RE: MY2015 Nissan GT-R updates

[Escy]

You're beating around the bush a bit. What I think you're really saying is you wouldn't spend 80k on a car that has a Nissan badge on the front as you're a badge snob.

[crosseyedlion]

Escy said:

You're beating around the bush a bit. What I think you're really saying is you wouldn't spend 80k on a car that has a Nissan badge on the front as you're a badge snob.

Very presumptive, and not true. You're trying to join the dots when I keep trying to make a point that a lot of potential buyers think. Not everyone wants a car that's party trick is incredible pace through technology. A car at that price point needs to draw you to it and appeal on an emotional level. At 80k it doesn't, at 50k its abilities would outweigh that.

I wouldn't buy a GTR if it had a Mercedes badge on it either at 80k.

Opinions are like aholes, everyone has one. Just because someone's differs to yours you shouldn't jump to conclusions. It would be like me assuming half the people on this thread, including you- are GTR fanboys.

[liner33]

[quote=crosseyedlion

I wouldn't buy a GTR if it had a Mercedes badge on it either at 80k.



[/quote]

Are you really in the market for an 80k car ?

It does seem that those most vociferous about the r35 seem to run around in something much more humble and those that rate then have either owned one or something similar.

Fanboys may be consistent but so are the haters

[celicawrc]

I like the GTR, but there are 3 things i have never understood about it.

Nissan started with a clean sheet of paper......

1) Why did they make the car so big?
2) Why did they make the car so heavy?
3) Why have they never offered it with a manual gearbox?

These are the 3 reasons i could never own one, especially the gearbox.

[crosseyedlion]

liner33 said:

Are you really in the market for an 80k car ?

It does seem that those most vociferous about the r35 seem to run around in something much more humble and those that rate then have either owned one or something similar.

Fanboys may be consistent but so are the haters

Again, very presumptive.

If I wasn't pissing money up the wall on a race car and doing less than 24k miles a year I could have an 80k car. Yes.

I'm absolutely not a hater! I like the GTR. I was expressing my opinion on the price, that's all. You don't have to listen to it. It seems to have offended hugely. No need for people to resort to pass personal judgement and ignore what I've said completely.

If you'd rather we all had a circle wk over the holy church of GTR, high up on its pedestal, then its not for me.

[PZR]

crosseyedlion said:

That price is eye-watering when you think of the other new vehicles 80k will buy.

Could not be less keen. At 50k yes.

Can I ask exactly how you think Nissan might be able to make such a car in Japan and sell it new at 50K GBP in the UK?

Perhaps you buy your Beluga caviar at £500 a Kilo, and you have a good line on barrels of crude oil at $25...?

You might become my new business guru.

[crosseyedlion]

PZR said:

crosseyedlion said:

That price is eye-watering when you think of the other new vehicles 80k will buy.

Could not be less keen. At 50k yes.

Can I ask exactly how you think Nissan might be able to make such a car in Japan and sell it new at 50K GBP in the UK?

Perhaps you buy your Beluga caviar at £500 a Kilo, and you have a good line on barrels of crude oil at $25...?

You might become my new business guru.

I'm not saying it was possible at 50k, I was basically saying that I wouldn't pay 80k just to go fast in a front engined awd coupe.

Somehow thats massively offensive to you all? I apologise if you're all that insecure about the GTR that you can't bare to hear an opinion differing to your own. I never once criticised the car itself.

The sarcasm and childish assumptions are unbelievable. Bunch of fanboy sheep. Playground politics.

[iloveboost]

GTR Owner said:

sorry to say it but the GTR is hype. I am not at all surprised Nissan are "softening" the expectations down. Many GTR customers are not happy with the results when they take it on track which is why Nissan is "toning down" the R side of it. Can it hit some impressive numbers, yes for about two laps before it has to pull in else the transmission overheats or the breaks fail. Nissan are you listening.

I think it deserved the hype because of the first record at the Nurburgring. It made the Porsche Turbo look really poor value at twice the price and it was an exciting story in 2009 seeing Nissan come from nowhere with a no power restriction modern GT-R. It did use more track focused tyres than the Porsche Turbo, but it was a great result for Nissan. A few tests I've seen have said it's not all it's cracked up to be but it's still good value for the performance. I mean the only alternative that I can think of is the current Porsche GT3, and I think that's about £100K.

