The GTR is a great car from all indications. Speed alone does not make the driving experience. You could build a faster car than a F car but it may not really be the excitement you are looking for. I really like the GTR and I would consider buying one at list or less. I will not pay 30k over for it. I think Nissan did a good job with this car and maybe Ferrari is paying attention to it's reaction in the marketplace. I think it will hold up well in the future.
And short gearing. Yes, these things fully explain why a GTR can beat a Z06 to 60mph (the Z06 gains ground quickly after that). The Cayman S has 20% more power than a TT. The Z06 only has about 6% more than a GTR. I highly doubt that the TT is geared any shorter than a Cayman S. The GTR, however, is geared much shorter than the Z06 -- for example, the Z06 can hit 61mph in 1st gear; the GTR will not even reach 40mph in first (38mph). Combine the AWD and super short gearing with a dual-clutch transmission that will shuttle you up the gears far faster than any ordinary manual, and you have a car that will reach 60mph in 3.3 seconds when launched. Practically every journalist has marveled at how well the suspension, AWD, and electronics hide the weight of the car. No one has ignored the weight issue. It has been brought up in most of the reviews I have read/watched. At the end of the day, it's not rocket science. A look at the spec sheet will tell you exactly how they did it.
It doesn't work that way. You get a car that is maybe 10% better but that 10% will cost you a lot. You also pay for things that don't show on any spec list ,like image,desirability and feel good factor that you don't get in these "lesser" cars.(even when thay have equal performance)
Car and Driver did 0-60 in 3.3 seconds 1/4 mile in 11.5 @ 124mph GT-R haters can STFU now. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/japanese_performance/2009_nissan_gt_r_road_test Image Unavailable, Please Login
The tribute to Ferrari is that (and all you GT-R and Z-06 lovers are proof of this) they are and probably always will be the benchmark by which everything else is measured. All you Nissan fans seem to care about is that your beloved GT-R is faster (on paper) than a Ferrari. And maybe it is faster and maybe its not and maybe you GT-R owners are the only ones who care. So maybe you should all go start up GT-RChat.com and tout your specs and 0-60 times to other GT-R lovers. This site is for Ferrari owners and enthusiasts so excuse me while I go Nissan hunting in my CS. PS can you Nissan tow a boat??? Image Unavailable, Please Login
that's physically impossible. i've recently read multiple analyses that the GT-R probably has 585 crank horsepower.
good comparison. you do know that the playstation is one of the most advanced and powerful computers in the world today, and in fact one of the most powerful supercomputers (and BTW, cheapest as well) was built with playstations, yes?
It is the same Car and Driver that famously tested SL600 at 3.6s 0-60 when everyone else was over 4.2s. C&D is the only mag to get that trap speed at 124mph,all other tests could not get higher then 116mph. Either C&D editor is smoking something illegal or all the others are wrong or incompetent. Take your pick....
You are seriously asking this question at a Ferrari forum? lol. Are you expecting fair objective responses for your question?
I think so far the following magazines/programs have tested the GTR and given a favorable report.. .EVO, CAR, Autocar, Car and Driver, Top Gear, Fifth Gear. I am sure there are others. Anyway... it doesn't matter. The GTR and the Ferrari are both great cars. The question I have for all you members who are pontificating which car is better is: have you driven either cars to compare for yourself? or its just blind faith that you say the Ferrari or the GTR is better.
You couldn't be more on the money!!!!! You are 1000000000000000000% correct. The watch reference was brilliant!
I think comparing a seiko and a rolex is not a good comparison. A rolex is a very common watch which to many people is chunky and ugly and not unattainable in terms of pricing. A Seiko is very common. I don't think a GTR is a very common car. Perhaps a better comparison would be a Rolex (not cheap but can be considered ugly) and a Patek Philippe.
I've owned both a Ferrari and a GT-R (the original R34 GT-R V-Spec, not the new GT-R). I loved both cars! Here's my take on this. The Japanese car will be; 1. cheaper to buy 2. comes with 3 years servicing and warranty for free 3. be more reliable 4. will be astonishingly quick point-to-point on real world roads 5. with 4 seats be usable everyday and for long journeys, park it happily in most places without fear. In other words its a fantastic car owning proposition, it does almost everything a car should and deserves to be praised for giving so much for so little cash. Nissan have got a cracker on their hands. The Italian car will be; 1. more expensive to buy 2. more expensive to service 3. less reliable and quirky 4. will be astonishing quick and supremely tactile on dry wide roads 5. less usable everyday, mileage concerns, parking always a major concern. From the short list it seems like a no-brainer to go with the GT-R. HOWEVER if you have to choose just one I'd go with the Ferrari every single time. Kind of reminds me of the debate about choosing a women, Do you go for; a) The sensible career type who is dependable, likes to be asleep by nine and is never late for work and always cooks you dinner, reliably every day at 6pm b) The knock you dead gorgeous blonde supermodel who's temperamental, flamboyant, high maintenance, demands to be taken out for dinner and keeps you on your toes! Both will get the job done but ultimately what is more satisfying, more fun? In the ideal world you have BOTH. A Ferrari for the weekend and a GT-R for weekdays... Well done Nissan for producing an everyday usable supercar for beer money prices!
I thought so too, based on EVERY picture that I had seen, but I saw one at the auto show and was really impressed!
I am with "Big Carrot", you really need to see the GT/R in person before you start talking about how ugly it is. I mean it doesn't have the flair of a Ferrari F430 but it's not that ugly in real life. I saw one yesterday at an auto show and my first reaction was just how "mean" that car looks in real life. While I haven't driven either car, I have seen both in real life and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the GT/R based on looks alone.
Trev, I enjoy your posts but I have a few issues with what you said. I have not owned a GTR nor do I plan to own one but I do plan to own a Scuderia. 1. Cheaper to buy and own. Surely the GTR will be priced lower even at market pricing. The first batch of GTRs here in the USA appear to be headed for big market premiums. But what about depreciation? The Scuderia will hold its value much better for years to come and enjoy a very gentle depreciation slope vs what I would expect to be a pretty gentle one initially for the GTR but becoming quite steep after a few years. 2. Im not sure about the servicing and warranty for the GTR but my recent experience with Ferraris is they are more expensive to maintain in terms of parts, but the reliability has become excellent and truly on par with anyone out there IMHO. While I do not doubt the GTR in terms of performance I think in the end that is all the car is about where as there is more owning a Ferrari than just the numbers. JMHO. best regards, Jerry
hi just joining this thread... Is there an actual comparo between the 2 (the gtr and scud)? Top Gear had issue but somebody said the two cars were on 2 separate articles. The black cs on the previous page looks amazing btw.
Jerry, There is no doubt you'll find the Scud deeply impressive. Great choice for a car! Likewise I'm confident GT-R buyers will enjoy it as an awesome machine too. While I agree that I couldn't accept to own the GT-R over my Ferrari I think as a complement to it its just a superb prospect. On depreciation side there is so much less to loose on a GT-R because of its original sticker price (especially if you actually drive it any significant distances) than a Scud so if you kept one, drove it for a year then flipped it I think depreciation comparison wouldn't even enter into it. Two totally different cars, different purposes, different philosophies, different ownership prospects but both at the top of their respective tree's.
Looks like the GTR has Ruffled alot of feathers in the performance car world, I've seen alot of complaining about a $70K Nissan that destroys alot of cars on the track. I don't think much of the looks but it should be a awesome performer.
WRONG. Privately owned GT-R are trapping @ 121mph. edmunds.com got 121mph out of a privately owned j-spec GT-R. Motortrend also tested a US-spec GT-R running 0-60 in 3.2 seconds and 11.6 @ 120mph watch for yourself http://www.motortrend.com/av/roadtests/112_0803_2009_nissan_GT-R_track_test_first_drive Now stop drinking the haterade. It's funny many of the guys on here dogging the GT-R has no idea of the history behind it. They never heard of the previous GT-R and what it can do. Nissan has a long racing history with the GT-R. And let's not even talk about raw power and speed because no ferrari and I repeat no ferrari modded or not will never EVER touch a modded skyline in a pure raw power and speed and acceleration contest be it on the highway or a private ground.
I take the first part back. of course it's possible, since traction is also a factor. but in the GT-R's case, it's underrated power makes sense of a lot of its "victories".
