There are reasons for that.

Who decided this? That's my point.

Someday - they'll say - only true race cars are powering all four wheels, who wants to apply power to only two tires, when you can multiply your contact patch for power x2 by adding another axle?

Just sayin'. Why not raise the bar?

For example - novice driving a Z06 and a novice driving a GT-R or 997 Turbo (eventually 991) will net vastly different times.

People are complaining about how the Porsche Turbo or GT-R covers for a lack of skills. I say it introduces new ones.

Ever hand crank your car to start? Electric starters masked the art of starting your car right away...

Ever try to stop and change your tires during a race? Using one lug for racing does not equate to the 4 or 5 lug configuration of a street car.

I watched a driver pull in to the pits and get 4 tires and a steering wheel change in under 4 secs (Lewis Hamilton, late this season).

Engineering makes all of this possible. Why make excuses that somebody is masking an advantage? Jenson Button's trick diffuser - some could say he won the championship because of it, other teams took months to develop their own.

The bar is being raised.

Back in the day - factories would release their times achieved, magazines would review it, for a 'reality' check, and then people would purchase these cars and, unless trained, experience far slower performance. Now, cars are being built to enable people (such as my wife) to extract all of the advertised performance. What is wrong with that?

So I can actually use more of the car? And this is a BAD thing? I don't think so.

How do people with GT500's achieve the advertised 0-60, drag racing or 1/4 mile times? Change out the factory tires to something else that net the advertised time. Isn't this an advantage that covers a person's ability to launch a car?

 

^ Points taken, but I'd still say there's an art to driving well, and certain aids diminish the role of the driver more than others. When you have a computer helping you get through a corner by using sensor data and selectively distributing power to the four wheels and selectively braking one wheel, it's just not the same.

For the same reason, most musical instruments have remained relatively simple, despite the availability of advanced technologies. Acoustic guitars and pianos are still popular. Violins and their kin have remained about the same for centuries. And electric guitars are still primarily made from wood, have relatively simple pickups and electronics, and preferably go through tube amps without a lot of processing.

There can be such a thing as too much technology when the human touch is as important to us as objective performance.

Getting back to cars, IMO the GT-R is an incredible car if the goal is to experience speed. But I'd say that it's much less of a true driver's car compared to many simpler cars. Could I own one, for a while? For the sake of fun and variety, I think so, but I'd go into it with knowing what I was getting, and expecting to return to a simpler car at some point.

 

I have no argument with that statement assuming two otherwise identical cars (save for the "certain aids") that are lapping at the same speed. The implication here is that the aids allow higher cornering speeds. Higher speeds put additional demands on the driver.

 

WONDERFUL analogy. As a lifelong musician, it resonated with me.

I completely agree that race driving (or driving in general) is an art, and the truly artistic are a wonder to watch.

And I have no intention of singling out the GT-R either. It just happens to be the car being discussed. But the Turbo S, GT-R, Ferrari FF, Veyron, and soon the R8, are AWD with dual clutch transmissions. So I'm not trying to side with any specific car, just the moving forward in available technology/engineering.

 

What it comes down to is that we should stick to karting.

 

ok jasper, what exactly is that date, and what are the mods, please quote my posts for verification? You are quick to put your foot in your mouth with extremist contradictions and editions of peoples words if they don't agree with your nonsensical banter.

I've taken the gladiator approach to racing, man vs man, chumps stay at home. Needing all of those nannies are like the pro guys doping up to gain an advantage on the playing field.

I'd take an adjustable dual reservoir racing braking system over ABS any day as would any racer. Control the car with your foot, not the computer. I'd also take levered mechanical or hydraulic assisted steering vs electrical. I'd would even try no assistance. My point has always been there is more to engineering than throwing a computer in the car and telling it to do each and every little task. Which is the path Nissan has taken, and why the car is so heavy. Without significant upgrades EVERY YEAR, the GT-R would die a slow painful sales death akin to the NSX, Supra, etc etc. People get tired of the car doing everything for them and them not getting to feel the sensations of what's going on.

The GT-R does everything for you but mash the brake pedal and steer the wheel and it even has a hand in those. No interest to me.

 

Interesting you mention this..., as I looked at the worldwide sales of GT-R's (over 15k), it has met its sales target each year. Even, in fact going back over 20 years to the first modern GT-R, the R32 Skyline GT-R.
I guess people may get tired of it, eventually. Guess they're too busy passing people, they keep forgetting to trade it in.

I also find it funny you selectively single out the GT-R, as if the other cars I mentioned aren't going through the exact same evolution, such as the Porsche Turbo or Audi R8.

Even the Bugatti is constantly upgrading...

But I guess you have the freedom to isolate your frustrations if you so choose. I'll take the hit for Porsche.

 

Um yeah, read what I said, Nissan has had to release a new revision EVERY YEAR. You don't see a new refreshed R8 every year, or a new Porsche Turbo every year. Maybe once or twice in a generation.

Nissan continues to dump millions into developing the R35 effectively making their target sales moot. Which is why they extended the life span of it. You can spout numbers all you want, but that is proof in the pudding buddy.

Many a person switching to GT3's from GT-R's, so don't even try and sell that forgot to trade it in.

 

Okay - if you can (I understand if you can't), look at almost any other Nissan that Mizuno worked on - the progression of upgrades are annual. Look at the G35/G37.

And holy crap - there is so much flawed with your position it's unbelievable. Let me attempt:

There are some that don't want the upgrades, because it reduces resale value - which is still higher than Porsches (by percentage). So even to agree with you that Nissan upgrades to remain relevant (which is flawed to begin with), the resale values remain elevated, which would suggest that that you are incorrect (2009's that MSRP'd for $72k are selling for $63k 4 1/2 years later - happening right now, as we speak - a high mileage one at that).

So Porsches don't upgrade? Interesting. Perhaps somebody should tell them... And Lamborghini, and Aston Martin, and so on... Because it definitely appears that the standard for upgrades differ from manufacturer to manufacturer, even model to model. For some it is each year, for VW sometimes it is mid-year, for others it is two years, or even three years (with the occasional 1-year upgrade). So this nonsense of - Nissan has HAD to upgrade is laughable. The previous 15 years would suggest otherwise.

BUT - it was the plan all along (for the current GT-R - 3 stages, announced 2 years before the first sale in US). If you knew anything about the GT-R, you'd know why.

And extending the life of it? I thought it wasn't going to sell, die out a miserable death, resale values would plummet, it would be unreliable, etc...

Yeah, that turned out to be a bunch of crap, too right? You can spout all of this nonsense you want, buddy, but the proof is in the pudding.

Of course, all GT-R owners sell their cars to buy GT3's. There are absolutely no Porsche owners who have driven a Turbo and decided on a GT-R - ever.

So we went from too many nannies (that other cars have), to having to upgrade to sell (because they don't sell enough GT-R's, and no other manufacturer upgrades, and everybody should have the same philosophy).

Nail down your insecurities, so we can address them one at a time.

 

When buying cars like this, you are buying a badge or status symbol that's it. The bang for buck argument is simply not valid, because neither of these two cars are even close to the most performance for dollar you could get out of a car.

 

So you are saying that Nissan began with the intention of the R35 running until 2017?????

You have seen the trend in sales, they go down down down dismal, and then Nissan comes out with a major revision to boost sales again. Don't even try and act like you haven't seen it.

None of the companies you mention have had to sell new revisions and performance numbers every year to remain relevant. Please show us the years and the upgrades that came out EVERY YEAR of the other brands you mention. And where the 370z was upgraded EVERY YEAR...........

You seem to always leave out the pertinent information. EVERY YEAR........


I'm insecure? Who is the one trolling Porsche forums with an alert every time GT-R is mentioned jumping in to defend it. Let's find any thread in the last year where something negative about the GT-R was said, and you didn't jump in to defend it..........

Who's insecure again?

 

I'll wait until you address the relevant points.

(Also until you see I was just defending the Porsche Turbo not more than 11 posts ago - I understand your insecurity blinding you, though... It's okay, we are here for you)

I'll even recommend that you read up on the GT-R and it's plan from its inception to upgrade annually.

Here is a hint, hc - do you know the end target of the GT-R?

And actually, it slowed the upgrades, because the sales were doing too well, it expanded the timeline. I guess you were right, hc, the sales were too good, it was time to upgrade... Wait, that's the exact opposite of what you said. Oh dear...

The original target for the first 4 years was 6,000 in N/A. They sold 6,800. Crap, you missed that one, too.

I'm sure if we look hard enough - we can find something that supports your perspective.

Forged Performance had a GT-R, then bought a GT3, but then, wait, they immediately sold the GT-R? Nope. They bought a new GT-R, too? Yup.

Sorry, I tried. We'll look for some shred of supporting evidence that the GT-R sucks (other than personal preference).

 

All that yada yada, and you still won't admit that prolonging the life expectancy is admitting failure to anyone that isn't blinded by Nissan's lies. Where is the part (before release) where Nissan said the GT-R's goal was to run until 2017? Show us that one.

You know lies, like the one where Mizuno said there was no launch control, and that the 4500 rpm clutch dumps were to get you out of the snow........ Sure only .0001% of gearboxes failed too right? Yet, you can find people who have replaced one everywhere. I know a few myself. LOL.

Forged performance makes 100's of thousands on the GT-R, so it makes sense that they have a shop car. And yes, they did in fact sell that GT-R (shows what you know), but the owner is close to Sharif so they keep the car there. LOL. Foot in mouth once again.

 

Please read carefully. You may need some aids (nannies, etc...), to cover up your assumptions.

I had never said they did not sell the old one. I said they bought a GT3 and did NOT sell it immediately. Now I'm not going to get into the specifics of another shop - they can hold their own. If you read the threads on here at 6speed, you'd see the history. But they don't have a new blue GT-R, because they bought a GT3, right? Because according to you, they sold their GT-R and bought a GT3 (I can find that quote by you, if you need help).

I simply stated the opposite - they had a GT3, and bought a GT-R. They were not replacing the GT3. But you took what you wanted out of that, and turned it into whatever you needed. No problem.

For the 20th time (because for some reason, you didn't get it the last 19 times), launch control was illegal in Japan. It still isn't called Launch Control. It is called R-mode start. It is a play on words. WE call it launch control. If you need assistance with this, I'll help out. But it gets technical and boring with details.

The car was to be released over 5 years (original plan) 7500 was the press-released target (back in 2006), 2009 - 2013. There was a planned 3 stage process with incremental changes. The fact that you don't know this, answers the question you missed - what is the end goal for the GT-R?

Because you don't know this (or even why it is relevant), everything else is moot. So I'll stop here, because clearly, you don't understand, and I'm tired of repeating the same thing.

I get it. You don't like the GT-R. I can't apologize for its performance or reliability. It is not for everyone.

It is clearly achieving its intended goals. You can disagree all you want. But it will still do what it was advertised to do - be driven by anyone anywhere.

 

Is there any definitive evidence that the GT-R in the hands of a complete amateur can be driven just as quickly as a professional? I haven't seen an article doing a shootout like that.