[GTR Owner]

toppstuff said:

Yes. Quite a few, actually.

And it needs to be said that worries about transmission temperatures and the like are old history. That old chestnut was put to rest years ago.

Just like the 911, the GT-R has steadily evolved and any problems largely fixed. There is a reason why the car is popular in the US (where the lemon laws are strong and consumer attitude to problems is one of intolerance) and that is because the car works well.

Well I have owned a 2010 and 2013 model and both of them had serious transmission overheating problems. I did Spa and Silverstone earlier this year with GoldTrack and the GTR was up to over 125 degrees on both occasions. There was one other GTR on the track at Spa and it had exactly the same problem. The brakes are also made of something akin to digestive biscuits although did replace one set free of charge. I have yet to find a GTR owner who has tracked their car and not had issues with overheating. I have had long arguments with Nissan about it and it is still very much a problem. There are at least two good after market tuners who do a good line in selling transmission coolers for the GTR. Don't get me wrong I love the GTR I just have no illusions about what it can do and what it can't. Nissan market it as "track ready" or at least they did and the fact is that is not.

[GTR Owner]

iloveboost said:

I think it deserved the hype because of the first record at the Nurburgring. It made the Porsche Turbo look really poor value at twice the price and it was an exciting story in 2009 seeing Nissan come from nowhere with a no power restriction modern GT-R. It did use more track focused tyres than the Porsche Turbo, but it was a great result for Nissan. A few tests I've seen have said it's not all it's cracked up to be but it's still good value for the performance. I mean the only alternative that I can think of is the current Porsche GT3, and I think that's about £100K.

Yes to be fair it did set those impressive results and for the money its very hard to beat. I guess having had to put up with Nissan stinking customer service when there are issues I'm a little XXXXXX off by their attitude. The car does have issues when driven hard and Nissan are just banking that people don't push it too hard for too long (at least not on the road) but if and when they do on a track it will void the warranty.

Edited by GTR Owner on Friday 28th November 10:45

[davepoth]

celicawrc said:

I like the GTR, but there are 3 things i have never understood about it.

Nissan started with a clean sheet of paper......

1) Why did they make the car so big?
2) Why did they make the car so heavy?
3) Why have they never offered it with a manual gearbox?

These are the 3 reasons i could never own one, especially the gearbox.

Gearbox makes sense to me - I believe it's quite capable of eating itself if everything was manual.

As for the size, I just don't know. By making it a bit smaller it would have made it even faster, more economical, and probably wouldn't have lost much practicality.

[Terminator X]

J4CKO said:

crosseyedlion said:

Boonster said:

There is a £50k alternative, it's called a used GTR

If you start going into used options it gets even worse. I'd rather a Ferrari 550/575 than a new GTR. But that's irrelevant.

A used one at 50k theres a load of other interesting machinery too. But thats not the point - we're talking about 80k for a new car. 50-55k for a new GTR and it makes sense (to me) 80k for one and its barmy.

You cant get a 911 for 80k, cant get an R8 for 80, A Ferrari starts at double that.

Not sure what else you can get that gets anywhere close for the same money.

Current M5?

TX.

[liner33]

davepoth said:

celicawrc said:

I like the GTR, but there are 3 things i have never understood about it.

Nissan started with a clean sheet of paper......

1) Why did they make the car so big?
2) Why did they make the car so heavy?
3) Why have they never offered it with a manual gearbox?

These are the 3 reasons i could never own one, especially the gearbox.

Gearbox makes sense to me - I believe it's quite capable of eating itself if everything was manual.

As for the size, I just don't know. By making it a bit smaller it would have made it even faster, more economical, and probably wouldn't have lost much practicality.

Also launch control would be pretty pointless in a manual, those people I know who have one say you need to put it in auto to use it as you cant shift quick enough

I admit I am a Nissan fanboy and really think that they brought something to the market in 2008 that other manufacturers are still trying to catch up with , its not just down to matching performance its the whole package

As for it being marketed as a track car I'm not so sure , I never got that impression and Nissan do offer a few upgrade packages to make the car more track friendly but its a GT car first and foremost

[toppstuff]

celicawrc said:

I like the GTR, but there are 3 things i have never understood about it.

Nissan started with a clean sheet of paper......

1) Why did they make the car so big?
2) Why did they make the car so heavy?
3) Why have they never offered it with a manual gearbox?

These are the 3 reasons i could never own one, especially the gearbox.

Easy to answer.

The car was one of the first to use the combination of a short stack of gears in a double clutch auto gearbox, 4 WD, a twin turbo optimised for low down torque and a lot of clever diffs and electronics to control power distribution and control slide and yaw angles. The weight of the car is not entirely unintentional - Nissan claim that they had a target weight for the car and argue that they actually didn't want the car too light.

The GT-R came up with this formula before Porsche did. The combination of a DSG type box with a stack of short gears , twin turbo torque, 4WD and clever diffs, is essentially why the car is so damn fast.

A manual box is the opposite to the design ethos.

Granted, this means the car is the opposite of what some enthusiasts want - I get that - but Nissans idea was to create something different, something to appeal to a different set of values.

Like I say, you either get the idea of it, or you don't.

To use a plane analogy, a GT-R in dark gray is like a car version of an F22 aircraft. Very hi tech, designed for a purpose and in the right circumstances, pretty formidable.

It certainly ain't no Caterham or even a Boxster, but it really is not meant to be. We should be glad it exists, even if its design ethos does not suit everyone.

[don logan]

liner33 said:

davepoth said:

celicawrc said:

I like the GTR, but there are 3 things i have never understood about it.

Nissan started with a clean sheet of paper......

1) Why did they make the car so big?
2) Why did they make the car so heavy?
3) Why have they never offered it with a manual gearbox?

These are the 3 reasons i could never own one, especially the gearbox.

Gearbox makes sense to me - I believe it's quite capable of eating itself if everything was manual.

As for the size, I just don't know. By making it a bit smaller it would have made it even faster, more economical, and probably wouldn't have lost much practicality.

Also launch control would be pretty pointless in a manual, those people I know who have one say you need to put it in auto to use it as you cant shift quick enough

I admit I am a Nissan fanboy and really think that they brought something to the market in 2008 that other manufacturers are still trying to catch up with , its not just down to matching performance its the whole package

As for it being marketed as a track car I'm not so sure , I never got that impression and Nissan do offer a few upgrade packages to make the car more track friendly but its a GT car first and foremost

It`s the public who nievely concluded that the GTR was a do it all car, the fact is that it is a GT car that is SOOO far ahead of other GTs that it really only ever has one competitor, the 911 T

That much weight and that much forward thrust is always going to be very difficult to change direction, Nissan have done a truly amazing job of making it do something that it naturally won`t want to do but why do people expect it to perform on track?

The reason why people have unrealistic expectations is obviously the `Ring time hype and because it`s performance puts it amongst other cars that are lighter and more suited to track driving, just because it can put in a spectacular lap at a massively long track where what ever it loses in the corners can be made up on the straights is a bit like a heavyweight boxer managing to land one almighty whack on a much lighter, quicker boxer who can box faster for longer!

ONLY compare it to other GT cars from Aston, Maserati, Jaguar,AMG Mercedes and a 2008 car will utterly anihilate them, and as for "sense of occasion", I can tell you that it is an AWFUL lot higher than it is driving anything from AMG (SLS aside and even that is a bit ordinary inside)

Drive a GTR in Central London and you will find people running after you trying to take photos of the car, kids giving you the thumbs up, people asking questions about it and interestingly you will find that Ferrari and Porsche owners don`t even acknowledge your existence, they will do everything possible not to make eye contact!

In context £80k is a stload of money but not against the other comparatively under achieving GT cars which are a LOT more money new!

[don logan]

Terminator X said:

J4CKO said:

crosseyedlion said:

Boonster said:

There is a £50k alternative, it's called a used GTR

If you start going into used options it gets even worse. I'd rather a Ferrari 550/575 than a new GTR. But that's irrelevant.

A used one at 50k theres a load of other interesting machinery too. But thats not the point - we're talking about 80k for a new car. 50-55k for a new GTR and it makes sense (to me) 80k for one and its barmy.

You cant get a 911 for 80k, cant get an R8 for 80, A Ferrari starts at double that.

Not sure what else you can get that gets anywhere close for the same money.

Current M5?

TX.

