RE: Nissan GT-R MY14: Review
Discussion
elementad said:
lamboman100 said:
The GTR was awesome when it first arrived. But it is aging fast. Slower than a 911TS in the dry. And slower than a Golf R in the wet. Like the M3, the GTR is losing some of its aura.
The Golf R, M135i and M235i were all slower than the Peugeot RCZ R and the 370z by well over a second on auto expresses lap board.Go figure
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/87055/faste...
So, the Golf R, humbler of GTR's in the wet cant deal with a 370Z in the dry, the slow, old, heavy Datsun ?
RoverP6B said:
I'd have a Jaguar XFR. Probably slower on a circuit, but more compliant and civilised and possibly just as fast in the real world...
In the real world is exactly where the GT-R is fast. XF-Rs are great cars, but I found it just didn't inspire confidence in it's abilities in the way a GT-R does, nor could it transmit the power to the road at typical legal speeds with anything like the ability the GT-R can with the extra wheels being driven. In the real world, on a real UK road in real UK weather conditions, I would be hugely surprised if me driving an XF-R would see which way me driving a GT-R went. I'd probably rather be driving the XF-R to and from work everyday, though.
J4CKO said:
elementad said:
lamboman100 said:
The GTR was awesome when it first arrived. But it is aging fast. Slower than a 911TS in the dry. And slower than a Golf R in the wet. Like the M3, the GTR is losing some of its aura.
The Golf R, M135i and M235i were all slower than the Peugeot RCZ R and the 370z by well over a second on auto expresses lap board.Go figure
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/87055/faste...
So, the Golf R, humbler of GTR's in the wet cant deal with a 370Z in the dry, the slow, old, heavy Datsun ?
samvia said:
J4CKO said:
elementad said:
lamboman100 said:
The GTR was awesome when it first arrived. But it is aging fast. Slower than a 911TS in the dry. And slower than a Golf R in the wet. Like the M3, the GTR is losing some of its aura.
The Golf R, M135i and M235i were all slower than the Peugeot RCZ R and the 370z by well over a second on auto expresses lap board.Go figure
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/87055/faste...
So, the Golf R, humbler of GTR's in the wet cant deal with a 370Z in the dry, the slow, old, heavy Datsun ?
StradoZ said:
I don't understand where people get these ideas from :s the GT-R isn't a one-trick track pony.
I'm sure it's not as bad as some suggest, but in real life I want a torque converter, not a DCT, I don't want diffs chuntering and banging, and I certainly want a much nicer interior and better ride quality than the GT-R offers.samvia said:
In the real world is exactly where the GT-R is fast. XF-Rs are great cars, but I found it just didn't inspire confidence in it's abilities in the way a GT-R does, nor could it transmit the power to the road at typical legal speeds with anything like the ability the GT-R can with the extra wheels being driven.
In the real world, on a real UK road in real UK weather conditions, I would be hugely surprised if me driving an XF-R would see which way me driving a GT-R went. I'd probably rather be driving the XF-R to and from work everyday, though.
And where in real life can you actually deploy the GT-R's power, at full boost, for more than a couple of seconds? In terms of what would actually work at six to seven tenths, could soak up 3-figure cross-country mileage and be a soothing place to spend time as well as a furious weapon of speed, power, noise and tyre death, I think the XFR takes some beating. If one wants AWD, the Audi RS6 makes more sense than the GT-R as a daily all-weather proposition...In the real world, on a real UK road in real UK weather conditions, I would be hugely surprised if me driving an XF-R would see which way me driving a GT-R went. I'd probably rather be driving the XF-R to and from work everyday, though.
J4CKO said:
samvia said:
J4CKO said:
elementad said:
lamboman100 said:
The GTR was awesome when it first arrived. But it is aging fast. Slower than a 911TS in the dry. And slower than a Golf R in the wet. Like the M3, the GTR is losing some of its aura.
The Golf R, M135i and M235i were all slower than the Peugeot RCZ R and the 370z by well over a second on auto expresses lap board.Go figure
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/87055/faste...
