Still may be best bang for the buck, but when I went looking for a GT-R, the lowest price I found was $130K. It'd be interesting to have a comparison of market pricing rather than MSRP.

 

Exactly, they only bring up pertinent info when they want yo use it against somebody. People are paying 60k over for the car. And the GT2 is VERY VERY limited in production.


And everything with them is about practicality, which made the M3 better in their eyes than the GT-R.

They might as well admit that theyh think the prius and fit are the best cars on the planet.

 

The most telling comment, IMO, is at the article's end:
"Happy days are here when the lowest price buys a supercar that everyone, down to your Aunt Phyllis, can enjoy."

Give me a break!! My Aunt XXXXX is not a car enthusiast.

 

I don't mind a gotta have it factor.. but it should be small

 

EVO is one of the best out there, I can't read any of the American periodicals (C&D, R&T...). Not only do they seem to be extremely biased, as all forms of media are; I think their actual composition is no where near as involved or exciting as EVO.

One of the best articles I've read was where the author went on a night test run in the Zonda F with the owner and then with the official test driver. I was incredible, the photos were insane but the story behind it was showing you how the team worked through some problem with the injectors or something of that nature.

The one draw back is that they test a lot of pure exotics and only a few American cars. I guess if you're looking to buy a DD you'd look to Consumer Reports or something because I cannot read any of our periodicals.

 

I didn't read the article, and may have it all wrong, but I thought the GT-R that they tested was one that had 4k miles of abuse before they received it and wasn't in the best shape?

When I was younger (about 17) I had a Yamaha Fazer that had a FJ1200 motor, and many other modifications. I was so into motorcycles back then, and subscribed to 3 mags. One of my mom's friend's husband was the editor of one of the mags, and before that he was a journalist for one of the other bike mags. I remember them coming over for dinner one night, and I was really excited to get to talk to the guy and have him check out my bike. After about 5 minutes I realized I was much more passionate and knew a lot more about bikes then he did, and I didn't even end up mentioning my bike.

I cancelled my subscription to his mag.

 

Hmmm.... That is definitely an interesting point. I would have to counter by saying that while price is important, it is of a varying amount of importance to each individual buyer. Performance is much more easily quantifiable because most all of it will be based on empirical data. If you remove price from the equation in this article then the GT2 is better. I definitely prefer magazines that rate solely on performance (EVO) because the end reader can figure out how much importance they want to place on price. Everything in life boils down to the law of diminishing returns. It is just a matter of figuring out where the added cost outweighs the added performance. For most this will probably mean the GTR will be the better buy, but most is not everyone.

 

Well, it we're going to play that game, my vote goes to the Mitsu Evo/Sub WRX genre. Best bang for the buck cars IMO. Also, of course, the F430, BVeyron, Koeningseg, etc., etc., should all play second fiddle to the GTR. (Sarcasim intended)

 

Rja I AGREE the GTR is Much prettier than ANY Ferrari OR Porsche

its still a ricer

 

Very well said Bill - I think the majority of high end cars today are ALL FAST and even some not so exotic cars (such as the 350Z) can be pretty quick with a good driver.

It's been said many times that most motorcycle rides who buy say a GSXR1000 can only ride the bike to 50-60% of it's actual performance level. Most just buy it for the looks and bragging rights. Not to stereotype but I think many of the owners of fast exotics are doing the same thing. It's bragging rights to have the newest most expensive car but few hit the track and even fewer are really great drivers. I'm not saying I'm an expert car racer but I've done my share of track time in my college days with BMW and Audi race schools.

I'm sure we've all seen the middle ages lady or business man who bought the SL63 AMG just to look cool and have that AMG badge for example....

In regards to the OP, if you like a car and can afford it, then who cares what the magazine guys say since it's your money. As another poster said though: Everything in life boils down to the law of diminishing returns and only a VERY VERY SMALL population of the world can afford a $160k car so for them value is important. Paying almost triple the price for a GT2 is just not smart for the average consumer.

I think people on this site are in general wealthier since buying 100k cars is not a big deal but when you add value to the equation, most will say the GTR is the best car out there.

Ricer or not, the GTR vs. the GT3 if you put them both in the hands of a novice driver, I thikn we can all agree the GTR will most likely win that race.


rk

 

These things matter..I want to see important stuff judged. How big are the cupholders? Does it have a garage remote? Seat memory? back massagers?

lets get the important stuff on the table here. Let's face it, roadholding and performance are not all that important.

 

NO we can not all agree. This thread wasnt about the GT-R it was about the terrible reporting of some magazines.
However what we are finding out is the early GT-Rs that were blowing away EVERYTHING on the road are turning out to be ALOT different than the ones hitting the shores of the US. They are not NEARLY as good as the mules that people were testing 5 months ago. The GT3 is faster than the GT-Rs that are showing up in the US now. The Truth is that Nissan was trying to generate a ton of hype by having some mules that were probably pushing 600hp and gobs of torque. Now we are finding out that the REAL Nissans cant handle much more torque than what they are showing up with now. Trannys are failing on GT-Rs that have a 30 hp upgrade. The Stock cars are alot slower than the european cars tested awhile ago.
So truth be told as in all markets you get what you pay for. And in this case as the real GT-Rs are getting here and getting blown away by normal corvettes. Its turning out that the GT-R is exactly what it is. A 70K Corvette rival. Not so much so for the Porsches.

 

The car mags are so full of it, it's all about who is spending advertising $$. "Gotta have it"...give me a f'ing break.

 

Well said!

 

I bet there is hardly any advertisement for Porsche in that magazine.

I'd rather read what real people with real experiences have to say other than some self proclaimed specialist in the motorworld industry.