Don`t think so.....................http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/video-bmw-m5-vs-nissan-gt-r

[crosseyedlion]

don logan said:

It`s the public who nievely concluded that the GTR was a do it all car, the fact is that it is a GT car that is SOOO far ahead of other GTs that it really only ever has one competitor, the 911 T

That much weight and that much forward thrust is always going to be very difficult to change direction, Nissan have done a truly amazing job of making it do something that it naturally won`t want to do but why do people expect it to perform on track?

The reason why people have unrealistic expectations is obviously the `Ring time hype and because it`s performance puts it amongst other cars that are lighter and more suited to track driving, just because it can put in a spectacular lap at a massively long track where what ever it loses in the corners can be made up on the straights is a bit like a heavyweight boxer managing to land one almighty whack on a much lighter, quicker boxer who can box faster for longer!

ONLY compare it to other GT cars from Aston, Maserati, Jaguar,AMG Mercedes and a 2008 car will utterly anihilate them, and as for "sense of occasion", I can tell you that it is an AWFUL lot higher than it is driving anything from AMG (SLS aside and even that is a bit ordinary inside)

Drive a GTR in Central London and you will find people running after you trying to take photos of the car, kids giving you the thumbs up, people asking questions about it and interestingly you will find that Ferrari and Porsche owners don`t even acknowledge your existence, they will do everything possible not to make eye contact!

In context £80k is a stload of money but not against the other comparatively under achieving GT cars which are a LOT more money new!

When you say about annihilating other GT's, do you mean in pure performance or in breadth of ability? Maybe it has a bit of an identity crisis?

And the reason the Porsche and Ferrari drivers take no interest is probably because it doesn't interest them in the slightest - otherwise they would have bought one.

Although I like them, I don't bat an eyelid when I see one. Tend not to notice them.

[don logan]

crosseyedlion said:

don logan said:

It`s the public who nievely concluded that the GTR was a do it all car, the fact is that it is a GT car that is SOOO far ahead of other GTs that it really only ever has one competitor, the 911 T

That much weight and that much forward thrust is always going to be very difficult to change direction, Nissan have done a truly amazing job of making it do something that it naturally won`t want to do but why do people expect it to perform on track?

The reason why people have unrealistic expectations is obviously the `Ring time hype and because it`s performance puts it amongst other cars that are lighter and more suited to track driving, just because it can put in a spectacular lap at a massively long track where what ever it loses in the corners can be made up on the straights is a bit like a heavyweight boxer managing to land one almighty whack on a much lighter, quicker boxer who can box faster for longer!

ONLY compare it to other GT cars from Aston, Maserati, Jaguar,AMG Mercedes and a 2008 car will utterly anihilate them, and as for "sense of occasion", I can tell you that it is an AWFUL lot higher than it is driving anything from AMG (SLS aside and even that is a bit ordinary inside)

Drive a GTR in Central London and you will find people running after you trying to take photos of the car, kids giving you the thumbs up, people asking questions about it and interestingly you will find that Ferrari and Porsche owners don`t even acknowledge your existence, they will do everything possible not to make eye contact!

In context £80k is a stload of money but not against the other comparatively under achieving GT cars which are a LOT more money new!

When you say about annihilating other GT's, do you mean in pure performance or in breadth of ability? Maybe it has a bit of an identity crisis?

And the reason the Porsche and Ferrari drivers take no interest is probably because it doesn't interest them in the slightest - otherwise they would have bought one.

Although I like them, I don't bat an eyelid when I see one. Tend not to notice them.

In answer to your first question I`d say BOTH, and no, the public have the problem with it`s identity, Nissan have just made the best GT that they are capable of making and it turned out to be so far ahead that doesn`t really have a category other than the 996/7/1 Turbo, which is why that car always comes up in tests against the GTR despite the price difference!

WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH, I assume you are the kind of person that always buys the most expensive thing that you can afford because it must mean it`s the best then?]

If I wanted a Ferrari or a Porsche I would have one (or another one I should say) but I don`t, might do again in the future, might even buy a 360 as well as the GTR but that will serve another purpose other than as a GT!

You tend not to notice them? how do you know that you havn`t noticed them?

[V8KSN]

It's got more electronics than Curry's an it's got a flappy paddle gearbox like wot Maahkul Shoomakka's got!