't hurt Nissan's sales.

And when every other auto media tested the GT-R and 911 Turbo the GT-R always got better time than 997 Turbo, except Porsche.
The Porsche test driver who tested the GT-R wasn't a professional race driver. That was the engineer of 911.

[Adrenaline Rush]

Originally Posted by ericthehalfbee

Sorry, but the ZR-1 has done a 7:22. The 7:26 was a GM test engineer, but when their test driver Magnusson went back he ran 7:22.

So Nissan cheated again to get a fast time? Why is this even newsworthy? Nissan is the biggest bunch of liars and cheaters there are when it comes to 'ring times.

Yes this topic has been beaten to death, but not fully discussed. My comments about Nissan cheating in the last thread have gone 100% unanswered by the Nissan fanboys, as always. Then they show up in some new thread talking about GTR 'ring times and when the evidence they cheated is presented they all leave the thread never to post again.

And the cycle repeats.

There has NEVER EVER been any sort of reasonable explanation to show why the GTR can stay side-by-side a ZR1 on the long straight at Nurburgring when EVERY SINGLE MAGAZINE TEST has the ZR1 (and even the Z06) walking away from the GTR in any sort of straight line run.

I really hope the video of this run is clearer than the last one. I want to dso another side-by-side comparison of this run vs the ZR1 down the long straight and see if it also stays even (which I'm sure it will) thereby PROVING that Nissan cheated AGAIN.

The Magnussen time for the ZR-1 is now being disputed as well. According to R&T, Magnussen was in the North America at the time.

http://forums.roadandtrack.com/showthread.php?t=36329

[Eastwood]

Originally Posted by JackyJai

And when every other auto media tested the GT-R and 911 Turbo the GT-R always got better time than 997 Turbo, except Porsche.
The Porsche test driver who tested the GT-R wasn't a professional race driver. That was the engineer of 911.

Never knew that. You could be right, I always thought different. Links?

[Pretz]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline Rush

The Magnussen time for the ZR-1 is now being disputed as well. According to R&T, Magnussen was in the North America at the time.

http://forums.roadandtrack.com/showthread.php?t=36329

pwned!

[BNR32_Coupe]

Originally Posted by impactX

How much hp and torque are we talking about?

70hp

I don't think the spec V version is worth it either, at +$50k for those mods, and a couple seconds difference at the track. There's these 550-570hp kits that cost about $7g. Of course, you'd have to do it yourself or take it to a reputable shop to install the parts, which would probably void the warranty, whereas the spec V is still warrantied since it's factory. I wouldn't go as far as to calling the parts ricer mods.

[ilvtofu]

what's the nurburgring time for the spec-v? or is nissan to embarassed that its probably slower than what they posted for the regular "stock" gtr?

[BNR32_Coupe]

Originally Posted by ilvtofu

what's the nurburgring time for the spec-v? or is nissan to embarassed that its probably slower than what they posted for the regular "stock" gtr?

their tsukuba lap time is actually 1 second slower than the stock GTR

[JackyJai]

Originally Posted by Eastwood

Never knew that. You could be right, I always thought different. Links?

Just google it.
It has been discuss here before as well.

[Skylox]

Something tells me the Spec-V is faster than the base GTR.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=144432

It outperforms the ZR-1 on the skidpad as well. Who knew there was more to speed than straight lines.

[penner2k]

One thing I would like to point out is that the GTR has so much computer stuff going on that it does make it easier to get really good lap times.
I know some people will say that you cant beat physics BUT..... a Stealth Bomber shouldnt be able to fly yet with all the computers they have in it they made it fly.

I'm not defending either way since like ppl have said this topic has been beaten to death already.

[GordonTse]

GTR is not that nice IMO. driven one slightly in the shop and it is way to jerking cuz of the tranny.. tonnes of electronics. you touch anything on the car and the car will know according to GTR tech at work.

edit: the one that i drove yesterday needed a new rear tire. retail was $1-1200 but gave it to customer for $700 because the car only had 3600kms. this guy did not drive it at all. mold foming around edge of spoiler, around tail lights, curbed rim, residue on the window and cowl cover seam.. this guy parked it outside forsure and probably has too much money.

[mpower]

it is the ugliest car, i've seen in a long time - pretty much like all the nissans. However, it is good value for money - as long as you don't use the transmission.