• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Road and Track: GT-R Spanks ZO 911T

Two "kings of the hill", the Z06 & 911 TT, took 2.02 mins to run a lap on the track and this beast ran it in 1:56 - nearly 6 secs faster! 6 secs means you can't see the Z06 and the Turbo after one lap.

I hate to admit it but this thing is moving the bar to another level!

What's most amazing is that the GT-R weights over 3900 lbs. yet is performing at this level.
Posted a sub-thread on this article a few days back -- see this thread http://nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103138

Nissan did a pretty decent job with the GTR

############# < quote from above thread >

The latest R&T (May 2008) has the GT-R on the cover - spanks the P911 Turbo and C6 Z06 in a test - road/highway and track (buttonwillow)

The reviews are telling...

"here we discovered that not only did the GT-R measure up to hype, it sliced it to pieces with a samurai sword"

"Japan's new super coupe has caught and surpassed the German thunder car, meaning that now, when you say Porsche, there is a substitute"

"at $xxx, the Corvette Z06 is still one of the best deals on the planet... only now it may have company."

The track #s of the GT-R were quite impressive:
- 6 sec a lap faster at Buttonwillow
- on average, cornering speeds +5 mph faster
- speed @ brake marker ~6-7 mph faster
- slalom speed +3 mph faster (faster than a Ferrari Enzo)

Pretty impressive... Nissan has moved the chains again.

Hope the folks at Honda are watching. :eek:
 
First off, Ive not found much of a performance difference between 993TTs and MY 02 NSX (when it was stock).

There is a huge difference between a 993TT and the nsx, even compared to a turbocharged nsx, I think my 993TT was faster; I assure you its faster than your '02 nsx.

The conversation is dissolving (rather quickly I might add) from a discussion about the GT-R, into a comparison between two cars which have nothing to do with the topic, a 1980's entry-level porsche, and the designed-in-1988 Honda nsx - neither of these cars can (or should) be compared to the released-in-2008 Nissan GT-R, as it has 20 years of ingenuity behind it, it would be like comparing the 'new' nsx, when it was released, to a car from the 1960's - nsx spanks porsche 356? Who wants to read that story?

As for the 951/nsx comparison... the nsx is a faster car, I have driven a 944 turbo, and came away underwelmed... perhaps its my bias against waterpumpers, but 217hp pushing 3040lbs around, with a vintage turbocharged system producing the powerband, doesn't make for a very entertaining drive. The nsx has a greater power/weight ratio than the 951, but they're cars from different decades, and a comparison is unfair. The saving grace of the 944 turbo's continued existance is club racing, people snag a cheap 951, strip it out, race the crap out of it, blow up an engine, throw another one in, and keep going - I remember PCA track days with 951's running insane levels of boost, fully prepped, keeping up with newer cars - this does not make it a better car, only a good platform from which to base a race car. The miata is also a good platform from which to base a race car, does that make it exotic, or well-suited towards street driving?

The nsx has 20 years of Japanese aftermarket behind it, which ensures we will be able to screw with them for many years to come - it is a platform, however, which is becoming quickly dated with new 400hp-500hp-600hp+ cars coming out every few months, there is only so much 270/290hp will do. Various suspension band aids, turbocharger band aids, etc. can be applied, but then you have a car that perhaps matches the performance of newer offerings, or slightly exceeds it, wrapped around in a 10 year old interior, with stiff suspension and a loud exhaust. The nsx is a great car, its reliable, but it is a car of the 1990's, just as the 951 is a car of the 1980's, and the GT-R is a car of 2008 - there is no escaping this fact.

There is also no denying the fact that a good-condition nsx is a great package, its enjoyable to drive, and has an aesthetic appeal far beyond what its age might suggest. There is a reason the resale values of nsx and 951 are disproportionate, and its not because of magazine articles published in the early 1990's.
 
Posted a sub-thread on this article a few days back -- see this thread http://nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103138

Nissan did a pretty decent job with the GTR

############# < quote from above thread >

The latest R&T (May 2008) has the GT-R on the cover - spanks the P911 Turbo and C6 Z06 in a test - road/highway and track (buttonwillow)

The reviews are telling...

"here we discovered that not only did the GT-R measure up to hype, it sliced it to pieces with a samurai sword"

"Japan's new super coupe has caught and surpassed the German thunder car, meaning that now, when you say Porsche, there is a substitute"

"at $xxx, the Corvette Z06 is still one of the best deals on the planet... only now it may have company."

The track #s of the GT-R were quite impressive:
- 6 sec a lap faster at Buttonwillow
- on average, cornering speeds +5 mph faster
- speed @ brake marker ~6-7 mph faster
- slalom speed +3 mph faster (faster than a Ferrari Enzo)

Pretty impressive... Nissan has moved the chains again.

Hope the folks at Honda are watching. :eek:


Ahahah the Enzo is not a slalom car its a track car for high speeds ahhaha.

For the price of a GTR Vspectacular I would rather have a F355 or Modena thank you :biggrin:
 
Ahahah the Enzo is not a slalom car its a track car for high speeds ahhaha.

For the price of a GTR Vspectacular I would rather have a F355 or Modena thank you :biggrin:
somewhat off-topic in this thread, but in the end personal preferences rule, and while the numbers are somewhat important (e.g., makes for good poser bench-racing chats at the country club), there is an emotional/irrational aspect to these "discretionary purchase" decisions. Its that x-factor, the certain something ( je ne sais quoi ) that will always come into play. I'm with you - would take an F430 CS over any/all of these 3 cars too :wink:

The GTR-V strikes me as a pretty high bar in the price/performance spectrum, even against established benchmarks like the C6-Z06/P911TT, etc, and is proof that engineering of the overall package (e.g., power, chassis tuning and grip compensating for the higher weight, etc). Seventeen years ago, Honda put the establishment on notice with the NSX. Nissan today with the GTR and GTR-V, possibly Lexus with its new supercoupe. The Germans with the horsepower wars and uber-torquey turbodiesels (personally I hope the Audi R8 V12TDI makes it). The Brits with the luxurious coachwork, Italians with the flashy designs (now made reliable with German underpinning, etc). Hopefully others will match serve (maybe a last hurrah for Bob Lutz, Carroll Shelby, or Steve Saleen ? I still say someone should buyout Horacio Pagani) :rolleyes:

Back to our scheduled programming... YES the GT-R spanked them guys :)
 
somewhat off-topic in this thread, but in the end personal preferences rule, and while the numbers are somewhat important (e.g., makes for good poser bench-racing chats at the country club), there is an emotional/irrational aspect to these "discretionary purchase" decisions. Its that x-factor, the certain something ( je ne sais quoi ) that will always come into play. I'm with you - would take an F430 CS over any/all of these 3 cars too :wink:

The GTR-V strikes me as a pretty high bar in the price/performance spectrum, even against established benchmarks like the C6-Z06/P911TT, etc, and is proof that engineering of the overall package (e.g., power, chassis tuning and grip compensating for the higher weight, etc). Seventeen years ago, Honda put the establishment on notice with the NSX. Nissan today with the GTR and GTR-V, possibly Lexus with its new supercoupe. The Germans with the horsepower wars and uber-torquey turbodiesels (personally I hope the Audi R8 V12TDI makes it). The Brits with the luxurious coachwork, Italians with the flashy designs (now made reliable with German underpinning, etc). Hopefully others will match serve (maybe a last hurrah for Bob Lutz, Carroll Shelby, or Steve Saleen ? I still say someone should buyout Horacio Pagani) :rolleyes:

Back to our scheduled programming... YES the GT-R spanked them guys :)

I have driven a Lamborghini Diablo VT 6.0 a Gallardo and a 911 C4 Turbo, and I can assure you that if you like light weight cars, you will despise the feel of an all wheel drive car, super heavy clunks all over the road just terrible. I am positive the GTR feels heavy and boinces all over like any all wheel drive car, infact any car weighing over 3300lbs feels terrible IMO.

430CS is over priced for that much I would rather have a Diablo 94 and delet the 4 wheel or just get the SV with 2 wheel option and start the GT upgrades to bring down the wieght :biggrin: There is a 600lbs difference between a Vt later diablo and an early one :eek:
 
430CS is over priced for that much I would rather have a Diablo 94 and delet the 4 wheel or just get the SV with 2 wheel option and start the GT upgrades to bring down the wieght :biggrin: There is a 600lbs difference between a Vt later diablo and an early one :eek:
Yep... am with you there

there's an interesting divide amongst some of the supercar ranks now that some of the them are turning into almost-daily-driver levels of reliability, etc. the Lambo folks for example - camp that prefers the Diablo SV, 6.0, etc over the newer Audighini cars, etc. Guess that's the price of progress - to each his own. I actually like the "less is more" philosophy that we see in cars like the Elise/Exige or the first-gen NSX-R.

As an example, was reading an article (Detroit Free Press), where the reviewer (car pundit M Ph_lan) liked the Audi R8, but dissed it for not having memory settings for seat, mirror etc - sheesh... shut up and drive, wussy boy :rolleyes: :biggrin: I want mine with the Iron Man gun mounts :cool:

Keeping on topic... what's the NEXT thing a GTR needs to spank ?? Bug Veyron on a short course ? :biggrin:
 
Yep... am with you there

there's an interesting divide amongst some of the supercar ranks now that some of the them are turning into almost-daily-driver levels of reliability, etc. the Lambo folks for example - camp that prefers the Diablo SV, 6.0, etc over the newer Audighini cars, etc. Guess that's the price of progress - to each his own. I actually like the "less is more" philosophy that we see in cars like the Elise/Exige or the first-gen NSX-R.

As an example, was reading an article (Detroit Free Press), where the reviewer (car pundit M Ph_lan) liked the Audi R8, but dissed it for not having memory settings for seat, mirror etc - sheesh... shut up and drive, wussy boy :rolleyes: :biggrin: I want mine with the Iron Man gun mounts :cool:

Keeping on topic... what's the NEXT thing a GTR needs to spank ?? Bug Veyron on a short course ? :biggrin:

I highly doubt the GTR V spec could beat a Carrera GT with non street tires. A Carerra GT with race tires and minor suspension mods should shave 15 seconds of its time at nburg.
 
Some worried fellows over there.:biggrin:

When a large car manufacturer decides to spend whatever money it takes to come out on top they eventually will come out on top.
 
The GT-R is no joke, The V-Spec is going to be the one to get but also going to be 100k or close to it. Also you guys understand that this car with a flash and exhaust will be +100 more hp. 0-60 in 2.8 anyone? I may pass on the 1st year due to hype and bugs but this car is on the top of my list.
 
great video

part 1

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xQYKban7DwI&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xQYKban7DwI&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

part 2
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3PZ-Fxs2_zM&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3PZ-Fxs2_zM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
 
.

However at one time I considered trading my 951 off on a stock NSX - until I drove one. What a dog. Step on the gas and there was lots of noise but no grunt. Contrast that to the 951 which planted you in the seat when boost came on. After my first test drive of a stock NSX I couldn't see what all the hype was about. The car just wasn't exciting to drive. Then I reviewed the numbers and guess what? If you sort through all the BS fluff and just compare the hard figures it suddenly became clear why I was so dissappointed. It didn't have the performance to justify the "super car" hype. I have since drove several stock NSX's and the result was the same. They just don't have the oomph that the chassis deserves. They should have stuffed a nice revving 400 hp engine in the car to begin with. Now that would have been something in that day that we could all say was in super car territory. A piddly 270 hp just doesn't cut it.

For example, do you think the NSX is head and shoulders above an RX7? I mean the RX7 is lighter and put's up similar if not better numbers. So why wasn't there endless magazine articles about the "super car" RX7? Is the NSX more reliable and better built - definately. But in the end that isn't what defines a super car. It's performance that we are looking for. The RX7 is a quick car, a nice looking car but not a super car. Same goes for the NSX.

So you can make all the potshots you like about my particular car but you are missing the point - I'm not talking about my car. I'm not talking about Joe's 500 rwhp turbo car either. Nor am I talking about Billy Bobs poorly performing "missing tooth on the timing belt" car. I am talking about the NSX - any NSX - when they came out new in 1991. If you take the time to get your heads out of your behinds and realize I'm not saying that Biobankers particular car is crap or that stuntman's particular car is crap you might understand that what I am saying is the NSX in general missed the mark whereas Nissan in general - with the new GT-R - hit the bullseye and I hope that any new NSX that comes out sets it sights on the super cars and exceedes our expectations. Otherwise we will get another reliable, well built but average performing car that is comparable to what we had 5 years ago.
I'm sorry but i just cant let this go.You keep banging on about the NSX's lack of power in nearly every post in this thread.You clearly don't know your Japanese BHP output history do you.Until VERY recently there was a gentlemans agreement that all Japanese cars would be capped at 276BHP.
Why do you think it has taken so long for Japanese manufactures to produse big BHP cars.After all,tuners in Japan(JUN) have been producing 1500BHP Skylines for many years,but no manufactures were venturing very far over 300BHP.It's much the same with Audi/BMW and Mercedes Benz with the 155 MPH limiter.
 