So, the Golf R, humbler of GTR's in the wet cant deal with a 370Z in the dry, the slow, old, heavy Datsun ?
RoverP6B said:
samvia said:
In the real world is exactly where the GT-R is fast. XF-Rs are great cars, but I found it just didn't inspire confidence in it's abilities in the way a GT-R does, nor could it transmit the power to the road at typical legal speeds with anything like the ability the GT-R can with the extra wheels being driven.
In the real world, on a real UK road in real UK weather conditions, I would be hugely surprised if me driving an XF-R would see which way me driving a GT-R went. I'd probably rather be driving the XF-R to and from work everyday, though.
And where in real life can you actually deploy the GT-R's power, at full boost, for more than a couple of seconds? In terms of what would actually work at six to seven tenths, could soak up 3-figure cross-country mileage and be a soothing place to spend time as well as a furious weapon of speed, power, noise and tyre death, I think the XFR takes some beating. If one wants AWD, the Audi RS6 makes more sense than the GT-R as a daily all-weather proposition...In the real world, on a real UK road in real UK weather conditions, I would be hugely surprised if me driving an XF-R would see which way me driving a GT-R went. I'd probably rather be driving the XF-R to and from work everyday, though.
The point I was debating was that the XF-R is "possibly just as fast in the real world" - my point being that you can use more of the power more of the time in the GT-R in the real world, combined with the car giving you the confidence to push it harder than most drivers would along the same road in a 500bhp RWD saloon and the ability to carry more speed into and through any given bend.
Same question, where in real life can you deploy the XF-R's full power for more than a couple of seconds?
RoverP6B said:
StradoZ said:
I don't understand where people get these ideas from :s the GT-R isn't a one-trick track pony.
I'm sure it's not as bad as some suggest, but in real life I want a torque converter, not a DCT, I don't want diffs chuntering and banging, and I certainly want a much nicer interior and better ride quality than the GT-R offers.samvia said:
In the real world is exactly where the GT-R is fast. XF-Rs are great cars, but I found it just didn't inspire confidence in it's abilities in the way a GT-R does, nor could it transmit the power to the road at typical legal speeds with anything like the ability the GT-R can with the extra wheels being driven.
In the real world, on a real UK road in real UK weather conditions, I would be hugely surprised if me driving an XF-R would see which way me driving a GT-R went. I'd probably rather be driving the XF-R to and from work everyday, though.
And where in real life can you actually deploy the GT-R's power, at full boost, for more than a couple of seconds? In terms of what would actually work at six to seven tenths, could soak up 3-figure cross-country mileage and be a soothing place to spend time as well as a furious weapon of speed, power, noise and tyre death, I think the XFR takes some beating. If one wants AWD, the Audi RS6 makes more sense than the GT-R as a daily all-weather proposition...In the real world, on a real UK road in real UK weather conditions, I would be hugely surprised if me driving an XF-R would see which way me driving a GT-R went. I'd probably rather be driving the XF-R to and from work everyday, though.
I do get what you are saying, but the GTR is what it is, an animal, but a fairly well tamed one. I think Nissan leave a bit of mechanical feel in their cars, my 350Z has it, but we know, if needs be they can take every ounce of feel out if they choose to.
I look forward to the day when I can acquire one, I was pondering them, and when my finances may allow it the other morning when riding in to work on my push bike a grey 09 one went past, its a sign I tell ya !
liner33 said:
J4CKO said:
samvia said:
J4CKO said:
elementad said:
lamboman100 said:
The GTR was awesome when it first arrived. But it is aging fast. Slower than a 911TS in the dry. And slower than a Golf R in the wet. Like the M3, the GTR is losing some of its aura.
The Golf R, M135i and M235i were all slower than the Peugeot RCZ R and the 370z by well over a second on auto expresses lap board.Go figure
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/87055/faste...
