RE: The Nissan GT-R in 2008: Time For Tea
Discussion
Bloke at work had one, used it as a daily, was really generous in taking people out in it and sharing the car.
Loved the videos, Harris at his best, but what happened to the m3's brakes, Chris genuinely looked like he st his pants at the end of the bot lap. Also, was it just me or could you hear "car parking change" clunking about under braking and in the corners...
Loved the videos, Harris at his best, but what happened to the m3's brakes, Chris genuinely looked like he st his pants at the end of the bot lap. Also, was it just me or could you hear "car parking change" clunking about under braking and in the corners...
I own a later year GTR ~670BHP and did use it as a daily 15k pa for two years until the end of year calculations for running costs became too large for a daily.
My costs during ownership
2x services per year £900 each (specialist)
1x set of tyres per year £1400 (mpss)
1x front discs and 2x sets of pads £2400 (after market) rears seem to hold up well.
average £180 a week in fuel Shell V power
Its due a major service this year now its on 66k miles so that will be expensive.
However costs aside, its one of most enjoyable, grin inducing cars I have ever owned.
Its now my weekend toy.
Also why does he keep referring to it as a Skyline? its not based on the Skyline platform hence the lack of badging.
My costs during ownership
2x services per year £900 each (specialist)
1x set of tyres per year £1400 (mpss)
1x front discs and 2x sets of pads £2400 (after market) rears seem to hold up well.
average £180 a week in fuel Shell V power
Its due a major service this year now its on 66k miles so that will be expensive.
However costs aside, its one of most enjoyable, grin inducing cars I have ever owned.
Its now my weekend toy.
Also why does he keep referring to it as a Skyline? its not based on the Skyline platform hence the lack of badging.
Edited by shavermcspud on Tuesday 24th April 07:24
Swampy1982 said:
Bloke at work had one, used it as a daily, was really generous in taking people out in it and sharing the car.
Loved the videos, Harris at his best, but what happened to the m3's brakes, Chris genuinely looked like he st his pants at the end of the bot lap. Also, was it just me or could you hear "car parking change" clunking about under braking and in the corners...
M3 stock brakes are barely adequate for fast road use.Loved the videos, Harris at his best, but what happened to the m3's brakes, Chris genuinely looked like he st his pants at the end of the bot lap. Also, was it just me or could you hear "car parking change" clunking about under braking and in the corners...
Obi Wan said:
£180 per week on fuel
Where you thrashing it every day?
Not really, considering a tank lasts around 180-190 miles and my commute to my office is roughly 40 mile round trip with plenty of stop start traffic in addition to visiting customer and clients.Where you thrashing it every day?
That's why i saw sense and got everyone's favourite diesel rep mobile a 520D poverty spec.
Edited by shavermcspud on Tuesday 24th April 16:36
shavermcspud said:
Not really, considering a tank lasts around 180-190 miles and my commute to my office is roughly 40 mile round trip with plenty of stop start traffic in addition to visiting customer and clients.
That's why i saw sense and got everyone's favourite diesel rep mobile a 520D poverty spec.
I guess we know which is the fast and which is the furious...That's why i saw sense and got everyone's favourite diesel rep mobile a 520D poverty spec.
Edited by shavermcspud on Tuesday 24th April 16:36
Alex-i4e8x said:
Drove a GT-R on a track day experience at Lydden Hill, it was by a mile the most thrilling car of the day (comparing against Audi R8, Porsche 911 Turbo, Ferrari 430) and full of feedback. Was two years ago and I can still recall the sensations - desperately want to own one.
I too drove a 2017 GTR back to back with a 458, R8 v8 Auto and McLaren Mp4. The GTR was a visceral experience- the steering, superfast gearbox, brakes and speed. If the sound was better I would place it in the same bracket as the Ferrari and McLaren. The R8 was a big disappointment for me. ganser said:
I too drove a 2017 GTR back to back with a 458, R8 v8 Auto and McLaren Mp4. The GTR was a visceral experience- the steering, superfast gearbox, brakes and speed. If the sound was better I would place it in the same bracket as the Ferrari and McLaren. The R8 was a big disappointment for me.
Agree about the R8 (also V8 Auto), I felt none of the feedback and balance that I've read about many times. 911 Turbo (Tiptronic) is another that hugely disappointed, such a blunt chassis. Forgot to list the Gallardo! Terrible driving position, lovely engine. F430 was light, agile, balanced and very enjoyable. The GTR was the most fun and full of feedback, I loved it.samoht said:
While the R35 is highly effective, looking at the fundamentals there's significant room for further improvement.
I'd like to see the R36 being a lot lighter - under 1500kgs would be appropriate for a drivers' car. Using direct injection should enable higher compression ratio / boost, so a 3.0 hot-vee V6 should be able to push out ~600hp. It would be interesting to consider the advantages of a hybrid 4wd system akin to the new NSX, with torque vectoring - although it might be too heavy. Try and get the weight back in the car, maybe using advanced materials strategically for the front end, and lower, ideally dry-sump the engine, to attain natural good handling. Ideally make the car a tad smaller, too, without compromising accommodation.
Nissan can do that, but the car would end up retailing at £150-£200k and would suffer on less than ideal conditions performance wise - at this price range people will shoot for Ferrari and Porsche, and defeats the appeal of the GTR.I'd like to see the R36 being a lot lighter - under 1500kgs would be appropriate for a drivers' car. Using direct injection should enable higher compression ratio / boost, so a 3.0 hot-vee V6 should be able to push out ~600hp. It would be interesting to consider the advantages of a hybrid 4wd system akin to the new NSX, with torque vectoring - although it might be too heavy. Try and get the weight back in the car, maybe using advanced materials strategically for the front end, and lower, ideally dry-sump the engine, to attain natural good handling. Ideally make the car a tad smaller, too, without compromising accommodation.
Also 600 HP out of turbocharged 3 litre motor using UK piss-pump fuel?? You are dreaming.
TwinExit said:
Nissan can do that, but the car would end up retailing at £150-£200k and would suffer on less than ideal conditions performance wise - at this price range people will shoot for Ferrari and Porsche, and defeats the appeal of the GTR.
Also 600 HP out of turbocharged 3 litre motor using UK piss-pump fuel?? You are dreaming.
Looks like there are some dreamers at Mercedes-AMG too, then:Also 600 HP out of turbocharged 3 litre motor using UK piss-pump fuel?? You are dreaming.
"AMG boss Tobias Moers told Autocar at the Geneva motor show that the A45 will have "well over 400bhp" from its new engine, which is expected to be an extensively reengineered version of the current car's 2.0-litre lump. That means it will have more than 200bhp per litre,..."
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/2019-m...
so no, I think that's entirely plausible for a GTR that will sell for a lot more than a Mercedes A-class.
Also, I don't believe a lighter, better balanced car would do worse in poor weather conditions; slippery roads tend to exaggerate underlying characteristics, making poise more valuable.
As regards cost, I'm not proposing a carbon chassis or anything. Part of it would be following a decade's worth of industry advancement in weight-saving, using part aluminium, tailored blanks, plastics etc. And part of it could be just make the car a bit less vast in all dimensions. Together with a physically smaller engine, it should be possible to get the weight down by 15-20%.
samoht said:
Looks like there are some dreamers at Mercedes-AMG too, then:
"AMG boss Tobias Moers told Autocar at the Geneva motor show that the A45 will have "well over 400bhp" from its new engine, which is expected to be an extensively reengineered version of the current car's 2.0-litre lump. That means it will have more than 200bhp per litre,..."
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/2019-m...
so no, I think that's entirely plausible for a GTR that will sell for a lot more than a Mercedes A-class.
Firstly, this A45 from your link has not demonstrated that sort of output, let alone has it been extensively tested on the road with the 95-98 RON fuel that punters will expect to use."AMG boss Tobias Moers told Autocar at the Geneva motor show that the A45 will have "well over 400bhp" from its new engine, which is expected to be an extensively reengineered version of the current car's 2.0-litre lump. That means it will have more than 200bhp per litre,..."
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/2019-m...
so no, I think that's entirely plausible for a GTR that will sell for a lot more than a Mercedes A-class.
Do you have any clue about detonation & knock thresholds of mainstream unleaded fuels? Typically the torque output needed for 200 hp per litre is around 450 - 500 lbs/ft unless the engine can rev to something silly like 9000 rpm.
Without any supplemental charge cooling (methanol / alcohol injection) , the realistic limits for torque would be 400 lbs/ft on a 3 litre 6 cyl when using solely UK supermarket pump fuel.
samoht said:
Also, I don't believe a lighter, better balanced car would do worse in poor weather conditions; slippery roads tend to exaggerate underlying characteristics, making poise more valuable.
As regards cost, I'm not proposing a carbon chassis or anything. Part of it would be following a decade's worth of industry advancement in weight-saving, using part aluminium, tailored blanks, plastics etc. And part of it could be just make the car a bit less vast in all dimensions. Together with a physically smaller engine, it should be possible to get the weight down by 15-20%.
This is just all talk and no evidence to demonstrate how so. Reducing displacement from 3.8 to 3.0 will not always save any weight (in fact some applications a smaller displacement can weigh more), the engine block has to be durable to tolerate sustained high BMEP, and all GTRs since 1989 have utilised 4WD to put the torque/power down on the roads. The extra weight is a small penalty for the benefits high output/reliable powertrain and traction.As regards cost, I'm not proposing a carbon chassis or anything. Part of it would be following a decade's worth of industry advancement in weight-saving, using part aluminium, tailored blanks, plastics etc. And part of it could be just make the car a bit less vast in all dimensions. Together with a physically smaller engine, it should be possible to get the weight down by 15-20%.
You are applying eurocentric Lotus fantasy land philosophy on a breed of car that has always opposed that approach, and have time and time again proven to work effectively in the real world.
Edited by TwinExit on Wednesday 25th April 16:14
Edited by TwinExit on Wednesday 25th April 16:37
jakesmith said:
Would love to experience driving one. So tune-able too. Usually gets lots of cliched comments about playstation / dull / not noisy enough but I bet it's a fking riot to hoon
I've tracked one... Twice. The car is designed to do one thing, go around corners fast. The engine noise is so-so (OK, but bad compared to a Lambo or Ferrari), the AWD system will prevent you from doing a lot of hoon type activities as it's meant to keep you from losing control and does that quite well. If you wanted to set a good time around the track of your choice and still be able to drive it on the road in relative comfort, its ideal. For hooning, forget about it, get an M car to do drifting/donuts.
It wasn't the most clinical car I drove on that track day (well, one of them). That would be the McLaren MP4-12C. Completely dead feel, insanely fast but almost no feedback through the controls.
jakesmith said:
What are the typical running costs on this car? I have a Maserati Granturismo that has cost me £5k in 18 months not even including a service. Can't be worse than that surely!?
Costs have broadly been covered. What made them "high" was the 6 month service schedule, which turned into 12 months on later cars, so not as expensive to service.Spare a thought though, it's £4k for a set of tyres on a Nismo. Not sure I know any car that costs that much in rubber?
I moved from a MY10 car, which I thought was fast, but not that engaging, to a Nismo. Whatever changes were made to the Nismo, make it feel much more alive, mobile and light. And I'd challenge anyone who thinks they are Playstation to drive, to try one on a typical B road in the wet. It'll scare the living daylights out of you if you take Playstation type liberties.
Alpinestars said:
Costs have broadly been covered. What made them "high" was the 6 month service schedule, which turned into 12 months on later cars, so not as expensive to service.
But not really because the schedules are pretty much the same. The small, immediate service is around £150 to £200 because it's little more than an oil change. So it's a small part of the overall running costs.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff