I agree man, but the fanboys aren't gonna like what you wrote lol.

 

and I highly doubt a company like Nissan is going to doctor a video......to easy to get caught

 

The 'ring is A LOT different then the average track. A LOT different. I'm not a huge fan of the GTR.....but A track that takes 8 minutes to lap is much different then one that takes 1 minute



One Lap is also a much different story, matching modified and unmodified...pro and amateur drivers.........people who know those tracks like the back of their hand and people who have never seen them before.

 

The driver of the GT-r on one lap was one of the most experienced one lap drivers in the field.

 

Yeah, you're right. Large corporations never lie....

But some of the tools posting in this thread would belive anything....even ones with ZERO on track experience, no matter what their sn lol.

 

Agreed. EVEN though you may not be the biggest fan of the GT-R, it's good to see someone speak the truth and help put peoples conspiracist theories in check. I respect that. Like I said in my earlier post, the Ring is WAY different than just about any other traditional circuit in the world. Some of you guys were probably to ignorant to read my post though, let alone logically comprehend it. You can't say because X car beats Y car on one track it will do the same on another, especially when it comes to the Ring. You guys are stubborn lol.

 

These GT-R ring time conspiracies are about as ridiculous as the conspiracies revolving 9/11. Especially considering that these guys are relying on NO evidence whatsoever to back up their beliefs that Nissan somehow cheated, and yet no other manufacturers Ring times need to be questioned, even if they have absolutely no video proof of such an achievement. I dont' get it.

 

Yeah, well I'll give Nissan its props. They are due. I find it unlikely that they would make up times and lie about something like this, seems kind of childish...

Although I give it credit for its performance, I would never buy a car that doesn't have a clutch and pretty much drives itself around, plus it is huge and does nothing for me visually. Just not my cup of tea.

It's ok to not like a car for whatever reason, but don't hate it because it outperforms others and try to say that it can't possibly do what it is actually doing.

 

Well said. THANK YOU! I totally agree with your last statement.

 

yea, the car is uglier then Bette Midler

 

Lol, the hardest thing for me is being a service writer at a nissan dealer and having to talk the car up and down like its the best thing since sliced bread when in reality I could care less!

 

 

It has been able to outrun a non-RS on 4 tracks including the the 'Ring.
At Tsukuba, the GT-R is 3 seconds faster with a 1:01, and is the 2nd fastest car on that track behind the Superleggera.
At Bedford, it's 1 second faster, and at Buttonwillow, it's 5 seconds faster.

And speaking of Bedford, the GT3 RS there was 3 seconds slower than the GT-R.

It's fine you guys don't like the GT-R, but don't start spouting non-sense without doing some research. As HotRod said, the 'Ring is very different from other tracks. It's obvious the GT-R isn't actually going to be threatening, say, a Carrera GT, but it is a contender among the Porsche GT3/RS, Superleggera, R8, Z06, and possibly the 430S.

 

some guy is selling his GTR here is the reasons.

> Is it really that bad?

Bad's not the word. For a start it does what it says on the tin. I think almost every buyer buys it because its the fastest thing on four feet, and it is, so that is all you need to know. As a bonus it has tunability to get you from the "mocking 911 Turbos" level to the "feeling sorry for 911 Turbos" level.

I think the car makes some sacrifices to get this performance, and HAS to. I'm convinced no maker can present this speed without 4WD, automated dual-clutch, super-tight ratios preventing even manual shifting of the auto, a solid roof giving light-weight chassis strength, and likely, turbos. This rules out alot of stop-light hooliganism, the involvement of shifting, convertibles, and the best engine sounds (which are comprised of more than exhaust sounds). In short, any other car with this type of performance will have these shortcomings (if you even think of them as shortcomings). For me, these points are most of the deal breaker.

Further, there are some sacrifices to hit the price-point and perceived-practicality goal: it uses the FM chassis which means it will never be within 200kg of the comparable Porsche; it is the only car at this performance level with steel brakes (which impact ride/handling strongly I believe--may be the heaviest OEM brakes ever); it has to fit two golf bags for the yanks and has to have rear seats; it has to have run-flats (which I think are part of the grumpy handling). No Porsche or Ferrari (or TVR or Lotus) would mandate runflats for instance. I don't mind these too much except I would have ordered lightweight carbon breaks and axed the runflats in a heartbeat--in other words I would have appreciated the option to tune the car LESS towards price and potential practically and more towards just being a better drive.

Next, the car makes a conscious decision to sacrifice liveability for style, specifically the 20" wheels where 19's would fit and 18's probably could have been made to work, and the sloping rear roof that eliminates practicality, visibility, and the amount of windows that can be rolled down for wind in your hair. For me beauty is a form that arises from function, and IF a car has rear seats I prefer the roofline of the R34 or the M5.

Finally, the area that is intellectually saddening though in practice much smaller concerns than the above: the little details are a very mixed bag. A car should decide to be a convenient car or not; a luxury car or not; a high-tech car or not. This car is instead inconsistently packaged with alot of things I don't need and wouldn't have ordered had they been optional (keyless entry, leather-covered dash), and yet many other things I would have ordered instantly if I could have gotten them (auto-dimming mirrors, auto-tilting mirrors, parking sensors are my big complaints, not so much for "convenience" as just operating the car safely).

Never having had a car with an auto; never having had a car with only two small windows to wind down; never having had a 4WD or turbo-V6, I never realized everything I'd give up with this car. Meanwhile I'm insulted that they make styling decisions and kitting decisions that make it a worse car than it so easily could be.

I've been thinking, if I miss my sun roof or targa top, what about... a convertible? If I miss RWD, what about... midengine? If I miss the character of a BMW V8, what about... a Ferrari? So, I've ordered a manual convertible F430. It'll be nowhere near as fast and alot more expensive, but will tick all those enjoyability boxes. Whether I'm in a traffic jam or in the mountains, I'll have the Ray-Bans on and a smile on my face. I may be dwindling in your rear-view mirrors, but I'll have the wind in my hair, smoke in my wheelwells, and be playing a medley of AC/DC's greatest hits out the muffler with stick-shift and throttle.

 

here what i think....

Would i buy this car? Defenetely.... if it was selling @ 70.000 and if there was enough supply.

Now in Canada they sell for 94.000 CAD thats MSRP after taxes, now thats a alot of monyz! (1 Cad is on par With US)

I'd rather buy 2 year old 997 turbo and spend another 5k on suspension and another 7-8 on engine mods tune it up to around 600 hp and I think it would outrun GTR. On top of that you get wonderful exhaust and engine note and do your own shifting that might be not as fast tho.