.It's much the same with Audi/BMW and Mercedes Benz with the 155 MPH limiter.

There are three primary reasons for speed limiters.

1. Keeps dealers from fixing blowen motors that are overeved
2. Lobbyist Enviornmentalist
3. OBD2
 
There are three primary reasons for speed limiters.

1. Keeps dealers from fixing blowen motors that are overeved
2. Lobbyist Enviornmentalist
3. OBD2
So why didn't Audi slap a limiter on the R8 but they put one on the RS4 (same engine) All of the AMG cars will easily pass 155 MPH so why not set the limiter at a higher speed.After all the speed limit on most motorways is about 70MPH,so by the time you are hitting the limiter at 155 you are already at "jail time" speeds.If it's about keeping enviromentalists happy why don't they reduce top speeds even lower and engine capacity?
 
So why didn't Audi slap a limiter on the R8 but they put one on the RS4 (same engine) All of the AMG cars will easily pass 155 MPH so why not set the limiter at a higher speed.After all the speed limit on most motorways is about 70MPH,so by the time you are hitting the limiter at 155 you are already at "jail time" speeds.If it's about keeping enviromentalists happy why don't they reduce top speeds even lower and engine capacity?

I don't think the hyper-exotics have a rev limiter because they pay gas guzzler tax. "Everything" surrounding automobiles revolves around profit and deminishing resources oil, metals, etc.. So by converting from carbs to fuel injectors you can no longer control the amount of fuel you want to burn by simply turning a wrench, its all computer controlled, all about regulation.
 
So why didn't Audi slap a limiter on the R8 but they put one on the RS4 (same engine) All of the AMG cars will easily pass 155 MPH so why not set the limiter at a higher speed.After all the speed limit on most motorways is about 70MPH,so by the time you are hitting the limiter at 155 you are already at "jail time" speeds.If it's about keeping enviromentalists happy why don't they reduce top speeds even lower and engine capacity?

Take this for what it is... heresay... but... I have a co-worker who is taking delivery of a new C63AMG. As sold in the United States, that car has a speed governor on it and my buddy would like to have it removed. The dealership (Fletcher Jones here in Newport Beach) has reportedly called back to Germany and spoke to the folks at MB and were told the governor is for two reasons:
  1. Insurance rates
  2. Concerns about the tires. Apparently, as heavy as the C63 is, the engineers are concerned about the car being under tired at speeds in excess of 155mph

I have no means of independently verifying this story but it makes sense to me and there's really no good reason that I can think of for my buddy or the dealersihp to concoct such a story.
 
I found this at Autoblog about the GT-R and it's Orwellian restrictions in Japan-

We know that the Nissan GT-R's ECU wizardry is impressive, but this little tidbit left us in awe. According to our friends over at the GTChannel, the GT-R's integrated computer limits the vehicle's speed in Japan to 111 mph (180 km/h), but once the GPS system detects that you've arrived at a domestic circuit, it removes the top speed limiter for all-out track assaults.

In the U.S., they've bumped up the electronically-limited top speed to 156 mph (250 km/h), but there's no integration with the GPS here in the States, meaning that anyone that wants to go faster on track has to have the ECU modifed. Nissan has made several overtures that the GT-R's ECU will be a tough nut to crack, but we're sure that enterprising tuners both here and abroad will be able to coax a few extra ponies out of the twin-turbo'd 3.8-liter mill and remove any electronic nannies that go with it.

I also heard in Japan that after it 'detects' you were at a track event, a $1000 service is required or your warranty is voided.
 
I found this at Autoblog about the GT-R and it's Orwellian restrictions in Japan-



I also heard in Japan that after it 'detects' you were at a track event, a $1000 service is required or your warranty is voided.

I read that aswell --actually I posed it on prime -- but I wonder if that applies in the USA. We shall see.
 
years ago, I read one magazine stating the tunnel vision and also MB found that for some people when they are traveling in excess of the magical 250km/h, some images distort and that leads to misjudgements.
 
Really?

Have you driven one?

I have!!!

Two weeks ago!!!

I can't disclose which one I drove, but I had the chance to take it out for a quick spin. I didn't drive it hard - never over 5000 RPM. I promised the guy who's not supposed to let me drive the car that "I'll be nice to it."

Since I didn't get to drive it hard, my half ass impression of the car was:

Cruising:
Very nice, but the car I drove was not stock; it had Recaro CF racing seats, after market suspension (which from what I understand, stiffer than stock), titanium after market exhaust, etc. Same as the 2005 Gallardo I drove couple of years ago, I had problem adjusting to the paddle shifter, but the R35 does not have the Gallardo's infamous "pause, weird engagement, than start" when driving from stand still. R35's tranny is much smoother. The car does feel fast, even when I didn't push it. You can feel the weight of the car; you can tell it is on the heavy side, but not the end of the world heavy. Don't forget, I'm coming off a sub 3000lbs NSX.

When parked next to my NSX:
The car is huge.... No, it's not one of those... The car looks big in the picture huge. It is actually huge!!! There was a SL600, and the GTR is wider than it.

Interior:
Originally, I thought it would be just like another G35 interior, but it is actually much nicer. I like the gauge system, too bad I didn't know what half of them is about...lol I don't however, care for the high dashboard, and the center console switches are little further away than I’m used to, perhaps it was the Recaro seats. The interior does not feel exotic. In fact, I thought the gauge cluster system in a TL felt much nicer. Similar to the German counter parts in terms of driving position. I'm 5"10'... The Recaro seats actually set the driving position lower, which made me feel like a small lady in a Caddy. I had a lot of headroom tooooo.

That's about as much as I can disclose at this moment. Next week, I'll be talking to the person who is baby-sitting the GTR. Maybe he’ll let me drive it again…

l_cdcc9d7a316c0245627b3871cf0ac5f6.jpg

l_5408f3dd7a744eec310c19fdb355c8c7.jpg

l_4f21fee79d412f53667ff88d44e53f6f.jpg

l_9157441bf5ddb9dc1e02d055ab473852.jpg
 
Last edited:
Take this for what it is... heresay... but... I have a co-worker who is taking delivery of a new C63AMG. As sold in the United States, that car has a speed governor on it and my buddy would like to have it removed. The dealership (Fletcher Jones here in Newport Beach) has reportedly called back to Germany and spoke to the folks at MB and were told the governor is for two reasons:
  1. Insurance rates
  2. Concerns about the tires. Apparently, as heavy as the C63 is, the engineers are concerned about the car being under tired at speeds in excess of 155mph

I have no means of independently verifying this story but it makes sense to me and there's really no good reason that I can think of for my buddy or the dealersihp to concoct such a story.
I can't comment on insurance rates in the US because i live on a different side of the pond to you,but in the UK it tends to be on the overall package of a car,not just the top speed.I would agree with you on the tyre issue though.Having said that it seems to me to be an excuse though because the Veyron is a heavy beast and that will do 250 MPH.
 
Manual to operate the Manual

Programming the GT-R's launch control mode requires toggling the transaxle and shock absorbers mode switches up for "R" race modes and the stability-control switch down for off, then engaging the manual shifting mode via the shifter lever. Hold the brake, floor the throttle, revs climb to 4500 rpm -- hold on, they're hovering at 2000...

Hmmm. Somewhere in that sequence, the transmission has popped itself back to "normal." To make sure the driver never accidentally engages this mode, one of the switches always has to be reset upon completing the sequence.

Programming the GT-R's launch control mode requires toggling the transaxle and shock absorbers mode switches up for "R" race modes and the stability-control switch down for off, then engaging the manual shifting mode via the shifter lever. Hold the brake, floor the throttle, revs climb to 4500 rpm -- Ah, there's 4500 rpm. Then simply side-step the brake and...

Enjoy the ride!
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Takata_Nissan_GT_R35.jpg
    Takata_Nissan_GT_R35.jpg
    15.5 KB · Views: 109
BTW-4.1 sec. 0-60 w/o launch control
 
BTW-4.1 sec. 0-60 w/o launch control


My 40000lb twin turbo V6 with all wheel drive is faster than your natural H6 rear drive with less horsepower by one second at 100mph:biggrin:

Palez Porsche is working on the new GT2 which is going to rewrite the rules.
 
Back
Top