So, the Golf R, humbler of GTR's in the wet cant deal with a 370Z in the dry, the slow, old, heavy Datsun ?
liner33 said:
J4CKO said:
samvia said:
J4CKO said:
elementad said:
lamboman100 said:
The GTR was awesome when it first arrived. But it is aging fast. Slower than a 911TS in the dry. And slower than a Golf R in the wet. Like the M3, the GTR is losing some of its aura.
The Golf R, M135i and M235i were all slower than the Peugeot RCZ R and the 370z by well over a second on auto expresses lap board.Go figure
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/87055/faste...
So, the Golf R, humbler of GTR's in the wet cant deal with a 370Z in the dry, the slow, old, heavy Datsun ?
Golf R apparently weighs 1475 kilos, I thought they were lighter than that.
RoverP6B said:
Eh, I don't know... I try to get enthusiastic about great Japanese performance cars, but I just can't... particularly those of a turbocharged persuasion. The Toyota 2000GT, Honda NSX and Lexus LF-A are the only ones I actually like, but even then, they all look a bit weird. The GT-R - well, it's all been said before, so I won't bother repeating it. I'd have a Jaguar XFR. Probably slower on a circuit, but more compliant and civilised and possibly just as fast in the real world...
Lovely car, great engine, smooth gearchange (which nissan could learn from) but... no. I turned up in my GTR to test drive a 5.0 XKR for my gf (different jag I know but same engine). It was a lovely thing but felt immensely slow and didn't handle. Any decent driver in a GTR will leave you for dead on any road. Not that this matters necessary, I'm just responding to your assertion. A a GTR can do that - make a supposedly fast car feel pedestrian. I remember arriving in it to test drive an e90 M3 which subsequently felt like a 1.6 Honda.samvia said:
They're not the points I disagreed with. I do agree that the GT-R is certainly not the be all and end all, and that an XF-R or an RS6 are probably better cars to do real life things with instead of just driving flat out everywere. Having said that, even the Track Pack GT-R is perfectly liveable with, but obviously not in the same comfort/practicality league as the XF-R/RS6/M5 etc.
The point I was debating was that the XF-R is "possibly just as fast in the real world" - my point being that you can use more of the power more of the time in the GT-R in the real world, combined with the car giving you the confidence to push it harder than most drivers would along the same road in a 500bhp RWD saloon and the ability to carry more speed into and through any given bend.
Same question, where in real life can you deploy the XF-R's full power for more than a couple of seconds?
I wasn't simply saying "you can't go fast", but rather that the stiffly-sprung GT-R seems to really struggle to put its power down on bumpy B-roads. I've followed GT-Rs cross-country in vastly slower machinery without getting left for dead, watching them skipping and crashing around. Some more suspension travel and a more compliant setup wouldn't hurt. The point I was debating was that the XF-R is "possibly just as fast in the real world" - my point being that you can use more of the power more of the time in the GT-R in the real world, combined with the car giving you the confidence to push it harder than most drivers would along the same road in a 500bhp RWD saloon and the ability to carry more speed into and through any given bend.
Same question, where in real life can you deploy the XF-R's full power for more than a couple of seconds?
J4CKO said:
How about, as the ultimate, a nice X Type, Radio 4 on, mug of Cocoa in the cupholder... I do get what you are saying, but the GTR is what it is, an animal, but a fairly well tamed one. I think Nissan leave a bit of mechanical feel in their cars
Nah, I'd prefer a Rover 75 to an X-type. Much better car. Radio 4, yes please. Tea rather than cocoa, ta. I don't mind mechanical feel - in fact, I actively demand it - but the GT-R is just too compromised as a daily proposition and, if one was doing a bunch of trackdays, I'd far rather have a 997 GT3, a Radical, an Ultima, an Exige or even just a humble Caterham... I realise that the GT-R offers a lot of performance for the money, but I still can't help but feel that £80k is a LOT of money and that, for that sum, I could have a fleet of ten E39 M5s, or whatever other combination of vehicles you might care to name.macky17 said:
Lovely car, great engine, smooth gearchange (which nissan could learn from) but... no. I turned up in my GTR to test drive a 5.0 XKR for my gf (different jag I know but same engine). It was a lovely thing but felt immensely slow and didn't handle. Any decent driver in a GTR will leave you for dead on any road. Not that this matters necessary, I'm just responding to your assertion. A a GTR can do that - make a supposedly fast car feel pedestrian. I remember arriving in it to test drive an e90 M3 which subsequently felt like a 1.6 Honda.
To be fair, the XK is a whole generation older, really, and designed more as a loping GT to drive from Surrey to Nice in one go, than a rabid monster like a GT-R. I'd like to know what owners think of the later XKR-SRSRSRaaaarrrrrrrrrgggghhhhh!!! or whatever the supposedly hardcore XKR was called by comparison to both GT-R and standard XKR. I don't know if the XFR handles better than the XK, but I've heard that the bigger, lighter all-alloy XJ is (F-type apart) the best handler in the Jag range, but I chose the XF as it's closer to the GT-R in size... not surprised the E90 felt slow, it is slow compared to a GT-R. Much less torque much higher up the rev range, for a start, and it's only 2WD, yet it weighs about the same...RoverP6B said:
macky17 said:
Lovely car, great engine, smooth gearchange (which nissan could learn from) but... no. I turned up in my GTR to test drive a 5.0 XKR for my gf (different jag I know but same engine). It was a lovely thing but felt immensely slow and didn't handle. Any decent driver in a GTR will leave you for dead on any road. Not that this matters necessary, I'm just responding to your assertion. A a GTR can do that - make a supposedly fast car feel pedestrian. I remember arriving in it to test drive an e90 M3 which subsequently felt like a 1.6 Honda.
To be fair, the XK is a whole generation older, really, and designed more as a loping GT to drive from Surrey to Nice in one go, than a rabid monster like a GT-R. I'd like to know what owners think of the later XKR-SRSRSRaaaarrrrrrrrrgggghhhhh!!! or whatever the supposedly hardcore XKR was called by comparison to both GT-R and standard XKR. I don't know if the XFR handles better than the XK, but I've heard that the bigger, lighter all-alloy XJ is (F-type apart) the best handler in the Jag range, but I chose the XF as it's closer to the GT-R in size... not surprised the E90 felt slow, it is slow compared to a GT-R. Much less torque much higher up the rev range, for a start, and it's only 2WD, yet it weighs about the same...Also remember that tyre choice makes a massive difference.
Finally, also be aware that Litchfield offer a very popular suspension package which reengineers the settings, replaces some components and generally tunes in a much more compliant, UK-appropriate level of ride quality.
I would be willing to bet that a Litchfield suspended GT-R would make a very positive impression on you.
I am seriously thinking about a GTR to replace the M5 in a year.
The M5 is amazing in the dry but in the wet it is a somewhat frustrating experience to be robbed of 60% of the cars performance.
If the GTR can feel in the wet, how the M5 feels in the dry then that is an ideal compromise for the rainy UK.
The M5 is amazing in the dry but in the wet it is a somewhat frustrating experience to be robbed of 60% of the cars performance.
If the GTR can feel in the wet, how the M5 feels in the dry then that is an ideal compromise for the rainy UK.
john banks said:
Only comparing E60 M5 with less torque, and 2009 GTR with friendlier than OEM tyres here, but you will end up in a hedge if you try to drive a GTR in the wet like an M5 in the dry. iMHO living in Scotland for five years with a GTR.
OK maybe not quite exactly like the dry, obviously peak corner speeds will be vaguely similar but its accelerating out of a corner with so much low down torque that means needing a lot of patience. My old e90 M3 was very enjoyable in the wet due its more sympathetic torque characteristics. If a GTR can give less "wait wait wait, OK 3rd gear unleash powaaaar!, s
t wait some more ....4th gear try again" moments then that is appealing.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff