Why is the NISSAN GT-R priced so keenly????

[mattdaniels]

Guyr said:

mattdaniels said:

997 GT-2 service interval is 10,000km unless I'm much mistaken.

You are mistaken, thanks for simply guessing though.........

http://www.porsche.com/uk/accessoriesandservice/po...

12,000 miles for all GT models.

I wasn't simply guessing. I was quoting from a Panamera manual by mistake though.

[Mikeyboy]

yonex said:

Would you think that anyone who is looking to buy either would really that bothered about servicing costs? I mean seriously, are we trying to suggest that 6000 miles of hooning around in either isn't going to cost just slightly more than the average car? Hard useage will kill the tyres in signficantly less time than an intermediate service.

Made a difference to me. I may have been able to afford the car but if the thing was also going to set me back 2.5k every year I would have binned the idea. A porsche is only about £250 a year.
Tyres on the lighter Porsche will be much less also. (ETA, I mean less often worn out)

Lets be fair, at £130k plus people don't care if their car costs £2500 to service, at £55k it is much more of an issue.

Edited by Mikeyboy on Wednesday 22 February 16:54

[Trommel]

mattdaniels said:

I interpreted Mikeyboys post as inferring that Porsche had longer service intervals than the GT-R.

They do as far as I'm aware.

Edit - as Guy said. Every 20k miles does seem a long time.

Edited by Trommel on Wednesday 22 February 16:58

[rajkohli81]

xRIEx said:

Galsia said:

Looks?

Its the same reason why a Zonda would have no appeal if it looked like a Mondeo.

The Lotus Carlton had appeal despite looking like a Carlton.

..but not Zonda appeal...

Its not a really hard concept to fathom is it... the difference between a really good and exceptionally fast car and a supercar?

[Guyr]

...oh and many 911 Turbos run 20,000 miles or two year intervals on service whereas GTRs ran 6,000miles/6 months on the first few years. (I've owned both 997GT2 and GT-R from new in 08/09 respectively so have some experience.)

Apparently in a car that's hardly driven the exact same Mobil 1 oil in the sump of a GT-R degrades over 6 months, whereas it's perfectly ok in a Turbo for 24 months. I tried arguing this with Nissan to no avail.

[Diamond blue]

k-ink said:

I think they are fabulous machines. But I'd never consider buying a used one out of main dealer warranty. Yet I would buy the older models such as the 34, 33, 32. I get the impression the latest model is simply too complex, expensive and fragile. Whether my impression is correct remains to be seen. But the thought of those bills means I'd never buy one. I doubt I am alone.

They are not fragile.Parts and upgrades are now much more readily available much like the earlier cars and yes, things like tyres cost a lot but all cars with tyres of these dimensions have very costly replacements and that includes some very ordinary BMW sports and the likes. Your impression is wrong.
I've owned older Skylines and the R35 is massively more advanced in every way. There is now more you can do to make them even more ballistic and they are absolutely bulletproof!

And ref the OP point. Its a car that is costing 17k less than it did new, has barely moved down in a year and is stupendous value for money.

[xRIEx]

rajkohli81 said:

xRIEx said:

Galsia said:

Looks?

Its the same reason why a Zonda would have no appeal if it looked like a Mondeo.

The Lotus Carlton had appeal despite looking like a Carlton.

..but not Zonda appeal...

Its not a really hard concept to fathom is it... the difference between a really good and exceptionally fast car and a supercar?

Wow, people here really defensive if you present an alternative point of view to generate reasoned debate.

I was disagreeing with your comment of 'no appeal' (as quoted above) - a 7.3 litre 600hp Mondeo would have appeal. No, it wouldn't have 'Zonda' appeal, if would have '600hp Mondeo' appeal. Hence the Lotus Carlton comparison. Or is this concept too hard to fathom?

[crazy about cars]

Well, to put it to layman terms, you can buy the GTR at a bargain price compared to other performance cars of the around the same calibre/performance but the cost gets balanced back with maintenance costs

[Diamond blue]

crazy about cars said:

Well, to put it to layman terms, you can buy the GTR at a bargain price compared to other performance cars of the around the same calibre/performance but the cost gets balanced back with maintenance costs

Thats well summed up but with the exception of newer Porsches 2 year service intervals costs can be less than nearly anything else that is remotely in its performance bracket.
Everything on an Aston V12, any Lamborghini or Ferrari costs a fortune. From £3000 services to £2500 wing mirrors.
By comparison GTRs are very reasonable.

[mclwanB]

Think I must be in a minority of one but I think it looks way more interesting than a 911 (except may be the 991) and the number of pictures of GTRs on my phone is not small. Would go and have a look at a 911 if parked up but generally has to be something bit more special for a photo IMO (991 would be an exception).

[KennyGT]

chibbard said:

Sorry, but i don't consider it a supercar. It's more comparable to fast jap cars like Subaru's and the like.

oh really:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDP7Pty8Qnw

[Nedzilla]

KennyGT said:

chibbard said:

Sorry, but i don't consider it a supercar. It's more comparable to fast jap cars like Subaru's and the like.

oh really:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDP7Pty8Qnw

When are people going to understand that being fast doesn't make a car a supercar.....

[Strawman]

Nedzilla said:

When are people going to understand that being fast doesn't make a car a supercar.....

Being faster is part of it, from the other side when are people going to acknowledge that being a 'supercar' (however you define that) doesn't mean the best or most desirable, for the money.

[mclwanB]

Light touchpaper and walk away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjVjGfdhEfY

If being difficult to drive is part of being a supercar then does the Veyron count anyway? Would much rather have a GTR than a Veyron anyway...

[ZeeTacoe]

KennyGT said:

chibbard said:

Sorry, but i don't consider it a supercar. It's more comparable to fast jap cars like Subaru's and the like.

oh really:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDP7Pty8Qnw

S'funny how they don't include the ZR1 or SRT10 ACR in that cmparo.

[dtrump]

chibbard said:

Sorry, but i don't consider it a supercar. It's more comparable to fast jap cars like Subaru's and the like.

[icepop]

Smifffy said:

chibbard said:

Sorry, but i don't consider it a supercar. It's more comparable to fast jap cars like Subaru's and the like.

Lol - There speaks another person who's never been one (join the masses).

Having owned several Subarus and now a GTR - IMHO the GTR is not just in another league, it's 5 different leagues away. In a recent video Chris Harris compared it to the new M5 which isn't unfair. Both are heavy, turbocharged, have V engines and can cross continents at a jog. But very different beasts and completely different styles.

And there we go.

As a "fisherman" myself, amongst the fools that sail these shores, why oh why can't you spot a hook, line and sinker.

But still you take the bait.

Great fun, well done Chibbard. 6 pages worth of fun, and alot won't have the faintest.

[Smifffy]

You must be so proud of that post. Well done.

[KennyGT]

Nedzilla said:

When are people going to understand that being fast doesn't make a car a supercar.....

Because there are no slow supercars.

[tercelgold]

On country roads does it feel too wide?, main roads would be ok but a lot of cars are just getting too wide for me personally.

2.125 meters inc mirrors.