Nissan GT-R Forum banner
1 - 20 of 102 Posts

·
Who Dat !
Joined
·
7,797 Posts
wow, great read .... They mentioned the weight quite a bit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,876 Posts
yep... excellent article. though, the naysayers are going to be quick to point out "engineering test mule"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Well that just goes to show u that the engine must be far under reated as mentioned in the article... I really dont care bout the weight now, but when/if the spec V comes hope the car goes on a serious diet.
Still cant wait to get the car and add exhaust/cpu, and a little more boost, can u say rocket?????
I don't think Nissan would be stupid enough and not have the production car slower than the tester. Remember this is HUGE for Nissan, also the GT-R tested had 3500 miles on it. They say cars get a little quicker as they break in.... i am more than happy with this test
Also when u consider the other test in Road and Track, how can they have a production vehicle. I did not believe they made any yet? Sure they have a US Spec, but no mass production cars are available.

KING IT IS GOOD TO SEE U BACK ON A THREAD I CREATED.... HOPE IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF ROYALTY
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,078 Posts
It is Car and Driver's test mule not Nissan's. All this does is the validate the fact that the GT-R has exceeded expectations of even the most rabid fan. The weight is mentioned but in the context that it is impossible for a car with this amount of lard to dance the way it does. But it does.
I love the fact that the mitsubishi 3000GT was mentioned. That was a car ahead of its time. It failed becuase Mitsubishi wasnt sure how to market it and people didnt know what to make of it. Had it been a Honda, it is highly likely it would have been more successsful than even the NSX.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
this car is so amazing looking in movement.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,601 Posts
yep... excellent article. though, the naysayers are going to be quick to point out "engineering test mule"
Yeah, I was disappointed they used that wording, especially when the only thing test mule about it was this was one of the cars Nissan North America was testing suspension settings on for US roads. You notice what they state about the car in comfort mode on rough road now. This should make all those that were so worried about a rough ride happy.

Let the naysayers cry out all they want, who really cares. Can you really blame them. If you had invested $120,000 into a Porsche 911 turbo and a $70,000 car from Nissan took your game away, how would you feel?


Great article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,078 Posts
Well that just goes to show u that the engine must be far under reated as mentioned in the article... I really dont care bout the weight now, but when/if the spec V comes hope the car goes on a serious diet.
Still cant wait to get the car and add exhaust/cpu, and a little more boost, can u say rocket?????
I don't think Nissan would be stupid enough and not have the production car slower than the tester. Remember this is HUGE for Nissan, also the GT-R tested had 3500 miles on it. They say cars get a little quicker as they break in.... i am more than happy with this test
Also when u consider the other test in Road and Track, how can they have a production vehicle. I did not believe they made any yet? Sure they have a US Spec, but no mass production cars are available.

KING IT IS GOOD TO SEE U BACK ON A THREAD I CREATED.... HOPE IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF ROYALTY
Great to be here mate and yes it does meet the standard and exceeded them!!!

Not only because of your scans but I think I may have been a tad bit on the short fuse. I misread your intentions on that thread and only thought it was one more person trying to start the Z06 vs GT-R war.
I did revisit the thread and found a vibrant discussion going on. I can accept when I put my foot in my mouth(in this case my fingers lol) I am not afraid to say I was wrong and apologize. No worries mate.

Now I agree with your assessment about the GT-R and the car tested with miles on it. It validates the point a number of us tried to make on a thread regarding break in period. Yes there are production vehicles but this is the US Car and a new market--new expectations.
I guess Nissan felt it prudent to allow the car to be tested by independent sources(people will se that the car is for real).
A great marketing strategy!!
You will note that C&D plan on doing comparison tests and dynos just to validate the numbers. This car I guess will be in Car and Driver's garage for a while.
Can you remember any car been put through the wringer like this?
15 launches!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,601 Posts
I think the biggest thing that bothers me about the changes for the US spec car, other than the softer suspension, is the seats for fat asses. I'm 6'2" 170lbs. I think I might be swimming in these new barco lounges they put in our cars. I may as well order up some Recaro's now. I bet I can find an interested buyer for some R35 GT-R seats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
The car tested had the cold weather pkg!
They actually got it wrong. It didn't have the cold weather package -- note the gunmetal wheels in all the photos, and if you look in the actual tire specs, the tires are the Dunlops that come standard with the base model -- Dunlop high performance Y rated tires (the Dunlop all-seasons are W rated). What they actually tested (also based on price) was a base model with i-Pod option. The base is just a wee bit lighter than the premium.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
One benefit to Car & Driver is they are the only mag that actually does weight testing: 3908 lbs curb weight is a heavy bitch, about 100 more than Nissan claimed. Shocking that apparently to the probably near dozen english speaking reviewers so far no one says it feels that heavy. That's a pretty amazing bit of engineering. Still wish she lost about 400 lbs though.
 
1 - 20 of 102 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top