RE: Nissan GT-R MY17 v. Porsche 911 Carrera GTS
Discussion
cramorra said:
nickfrog said:
guards red said:
Audemars said:
Both ugly cars. GTR is classless and the Porsche is FUGLY as usual.
Feel sorry for the folk that aspire to own these cars.
What do you aspire to?Feel sorry for the folk that aspire to own these cars.
Yipper said:
For £100k, the GTS is too slow. It gets beaten by a £30k Golf R with a £500 remap.
That's a bit like saying a 5 Series Touring is too small for £50k because it can be beaten by a Transit for half the price.Or that an hour of sex is overrated because you can make a mess of your pants all by yourself in 15 seconds flat. Which I suspect has some resonance with you.
GT-R for me. If you're going to spend that kind of money on a drivers car instead of a Range Rover, it should make you giggle, sweat and swear out loud. IDK why people are saying it looks old - it is 9 years old so it is familiar, but it looks like nothing else. I saw one on the motorway the other week and it looked like a fighter jet in amongst the Cessna's - an impression reinforced when a gap opened up, there was a whoosh and he did a creditable impression of the millennium falcon.
The final straw would be 4wd vs 2wd. If it's your daily drive, you want good power (400hp+) then 4wd is just much better. My car has good traction for a big car, but on damp days it might as well just have half the power/torque because I don't have traction at lower speeds. If that's the case, the only thing I'm getting for 18mpg is the epic noise.
The final straw would be 4wd vs 2wd. If it's your daily drive, you want good power (400hp+) then 4wd is just much better. My car has good traction for a big car, but on damp days it might as well just have half the power/torque because I don't have traction at lower speeds. If that's the case, the only thing I'm getting for 18mpg is the epic noise.
While I can appreciate the GTR, it's never been a looker in any of the iterations available - and controversial as it may be I actually prefer those with widebody kits applied to give the slab sides some depth (not that I'd have one of those either). Seeing an R35 at shows nowadays is almost yawnable, even with 750hp+ on offer.
I find it quite surprising that the same basic shape has existed for a decade now; to the layman it's virtually indistinguishable now to the original 2007 one, save for the sort of tweaks a PHer would spot.
Time for a reboot methinks. The Porsche is arguably much the same; an 'iconic' shape reskinned and given some boost. Of the two I'd have the Porsche as it's far less ugly, and has a more interesting layout for the price point.
I find it quite surprising that the same basic shape has existed for a decade now; to the layman it's virtually indistinguishable now to the original 2007 one, save for the sort of tweaks a PHer would spot.
Time for a reboot methinks. The Porsche is arguably much the same; an 'iconic' shape reskinned and given some boost. Of the two I'd have the Porsche as it's far less ugly, and has a more interesting layout for the price point.
nicfaz said:
GT-R for me. If you're going to spend that kind of money on a drivers car instead of a Range Rover, it should make you giggle, sweat and swear out loud. IDK why people are saying it looks old - it is 9 years old so it is familiar, but it looks like nothing else. I saw one on the motorway the other week and it looked like a fighter jet in amongst the Cessna's - an impression reinforced when a gap opened up, there was a whoosh and he did a creditable impression of the millennium falcon.
The final straw would be 4wd vs 2wd. If it's your daily drive, you want good power (400hp+) then 4wd is just much better. My car has good traction for a big car, but on damp days it might as well just have half the power/torque because I don't have traction at lower speeds. If that's the case, the only thing I'm getting for 18mpg is the epic noise.
A Katsura orange one went past me in Manchester a few months back and it made me fall in love. To my eyes it looked fabulous, girl I was with on the other hand thought it looked st The final straw would be 4wd vs 2wd. If it's your daily drive, you want good power (400hp+) then 4wd is just much better. My car has good traction for a big car, but on damp days it might as well just have half the power/torque because I don't have traction at lower speeds. If that's the case, the only thing I'm getting for 18mpg is the epic noise.
Durzel said:
£86,300 on a GTR just seems wrong. It is very accomplished I'm sure, and no doubt very fast, but its allure for me was when it was "a giant killer for M5 money". Up in the rarified atmosphere of £85k+ it just seems rather inelegant.
I say that as someone who owned a R33 GTR & R34 GTR, so very much a fan of blisteringly quick Japanese motors.
Then again I wouldn't spend £100k on that particular Porsche either.
A giant killer for M5 money, you say?I say that as someone who owned a R33 GTR & R34 GTR, so very much a fan of blisteringly quick Japanese motors.
Then again I wouldn't spend £100k on that particular Porsche either.
Auto Express said:
The new BMW M5 will cost £89,640 when it hits UK showrooms next February, although there will be plenty of options available to bump that price up further.
From this articleThe GTR is less than M5 money. It's not that the GTR has got expensive, it's that everything has got more expensive. I bet you'd end up spending much more on options for the M5 than the GTR too...
spikyone said:
From this article
The GTR is less than M5 money. It's not that the GTR has got expensive, it's that everything has got more expensive. I bet you'd end up spending much more on options for the M5 than the GTR too...
I'd love to meet the guy that doesn't spend at least £7K when speccing up his new M5, it can't be done. The GTR is less than M5 money. It's not that the GTR has got expensive, it's that everything has got more expensive. I bet you'd end up spending much more on options for the M5 than the GTR too...
vz-r_dave said:
I was being sarcastic, find it hilarious how some write cars off because of interior..... more so when they don't own anythnig in the same segment.
Ah, I do find it funny when people write cars like the GTR off simply because of their Japanese interiors, which are probably better built in some respects than their rivals. The GTR isn't and never has been about high end interiors and driver comfort. aaron_2000 said:
vz-r_dave said:
I was being sarcastic, find it hilarious how some write cars off because of interior..... more so when they don't own anythnig in the same segment.
Ah, I do find it funny when people write cars like the GTR off simply because of their Japanese interiors, which are probably better built in some respects than their rivals. The GTR isn't and never has been about high end interiors and driver comfort. The 911 interior is dull, and not really much been updated since the 997. The gtr might not have the same quality but the '17 is nicer looking place to be than the 911.
By the time I'd added just the most basic extras (seats, steering wheel, fuel tank, door handles), a bog standard C2 had gone way over the cost of the gtr, so I went for the gtr. A nicely spec'd gts might have swung it, but then you're well over 100k and into GT3 territory. Way out of my price range.
The whole dash might creak on the gtr when you set the gearbox, traction and suspension to 'race', but I'll happily take that over just the sheer cost of getting those switches added to a 911.
By the time I'd added just the most basic extras (seats, steering wheel, fuel tank, door handles), a bog standard C2 had gone way over the cost of the gtr, so I went for the gtr. A nicely spec'd gts might have swung it, but then you're well over 100k and into GT3 territory. Way out of my price range.
The whole dash might creak on the gtr when you set the gearbox, traction and suspension to 'race', but I'll happily take that over just the sheer cost of getting those switches added to a 911.
Helicopter123 said:
Staggered that the GT-R is still so heavy despite having such a cheap interior?
The flip side to that equation would be "why does a car costing so much more, and weighing so much less, accelerate so much more slowly."If I look at "fit for purpose", the question I would ask before that would be, what do I want from a car?
If the answer is, performance metrics, then the GTR wins. If the answer is, something reasonably quick that can be used more of the time, then the 911 wins.
In saying that, I'm a huge GTR fan, and so I'd take it regardless, because I'm willing to compromise. Hell, the extra £20k+ can be put to a second car, etc.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff