Nissan GT-R Superior?
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,930
From: ga
Rep Power: 552
GT-R is AWD which disqualifies it from most all racing series. It was built to be an affordable, high content, super-car for the masses. It was not built to be a competitive race car. The GT-R that ran super GT-500 in japan placing 1-2, while finishing 25 seconds ahead of the 3rd place finisher, is a 4.5L V8 with RWD. It is no more a GTR than the NASCAR Toyota entry is a Camry.
I personally love the GT-R not because of its relevance to other marque's out there. I just love underdogs. Nissan makes mass produced passenger cars sure; but they also make marine outboards, motorcycle engines, and industrial diesel engines. It is Nissan Motor Corporation. The GT-R is a halo to represent their engineering know-how. Most Halos loose money. The GT-R cannot be produced fast enough to sate demand. That is the story here, that is the hype. 70k buys you 130k+ performance. Corvette did that, the american way. Huge displacement V8, light weight construction. Pretty simple math, which is why I think some less open minds such as HC cling so desperately to the old philosophy of what ingredients make a premier sports car. Nissan took a very Japanese approach to engineering their vehicle. Sure its heavy, but its extremely aerodynamic. It is just out of the box thinking. I wish more people could appreciate this car on it's merits.
I personally love the GT-R not because of its relevance to other marque's out there. I just love underdogs. Nissan makes mass produced passenger cars sure; but they also make marine outboards, motorcycle engines, and industrial diesel engines. It is Nissan Motor Corporation. The GT-R is a halo to represent their engineering know-how. Most Halos loose money. The GT-R cannot be produced fast enough to sate demand. That is the story here, that is the hype. 70k buys you 130k+ performance. Corvette did that, the american way. Huge displacement V8, light weight construction. Pretty simple math, which is why I think some less open minds such as HC cling so desperately to the old philosophy of what ingredients make a premier sports car. Nissan took a very Japanese approach to engineering their vehicle. Sure its heavy, but its extremely aerodynamic. It is just out of the box thinking. I wish more people could appreciate this car on it's merits.
The OLD philosophy of a premier sports car????
Possibly because I get my philosophy from the track and not the magazines.
The old theories of less weight, which helps everything on the car included the consumable items (tires, brakes, suspension over time), driver involvement are still the most popular at the track, and the GT-R will not change that, there is no old philosophy, there is THE philosophy. Sports cars should be the closest thing to racing for the every day driver, and that's why the tried and true concepts in racing always get to sports cars first, and sports cars are the ones you see on the track.
But let me get this right, a sports car should:
-remove the driver from the experience and replace them with gadgets?
-be heavier and AWD?
-be torque heavy and rev deficient?
-eat through brakes and tires like mad?
All of these apply to the TT as well, which even I dont consider the ideal sports car, it's good for time attacks and occasional DE's and takes quite a bit of work even then. But that's about it. The purest of sports cars is on that can go straight to the track and race an enduro, and that will never change. What we are talking about is cars that are everyday drivers mixed with sports car. A hybrid so to speak.
One thing about tracking is that it always brings your deficiencies to the fore front. And while Nissan did their best to cover that weight up, it WILL take it's toll on the track, that is a garauntee.
For normal street driving, which doesnt really test the sport in sports car, leave that for the people who like to have a car and talk about what it can do and not actually explore the limits. Which there is nothing wrong with, but if you are going to talk about sports car then count ALL benefits and deficits when it comes to what the car was intended for.
Look at all that had to be done to cover up the weight of this car. AWD, DSG with extra short gearing, great aero, and that still only covers it up to 100 mph where it gets left in the dust. Once you get new wheels, which is what you'll have to do in order to add negative camber and adjustability to the car, watch how fast the car overheats and eats through tires when doing hot laps. You cant out engineer weight, only cover it up. We'll see just how good the build quality is when people try and lap these cars for years and the suspensions take that extra beating for being so heavy and trying to keep up with lighter cars.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 61
From: southern california
Rep Power: 21
That might have been the case prior to 2004? but since JGTC became SuperGT the competition opened up for both GT500 and GT300 classes. I think...I'll have to look it up again.
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 241
From: UK
Rep Power: 30
'Sports' is about competing. A sports car should hammer the competition. Check.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 16,073
From: Minneapolis, Mn
Rep Power: 1071
I've never made the argument that Porsche is superior due to any kind of tradition or heritage. I don't know any of the racing history stats or wins or whatever. I don't follow ALMS, F1, etc. I don't spoon with the Hamilton "real doll" at nite.
What I know is that Porsche makes cars that are beyond what is "consumer" grade. The vehicles are overengineered, overspec'd, and most components have been designed to withstand severe duty usage. Since I have been hotrodding/tuning/repairing cars for over 20 yrs now I have not come across any mass produced cars that are built this way. Almost every "sports car" that has been built won't make an entire weekend on a track due to either under spec'd brakes, under spec'd cooling systems, under spec'd lubrication systems, or poor manufacturing tolerances. Behind the performance numbers are the little details that none of the magazine statisticians pay attention to:
Every BMW M car has inadequate brakes. Every Z06 has inadequate brakes (C6 is better). 1st 2-3 high speed stops will be exhilarating, the next 3 will be puzzling, then the 3 after that will be life endangering. Every Audi has weak drivelines prone to axle and differential failures. No manufacturer has withstood the real world endurance testing the way Porsche has. I can buy a reasonably maintained 10 year old Boxster, take it onto the track and expect it to perform without failure. Power steering won't boil over, brakes won't warp, synchro won't crunch, con rods won't punch out the crankcase. I track a 140k+ mile stock block 2.5l 944 turbo - 22 years old now - and can turn laps as fast as almost anyone out there all weekend long. More of the PCA club racecars are from the 70's and 80's than from the 90's - a testimony to their hardiness.
As far back as the mid 80's every Porsche down to the most entry model has come with 4 piston calipers and ventilated discs front and rear. This is something no M3 has had until present day, and even now the new E92 M3 brakes are still inadequate for more than a couple of hot laps. While every sports car has to wait for the aftermarket to make a kit to fit Brembos to their car, it has been standard on the Porsches for decades.
Porsche hasn't made a car with less than 7 quarts of oil capacity, even on its 4 cylinders. Compare that to a 6 quart small block Chevy or a 4 quart commuter. Almost every 911 takes 9 or more quarts of oil. The turbo 911 has NINE oil pumps in it to ensure adequate lubrication under extreme conditions - i.e. sustained high g cornering for more than 20 seconds. The oiling has defoaming systems built in to ensure constant feed of high pressure lubricant as well. With many sports cars you'd be lucky to find even a simple door flapper baffle in the oil pan. Turn >1.5g on a long oval and many other cars will see oil starvation.
Almost every system in the Porsches has auxiliary cooling - not just engine oil coolers, but tranny coolers, brake cooling ducts, etc. Porsche ensures that the car will perform just as well on the 20th lap as the 1st two.
Structurally as well, there are no cut corners. While other sportscars see mounting points bend or even fail under track duty - sway mounts, strut mounts, subframes - especially after fitting higher rate springs, dampeners, or sways there typically is no problem seen on the Porsches. Nothing has to be reinforced because it was engineered already to encounter those increased loads. The most basic 911 shares the same tub as the highest end Gt3RS or even Cup Car.
So you ask who is the underdog? Nissan is more of a Walmart or Harbor Freight. Their focus is on volume. With a manufacturing capacity of >3 million cars their development costs for sports cars can be spread out in ways that Porsche could not dream of until recently. Nissan can purchase from subcontractors and manufacture their own components with an economy of scale unobtainable by Porsche. The question is not whether Nissan is the underdog in the supercar game today, but rather why Nissan would ever be in such a position anyway since it has has the resources to be in the game for a long time - perhaps due to pure indifference or incompetence? If I was an enthusiast I would not find much solace in either possibility.
It is the same phenomenon seen in many other venues as well. I have been building and racing mountain bikes for years. Many of the Taiwanese bike companies can make a cheaper, more feature laden bike than someone like Litespeed. The bike may be 27 speeds and with disc brakes and have lockout capabilities on the rear suspension but the componentry will almost be less durable. I'd rather have 21 or 24 speed Shimano XTR than 27/30 speed Alivio.
What I know is that Porsche makes cars that are beyond what is "consumer" grade. The vehicles are overengineered, overspec'd, and most components have been designed to withstand severe duty usage. Since I have been hotrodding/tuning/repairing cars for over 20 yrs now I have not come across any mass produced cars that are built this way. Almost every "sports car" that has been built won't make an entire weekend on a track due to either under spec'd brakes, under spec'd cooling systems, under spec'd lubrication systems, or poor manufacturing tolerances. Behind the performance numbers are the little details that none of the magazine statisticians pay attention to:
Every BMW M car has inadequate brakes. Every Z06 has inadequate brakes (C6 is better). 1st 2-3 high speed stops will be exhilarating, the next 3 will be puzzling, then the 3 after that will be life endangering. Every Audi has weak drivelines prone to axle and differential failures. No manufacturer has withstood the real world endurance testing the way Porsche has. I can buy a reasonably maintained 10 year old Boxster, take it onto the track and expect it to perform without failure. Power steering won't boil over, brakes won't warp, synchro won't crunch, con rods won't punch out the crankcase. I track a 140k+ mile stock block 2.5l 944 turbo - 22 years old now - and can turn laps as fast as almost anyone out there all weekend long. More of the PCA club racecars are from the 70's and 80's than from the 90's - a testimony to their hardiness.
As far back as the mid 80's every Porsche down to the most entry model has come with 4 piston calipers and ventilated discs front and rear. This is something no M3 has had until present day, and even now the new E92 M3 brakes are still inadequate for more than a couple of hot laps. While every sports car has to wait for the aftermarket to make a kit to fit Brembos to their car, it has been standard on the Porsches for decades.
Porsche hasn't made a car with less than 7 quarts of oil capacity, even on its 4 cylinders. Compare that to a 6 quart small block Chevy or a 4 quart commuter. Almost every 911 takes 9 or more quarts of oil. The turbo 911 has NINE oil pumps in it to ensure adequate lubrication under extreme conditions - i.e. sustained high g cornering for more than 20 seconds. The oiling has defoaming systems built in to ensure constant feed of high pressure lubricant as well. With many sports cars you'd be lucky to find even a simple door flapper baffle in the oil pan. Turn >1.5g on a long oval and many other cars will see oil starvation.
Almost every system in the Porsches has auxiliary cooling - not just engine oil coolers, but tranny coolers, brake cooling ducts, etc. Porsche ensures that the car will perform just as well on the 20th lap as the 1st two.
Structurally as well, there are no cut corners. While other sportscars see mounting points bend or even fail under track duty - sway mounts, strut mounts, subframes - especially after fitting higher rate springs, dampeners, or sways there typically is no problem seen on the Porsches. Nothing has to be reinforced because it was engineered already to encounter those increased loads. The most basic 911 shares the same tub as the highest end Gt3RS or even Cup Car.
So you ask who is the underdog? Nissan is more of a Walmart or Harbor Freight. Their focus is on volume. With a manufacturing capacity of >3 million cars their development costs for sports cars can be spread out in ways that Porsche could not dream of until recently. Nissan can purchase from subcontractors and manufacture their own components with an economy of scale unobtainable by Porsche. The question is not whether Nissan is the underdog in the supercar game today, but rather why Nissan would ever be in such a position anyway since it has has the resources to be in the game for a long time - perhaps due to pure indifference or incompetence? If I was an enthusiast I would not find much solace in either possibility.
It is the same phenomenon seen in many other venues as well. I have been building and racing mountain bikes for years. Many of the Taiwanese bike companies can make a cheaper, more feature laden bike than someone like Litespeed. The bike may be 27 speeds and with disc brakes and have lockout capabilities on the rear suspension but the componentry will almost be less durable. I'd rather have 21 or 24 speed Shimano XTR than 27/30 speed Alivio.
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 241
From: UK
Rep Power: 30
ZO7 how do you always manage to get into these pissing matches with long time 6speed members on every thread you subscribe to? I thought the mod already addressed this with you the last time you were reinstated after your ban? What makes you such an expert on racing anyways?
Last edited by Z07; Apr 13, 2008 at 06:36 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,447
From: Knoxville,Tennessee
Rep Power: 215
I never claimed to be an expert, I'm just expressing an opinion from a bystander's point of view. I can't see why you're taking it so personally. I've praised the Porsche GT1, there is nothing anti-Porsche about my expressed sentiments. It's only due to HC's insecurity that this has turned into a Japan vs Porsche bum-fight. My comments were focused solely on the current LMP classes.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,447
From: Knoxville,Tennessee
Rep Power: 215
We're going at this again?!
This almost as stupid as the kid who tried to convince me there was 'GT4' Porsche.
You were saying that ALMS was a 'minor league' for companies that were not in Formula One. That statement is completely wrong. You also said LMP cars have no relation to their street cars, but should.
Well guess what? Porsche has proven they can build a Formula One engine, where do you think the Carrera GT came from? It can be argued that the engine came from a prototype Porsche was working on for another racing series, but that's another story.
Porsche and Audi don't need to go into Formula One. They're too proven in motor sports and simply would not benefit from F1. Audi's R10's are the most developed/ highly engineered race cars in the world behind Formula One cars, I think that proves that they could hold their own in Formula One. They also are the most durable race cars when it comes to endurance racing. Oh, and you said endurance races were a joke, right?
I'd like to see Ferrari develop something that could hold up that long.
I've proven the facts, I've laid them out there, but some how you don't comprehend common racing facts.
h@v3 fUn @t d@ NiSS@n B0@rD$
This almost as stupid as the kid who tried to convince me there was 'GT4' Porsche.
You were saying that ALMS was a 'minor league' for companies that were not in Formula One. That statement is completely wrong. You also said LMP cars have no relation to their street cars, but should.
Well guess what? Porsche has proven they can build a Formula One engine, where do you think the Carrera GT came from? It can be argued that the engine came from a prototype Porsche was working on for another racing series, but that's another story.
Porsche and Audi don't need to go into Formula One. They're too proven in motor sports and simply would not benefit from F1. Audi's R10's are the most developed/ highly engineered race cars in the world behind Formula One cars, I think that proves that they could hold their own in Formula One. They also are the most durable race cars when it comes to endurance racing. Oh, and you said endurance races were a joke, right?
I'd like to see Ferrari develop something that could hold up that long.I've proven the facts, I've laid them out there, but some how you don't comprehend common racing facts.
h@v3 fUn @t d@ NiSS@n B0@rD$
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20
From: Boston, LA & Taiwan
Rep Power: 0
I'm not 100% sure either. I don't know if foreign cars are banned from GT500 completely, or if they don't allow them to undergo the extensive bodywork their Japanese counterpart receives.
Last edited by bchang; Apr 13, 2008 at 07:31 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,028
From: Houston
Rep Power: 201
According to Motor magazine the GT-R engine was designed with a target life of 180k miles or so, but the plasma spray cylinder linings are less hardy than hoped and will require an engine-out re-bore/re-spray every 60k miles - sooner if the engine output has been raised. If this is true the depreciation curve is going to drop faster and uglier than Jonny Fairplay off Danny Bonaduce....
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 241
From: UK
Rep Power: 30
Porsche and Audi don't need to go into Formula One. They're too proven in motor sports and simply would not benefit from F1. Audi's R10's are the most developed/ highly engineered race cars in the world behind Formula One cars, I think that proves that they could hold their own in Formula One.
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 241
From: UK
Rep Power: 30
According to Motor magazine the GT-R engine was designed with a target life of 180k miles or so, but the plasma spray cylinder linings are less hardy than hoped and will require an engine-out re-bore/re-spray every 60k miles - sooner if the engine output has been raised. If this is true the depreciation curve is going to drop faster and uglier than Jonny Fairplay off Danny Bonaduce....
the B10 life for the engine was targeted at 300,000 km. The B10 life is a statistical measure of how many engines will require any major engine work before this point....in other words, 90%+ of engines should be durable up until this point without any major re-work.