Edmunds 911 Turbo BEATS GT-R 0-60, 1/4 Mile
#31
05-07-2008, 05:00 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550 
#1 As eclou mentioned Dynapacks typically read higher than other dynos, in fact the highest out of all of them. Which is why even the stock dynapack numbers have been tossed to the side. The stock GT-R is not making 487 whp, that's petty well accepted. In fact that is closer to the stock crank hp.
#2 The Ruf R turbo is based on the 996 Turbo, and the 997 Turbo motor has proven to be stronger already, running less compression, so at least compare apples to apples.
#3 Even if hte Ruf R turbo didnt have titanium rods, the 996 Turbo motor has handle much more than 590 hp and been fine, in fact there are tons of them on this board alone.
#32
05-07-2008, 05:01 PM
Anyone know where HC lives? I feel like sending him champagne and confetti...
PS...you said one post, liar.
On a serious note, the factors that go into a .2 sec difference between cars are pretty numerous and in the grand scheme of things that isn't much of a performance difference between cars. That and we don't live in a fast and furious world so meh to that.
I would like to see a bunch of runs done with two delivery spec cars...I would imagine that they would be equal give and take driver consistency and etc. This one test here and one test there is just annoying in such a close race.
On the track, (yes HC, i saw your 996TT vs GT-R thread in the GT forum) you have to account for the 1) ease of driving for most drivers and 2) better braking and handling (slalom/G rating) which could tip the scale in the favor of the GTR.
That being said, I seriously don't understand the ring times of the GTR. Provided the latest edmunds test showing that it is seemingly identical to a TT on the 1/4 and I would assume slower thereafter where is it getting all those seconds? Braking and cornering ability? If anyone has any insight on that, that'd be nice...
PS...you said one post, liar.
On a serious note, the factors that go into a .2 sec difference between cars are pretty numerous and in the grand scheme of things that isn't much of a performance difference between cars. That and we don't live in a fast and furious world so meh to that.
I would like to see a bunch of runs done with two delivery spec cars...I would imagine that they would be equal give and take driver consistency and etc. This one test here and one test there is just annoying in such a close race.
On the track, (yes HC, i saw your 996TT vs GT-R thread in the GT forum) you have to account for the 1) ease of driving for most drivers and 2) better braking and handling (slalom/G rating) which could tip the scale in the favor of the GTR.
That being said, I seriously don't understand the ring times of the GTR. Provided the latest edmunds test showing that it is seemingly identical to a TT on the 1/4 and I would assume slower thereafter where is it getting all those seconds? Braking and cornering ability? If anyone has any insight on that, that'd be nice...
#33
05-07-2008, 05:14 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550
I tried man, I tried.
I have no idea how the GT-R is stopping so fast in the 60-0, but the M3 is similar and has set some pretty stupid 60-0's itself for having such paltry brake calipers which have been known to fail a time or two.
With those 15in brakes in the back, maybe they are using a speed sensitive braking that uses more of the rear at lower speeds (like 60-80) because it wont throw the car into a spin if you are on the brakes, where most concentrate heavily on the front and most brakes these days easily overpower the stock tires sending the car into ABS and lengthening the braking zone.
I have no idea how the M3 can do sub 100 feet which it has, maybe many people are applying this technique. As far as it's cornering, we'll never agree, I think the TT and GT3 and Z06 have just been poorly tested against it because they'll match or beat it in many tough corners and then completely lay an egg at some random part in the track, I think more consistent driving by the mag drivers is in order.
I have no idea how the GT-R is stopping so fast in the 60-0, but the M3 is similar and has set some pretty stupid 60-0's itself for having such paltry brake calipers which have been known to fail a time or two.
With those 15in brakes in the back, maybe they are using a speed sensitive braking that uses more of the rear at lower speeds (like 60-80) because it wont throw the car into a spin if you are on the brakes, where most concentrate heavily on the front and most brakes these days easily overpower the stock tires sending the car into ABS and lengthening the braking zone.
I have no idea how the M3 can do sub 100 feet which it has, maybe many people are applying this technique. As far as it's cornering, we'll never agree, I think the TT and GT3 and Z06 have just been poorly tested against it because they'll match or beat it in many tough corners and then completely lay an egg at some random part in the track, I think more consistent driving by the mag drivers is in order.
#35
05-07-2008, 05:29 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550 Things you need to consider. Of course dynapacks read higher - they measure hp at the hubs not the wheels, so the wheel losses aren't included. The stock GTR does not make 487whp but some have made 487ps at the hubs. Amuse's GTR made 482.7ps at the hubs as stated and an extra 0.55bar gets you more than an extra 80ps, do the maths. I've been following the development of this car. At 0.9bar it made 532ps/hubs and at 1.1bar it made 580ps/hubs.
THE WHEEL HUB, WHEELS DONT MAKE LOSS!!!!!!!
What has compression got to do with conrod strength?
As you noted the weak part on the 996 TT was the rods which would fail at 700 hp or so, lower compression allows the car to run more boost without putting as much pressure on the motor. Similar to the reason NA motors cant run as much boost as low compression motors built for boost. Lower compression = more boost capabilites.
Exactly. So why did Ruf worry about fitting the conrods? Factory reliability concerns are at a different standard to those of the aftermarket.
THE WHEEL HUB, WHEELS DONT MAKE LOSS!!!!!!!
What has compression got to do with conrod strength?
As you noted the weak part on the 996 TT was the rods which would fail at 700 hp or so, lower compression allows the car to run more boost without putting as much pressure on the motor. Similar to the reason NA motors cant run as much boost as low compression motors built for boost. Lower compression = more boost capabilites.
Exactly. So why did Ruf worry about fitting the conrods? Factory reliability concerns are at a different standard to those of the aftermarket.
#36
05-07-2008, 05:32 PM
I tried man, I tried.
I have no idea how the GT-R is stopping so fast in the 60-0, but the M3 is similar and has set some pretty stupid 60-0's itself for having such paltry brake calipers which have been known to fail a time or two.
With those 15in brakes in the back, maybe they are using a speed sensitive braking that uses more of the rear at lower speeds (like 60-80) because it wont throw the car into a spin if you are on the brakes, where most concentrate heavily on the front and most brakes these days easily overpower the stock tires sending the car into ABS and lengthening the braking zone.
I have no idea how the M3 can do sub 100 feet which it has, maybe many people are applying this technique. As far as it's cornering, we'll never agree, I think the TT and GT3 and Z06 have just been poorly tested against it because they'll match or beat it in many tough corners and then completely lay an egg at some random part in the track, I think more consistent driving by the mag drivers is in order.
I have no idea how the GT-R is stopping so fast in the 60-0, but the M3 is similar and has set some pretty stupid 60-0's itself for having such paltry brake calipers which have been known to fail a time or two.
With those 15in brakes in the back, maybe they are using a speed sensitive braking that uses more of the rear at lower speeds (like 60-80) because it wont throw the car into a spin if you are on the brakes, where most concentrate heavily on the front and most brakes these days easily overpower the stock tires sending the car into ABS and lengthening the braking zone.
I have no idea how the M3 can do sub 100 feet which it has, maybe many people are applying this technique. As far as it's cornering, we'll never agree, I think the TT and GT3 and Z06 have just been poorly tested against it because they'll match or beat it in many tough corners and then completely lay an egg at some random part in the track, I think more consistent driving by the mag drivers is in order.
I simply think it's been shown thanks to the computers + ATTESA system, it is 1) easier for most people to drive closer to 10/10 in terms of the car's abilities and 2) more consistent as are all things run through computerized nannies.
I don't know what to believe anymore in terms of testing. The ring is an incredible overall test of a car, but if other more focused tests are showing deficits in the GTRs abilities (albeit small and still very comparable to it's class), I cannot connect the sub 7:30 times that are in the CGT/Zonda territory. Just doesn't make sense, someone isn't giving the whole story somewhere...now how to pinpoint that?
Deity: That is what I was stating. Accel numbers while obviously important, are just one of many factors. If a car can out brake and out slalom, then on a track that will show. Now my question is, are those factors the reason behind the Ring time differences or is there more to the story?
Last edited by stradaONE8; 05-07-2008 at 05:35 PM.
#37
05-07-2008, 05:43 PM
Nice post! I will say it over and over again... power to weight doesn't lie not to mention, having someone in the seat that can roll gears makes a huge difference as well.
11.40s out the 997 TT seems more in line with what it should be doing at the drag strip.<O
</O
11.40s out the 997 TT seems more in line with what it should be doing at the drag strip.<O
</O
#38
05-07-2008, 05:44 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550
I agree with the skill needed to corner assessment.
As far as the ring times, you may recall me mentioning this before but Nissan has only taking the testing procedure to a new level, but the times are such that it's getting to the level of obsurd.
For example:
Hardly any of the fastest cars get the testing that even Porsche, Chevy and Nissan are using. Most have to rely on Sport Auto for their lap times and their driver is very good, but he's no test driver like Jan Magnussen, Walter Rohrl or kiyachi (sp). The Zonda was only mid-low 1:30's before late last year and had been out for quite some time, then they decided to put a hot shoe in it and go for it.
But no one is having their drivers spend months and months testing, combined with renting out the track for clean laps. Porsche spends quite a few weeks there, but even they have spent less time testing, and they dont do clean laps, they do them in traffic. chevy on the other hand, rents the track out, but only gives the driver 1 hour to set a time and two weeks for the whole test in general.
If walter had no worries about other cars, and having to pass them and chevy had weeks of testing, you'd see similar times from the Porsche and Chevy's. As for everyone else, they just dont put as much into making those times, Nissan has a ring side facility as does Porsche (dont know if GM does or not). But not all of the manufacturers are rushing to test all of there cars with the fastest driver they can. And ring drivers are a special kind, you cant just get any race guy to go there and expect to be competitive, you have to find or make a ring specialist.
I hope this makes it more clear, but the ring isnt as big a deal as it's made out to be, and the GT-R is nothing near a Zonda or CGT on a track. Nissan is just using the system to their advantage. But I'm sure we'll see everyone that is involved (Porsche, Chevy) step their game up, you can bet on that.
As far as the ring times, you may recall me mentioning this before but Nissan has only taking the testing procedure to a new level, but the times are such that it's getting to the level of obsurd.
For example:
Hardly any of the fastest cars get the testing that even Porsche, Chevy and Nissan are using. Most have to rely on Sport Auto for their lap times and their driver is very good, but he's no test driver like Jan Magnussen, Walter Rohrl or kiyachi (sp). The Zonda was only mid-low 1:30's before late last year and had been out for quite some time, then they decided to put a hot shoe in it and go for it.
But no one is having their drivers spend months and months testing, combined with renting out the track for clean laps. Porsche spends quite a few weeks there, but even they have spent less time testing, and they dont do clean laps, they do them in traffic. chevy on the other hand, rents the track out, but only gives the driver 1 hour to set a time and two weeks for the whole test in general.
If walter had no worries about other cars, and having to pass them and chevy had weeks of testing, you'd see similar times from the Porsche and Chevy's. As for everyone else, they just dont put as much into making those times, Nissan has a ring side facility as does Porsche (dont know if GM does or not). But not all of the manufacturers are rushing to test all of there cars with the fastest driver they can. And ring drivers are a special kind, you cant just get any race guy to go there and expect to be competitive, you have to find or make a ring specialist.
I hope this makes it more clear, but the ring isnt as big a deal as it's made out to be, and the GT-R is nothing near a Zonda or CGT on a track. Nissan is just using the system to their advantage. But I'm sure we'll see everyone that is involved (Porsche, Chevy) step their game up, you can bet on that.
#39
05-07-2008, 05:50 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550
#40
05-07-2008, 06:29 PM
There's a video somewhere of an F40 against a Suzuki Swift GTi with a sports suspension on the 'ring. A better driver and a few mods can make all the difference. Tony Swan isn't a bad driver but he's a long way off being the best driver at One Lap of America and mods-wise, nobody really knows the full story for the other cars. "Oh, such and such a car is almost stock." Yeah! It's like an episode of Pinks.
#41
05-08-2008, 01:04 AM
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...3/pageNumber=1
I am sorry HC, but if you are going to "quote" an article, you shouldn't leave out important info directly related or add your own words as though it was part of the original article. (Difference in BOLD.)
HC's quote
http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?i...5443065nu9.jpg
Actual Quote
HC's Quote
http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?i...1118194rx5.jpg
Actual Quote
I am sorry HC, but if you are going to "quote" an article, you shouldn't leave out important info directly related or add your own words as though it was part of the original article. (Difference in BOLD.)
HC's quote
http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?i...5443065nu9.jpg
Originally Posted by edmunds
On a warm, sunny day at our Southern California testing facility, our Super Silver Nissan GT-R finds a little more traction than the Solid Red JDM-spec car we tested on the bumpy airstrip in Japan. With launch control engaged, it hits 60 mph in 3.5 seconds (or 3.2 seconds with one foot of rollout like on an NHRA drag strip), while the Japanese GT-R needed 3.6 seconds (or 3.3 seconds with rollout).
Our U.S.-spec R35 loses its edge over the JDM GT-R by the quarter-mile mark, though. It runs an 11.7-second quarter-mile at 116.8 mph, while the Japanese car goes through in 11.6 seconds at 120.9 mph. Note that these latest numbers reflect our transition to reporting NHRA-style trap speed, which is the average of a car's speed over the last 66 feet of the quarter-mile
On a warm, sunny day at our Southern California testing facility, our Super Silver Nissan GT-R finds a little more traction than the Solid Red JDM-spec car we tested on the bumpy airstrip in Japan. With launch control engaged, it hits 60 mph in 3.5 seconds (or 3.2 seconds with one foot of rollout like on an NHRA drag strip), while the Japanese GT-R needed 3.6 seconds (or 3.3 seconds with rollout).
Our U.S.-spec R35 loses its edge over the JDM GT-R by the quarter-mile mark, though. It runs an 11.7-second quarter-mile at 116.8 mph, while the Japanese car goes through in 11.6 seconds at 120.9 mph. Note that these latest numbers reflect our transition to reporting NHRA-style trap speed, which is the average of a car's speed over the last 66 feet of the quarter-mile
Actual Quote
On a warm, sunny day at our Southern California testing facility, our Super Silver Nissan GT-R finds a little more traction than the Solid Red JDM-spec car we tested on the bumpy airstrip in Japan. With launch control engaged, it hits 60 mph in 3.5 seconds (or 3.2 seconds with one foot of rollout like on an NHRA drag strip), while the Japanese GT-R needed 3.6 seconds (or 3.3 seconds with rollout).
Our U.S.-spec R35 loses its edge over the JDM GT-R by the quarter-mile mark, though. It runs an 11.7-second quarter-mile at 116.8 mph, while the Japanese car goes through in 11.6 seconds at 120.9 mph. Note that these latest numbers reflect our transition to reporting NHRA-style trap speed, which is the average of a car's speed over the last 66 feet of the quarter-mile. (The idea behind the switch in our testing protocol is that you can take your car to any drag strip and directly compare your time slip with our numbers; look for a feature story in the next couple of weeks on how we do our instrumented testing.)
Even if you look at the U.S.-spec GT-R's instantaneous quarter-mile speed of 117.7 mph, there's no denying it's slower than the JDM GT-R. The reason is, it's making fewer horsepower while running on our inferior 91-octane gasoline. The red GT-R benefited from the 94-to-95-octane fuel that's readily available in Japan.
So on this day, the 2009 Nissan GT-R does not beat the Porsche 911 Turbo, which recorded an 11.6-second quarter-mile at 118.5 mph during an '07 test. But it's still faster than every other production car on the planet.
Our U.S.-spec R35 loses its edge over the JDM GT-R by the quarter-mile mark, though. It runs an 11.7-second quarter-mile at 116.8 mph, while the Japanese car goes through in 11.6 seconds at 120.9 mph. Note that these latest numbers reflect our transition to reporting NHRA-style trap speed, which is the average of a car's speed over the last 66 feet of the quarter-mile. (The idea behind the switch in our testing protocol is that you can take your car to any drag strip and directly compare your time slip with our numbers; look for a feature story in the next couple of weeks on how we do our instrumented testing.)
Even if you look at the U.S.-spec GT-R's instantaneous quarter-mile speed of 117.7 mph, there's no denying it's slower than the JDM GT-R. The reason is, it's making fewer horsepower while running on our inferior 91-octane gasoline. The red GT-R benefited from the 94-to-95-octane fuel that's readily available in Japan.
So on this day, the 2009 Nissan GT-R does not beat the Porsche 911 Turbo, which recorded an 11.6-second quarter-mile at 118.5 mph during an '07 test. But it's still faster than every other production car on the planet.
HC's Quote
http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?i...1118194rx5.jpg
Best Car Ever?
Depending on your drive to work, you might have some words for Nissan about the GT-R's ride quality. There's a center-stack switch for adjusting the Bilstein adaptive dampers, and after bludgeoning our first expansion joint, we waste no time selecting "Comf." But comf never comes. We can't detect any change in the damping at all.
There I said it. I've come clean. The holy grail of new performance cars, the great Nissan GT-R, isn't my thing. Man, what a load off my chest.
Then there's the hooligan factor. Sometimes having a fast car isn't only about speed. Sometimes it's about fun. And the GT-R, with its very sophisticated all-wheel-drive system, gets a big fat zero in this category. Powerslides and burnouts aren't really in the GT-R's vocabulary. Sure, it's fun to use its launch mode and leave the world behind, but most of the time I'd rather shave a little life off my rear tires.
Depending on your drive to work, you might have some words for Nissan about the GT-R's ride quality. There's a center-stack switch for adjusting the Bilstein adaptive dampers, and after bludgeoning our first expansion joint, we waste no time selecting "Comf." But comf never comes. We can't detect any change in the damping at all.
There I said it. I've come clean. The holy grail of new performance cars, the great Nissan GT-R, isn't my thing. Man, what a load off my chest.
Then there's the hooligan factor. Sometimes having a fast car isn't only about speed. Sometimes it's about fun. And the GT-R, with its very sophisticated all-wheel-drive system, gets a big fat zero in this category. Powerslides and burnouts aren't really in the GT-R's vocabulary. Sure, it's fun to use its launch mode and leave the world behind, but most of the time I'd rather shave a little life off my rear tires.
Actual Quote
Best Car Ever?
Depending on your drive to work, you might have some words for Nissan about the GT-R's ride quality. There's a center-stack switch for adjusting the Bilstein adaptive dampers, and after bludgeoning our first expansion joint, we waste no time selecting "Comf." But comf never comes. We can't detect any change in the damping at all.
Maybe this means we're not hard-core enough to drive a 2009 Nissan GT-R. Or maybe it means a grand-touring suspension package will turn up in a few years. But there's an easier solution if you want in on the R35 Skyline GT-R experience. Don't take the freeway to work. Use the back roads instead.
You'll drive them faster than you ever have before. Maybe you'll never know exactly what the GT-R is up to behind the scenes, but when you can out-accelerate, out-handle and out-brake anything short of a Formula 1 car, do you really care?
Depending on your drive to work, you might have some words for Nissan about the GT-R's ride quality. There's a center-stack switch for adjusting the Bilstein adaptive dampers, and after bludgeoning our first expansion joint, we waste no time selecting "Comf." But comf never comes. We can't detect any change in the damping at all.
Maybe this means we're not hard-core enough to drive a 2009 Nissan GT-R. Or maybe it means a grand-touring suspension package will turn up in a few years. But there's an easier solution if you want in on the R35 Skyline GT-R experience. Don't take the freeway to work. Use the back roads instead.
You'll drive them faster than you ever have before. Maybe you'll never know exactly what the GT-R is up to behind the scenes, but when you can out-accelerate, out-handle and out-brake anything short of a Formula 1 car, do you really care?
Last edited by Akira; 05-08-2008 at 02:22 AM.
#42
05-08-2008, 01:40 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550 It's about a collection of assets. Better braking, better grip, better aero-package, better exit speed, DCT (not just for fast changes but for the freeing affect it has on the driver). Less lag-boost - the GTR only runs 10psi and on a 3800cc engine. The TT runs 14.5psi on a 3600cc block. The GTR is far more predictable on the throttle. Then you have stability. The 'ring really tests a cars stability. Go find me a Porsche lap of the 'ring that doesn't have a brown-trouser moment and lightning fast opposite lock on display. The GTR doesn't do that. The weight and downforce also helps keep the car down over ridges. Seen the pictures of the airborne Z06?
I've looked at most of the One Lap of America tracks and they disappoint me. Very RWD focused tracks. They're not remotely like any road you'll ever find. The 'ring is to a certain extent. The One Lap courses are a far cry from Button Willow, Tsukuba, Bedford or Rockingham in terms of layout. I think the LF-A will be better suited to such courses.
I've looked at most of the One Lap of America tracks and they disappoint me. Very RWD focused tracks. They're not remotely like any road you'll ever find. The 'ring is to a certain extent. The One Lap courses are a far cry from Button Willow, Tsukuba, Bedford or Rockingham in terms of layout. I think the LF-A will be better suited to such courses.
Have you seen Mid America, CMP or upcoming Beaver Run? Driven any of them, know who they are designed by? Obviously not, because your assessment of them being RWD biased is nonsense Road America and VIR and TWS may be , but that would make it even now wouldnt it?
Alan wilson love chicanes and carousels low speeds, and lots of technicality and all of his tracks are pretty similar to buttonwillow. The funny thing is that I just did a search to see what beaver run looked like and I knew it was a wilson design before I checked to see for sure.
His tracks are not very vette,viper friendly, do not favor hp cars, and do not favor rwd, many are cart tracks gone road course, or bike tracks that can do both, but rwd favorites, not even close at all. How do I know? I know this because I love his tracks and my AWD TT rips the more powerful vettes, vipers and mustangs real good there.
Works well with low hp or very small wheelbase AWD cars, but then again, the GT-R is probably the biggest wheelbase AWD sports type car there is. Evo's, STI's, TT's, GT-R's, VW's, Audis, will always do better comparatively on these tracks.
Tire Rack did a great job of making sure the styles are mixed, and they change tracks every year, so if you think they are going to do buttonwillow every year, sorry to disappoint you, but wilsons tracks are as close as you'll get to buttonwillow on this side of the coutnry.
#43
05-08-2008, 01:49 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550
Here's your beloved Buttonwillow
Mid America
Beaver Run
CMP
Mid America
Beaver Run
CMP
#44
05-08-2008, 08:01 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550 Well we're yet to see this lap you're alluding to but it would explain why Horst's times are relatively slow. He doesn't push the cars on bends, so straightline speed becomes more of an asset.
I've looked at the same layouts already. There's no fast kinks, all the curves are nice and smooth. That isn't representative of a normal road. I'm sure they're billiard table flat too.
The Wilson circuit isn't in the competition.
I don't see the Wilson track listed in the event.
Shame they didn't include the Wilson track and BW.
I've looked at the same layouts already. There's no fast kinks, all the curves are nice and smooth. That isn't representative of a normal road. I'm sure they're billiard table flat too.
The Wilson circuit isn't in the competition.
I don't see the Wilson track listed in the event.
Shame they didn't include the Wilson track and BW.
LOL, you think you're clever dont you, I already know who you are. You tried this act last time you got reinstated, but not clever enough not to exhibit the same tendencies in your posts. Funny how everytime and arguementative fanboys dissappears, a new one arrives, prepare to get banned Z07. You'd better be smart enough to have a different IP, because you're about to get banned yet again. Funny how determined you are to post here, it's pathetic. MPD FTL.
Either way You cant read, Mid America, CMP and Beaver Run are all wilson tracks in case you cant read the schedule either. And since when is a kink like a regular road? And where is there a kink on tsukuba?
#45
05-08-2008, 08:03 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550 http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...3/pageNumber=1
I am sorry HC, but if you are going to "quote" an article, you shouldn't leave out important info directly related or add your own words as though it was part of the original article. (Difference in BOLD.)
HC's quote
http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?i...5443065nu9.jpg
Actual Quote
HC's Quote
http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?i...1118194rx5.jpg
Actual Quote
I am sorry HC, but if you are going to "quote" an article, you shouldn't leave out important info directly related or add your own words as though it was part of the original article. (Difference in BOLD.)
HC's quote
http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?i...5443065nu9.jpg
Actual Quote
HC's Quote
http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?i...1118194rx5.jpg
Actual Quote
FOUND HERE! http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do....photopanel..2.
I have no need to fabricate anything, the GT-R does enough of that by itself.
Last edited by heavychevy; 05-08-2008 at 08:07 AM.