RE: Litchfield LM20 revealed at ASI
Friday 13th January 2017
Since 1997 - yes, it really was that long ago - Litchfield has been making its name known across the industry for getting big power from Nissan GT-Rs. Of course it has dabbled with other stuff (its lightest RS6 tune makes 660hp, for example) but making fast, four-wheel drive Nissans go even quicker still is what Litchfield is all about.
To mark two decades of doing so, Litchfield has creates this: the LM20. Based on the new MY17 car, Litchfield humbly describes this GT-R as "arguably the greatest road-going GT-R so far", "jaw-droppingly capable" and "a limited production special that celebrates performance without compromise." Unabashed is probably what you'd call it.
Behind those fantastic Rays wheels (what is it about bronze wheels on Japanese cars that works so well?) sit 400mm Alcon brakes; the Michelin tyres mentioned would appear to be Pilot Super Sports, leaving the option there for Cup 2s if you're more serious about track driving.
Litchfield LM20 revealed at ASI
Famed GT-R tuners celebrate 20 years with a MY17 car and... only another 100hp?
Interestingly given Litchfield has made GT-R with four-figure power outputs this LM20 features 'just' 675hp, or 105hp more than standard. Still, with a claimed 0-100mph time of 5.7 seconds and a 203mph top speed it's probably fast enough for most. Peak torque is 600lb ft, produced from 2,500-5,100rpm.
The more substantial tweaks are underneath in fact. Litchfield has its own enhanced calibration for the Bilstein Damptronic dampers, plus the traction and stability control, said to allow for "staggering" road and track dynamics. Given the standard car is hardly lacking in that department, that promises a great deal. Also new are bespoke Eibach springs and a new anti-roll bar.
See also the new carbon fibre parts: the front lip, the blade across the grille and portions of the rear bumper. Litchfield claims tangible downforce from the front changes, assisted by side air guides. Looks cool, too.
Litchfield will make 20 LM20s, priced at £96,995. Each one is supported Litchfield's three-year warranty that includes servicing and even covers GT-R Owner's Club track days. Just don't be this guy, of course...
Autocar 1,200hp drag race vid here if you want it too.
 |
 |
Discussion
Always been a great fan of the GT-R, but it's time has passed. When it arrived it swept all before it and really got up Porsche's chuff, which to me was the best part of it.
I still love how Porsche officially tried to belittle the Datsun by saying none of their best test drivers (that would include a certain mr. Rohrl) could get anywhere near the claimed Ring times in the GT-R.
Only for sportAuto's chief editor Horst von Sauria to then do his first lap in it in a staggering 7:38.
Trousers have never dropped lower around Porsche boffins ankles.
After that, Nissan stood still, making their car softer and slower, and Porsche nicked everything that made GT-R's and Skylines fast, the four-wheel steering, the DCT transmission, etc etc. and now run rings around everything else again.
It was fun while it lasted.
I still love how Porsche officially tried to belittle the Datsun by saying none of their best test drivers (that would include a certain mr. Rohrl) could get anywhere near the claimed Ring times in the GT-R.
Only for sportAuto's chief editor Horst von Sauria to then do his first lap in it in a staggering 7:38.
Trousers have never dropped lower around Porsche boffins ankles.
After that, Nissan stood still, making their car softer and slower, and Porsche nicked everything that made GT-R's and Skylines fast, the four-wheel steering, the DCT transmission, etc etc. and now run rings around everything else again.
It was fun while it lasted.
323ti said:
After that, Nissan stood still, making their car softer and slower, and Porsche nicked everything that made GT-R's and Skylines fast, the four-wheel steering, the DCT transmission, etc etc. and now run rings around everything else again.
It was fun while it lasted.
I assume you're referring to the Turbo S running rings around everything else? In regards to a Turbo S versus a GTR, you're comparing a £145,773.00 car with one that costs £80,995.00, thats a 44% difference and considering how close the performance figures are, I'd still consider the GTR a pretty unbelievable performance bargain.It was fun while it lasted.
- 991 Turbo S: 0-60: 2.5s 0-100: 6.2s
- 2017 GTR: 0-60: 2.9s 0-100: 7.2s
In comparison, If you spend 44% less (£45,357.20) than you do on a GTR your not even in an M4, your in a reasonably well specced A45 AMG / RS3 and thats it, this always blows my mind when I consider the price difference between the 991TS/GTR
Not "attacking" you directly 323, it's just I find the price gets ignored in most discussions when comparing the GTR/991 Turbo S and with such a large price difference, it's almost like comparing apples and oranges, or GTR's and A45's
Very nice, I like it. I would not mind driving this LM20, stock - no.
At one point I was choosing between new GTR (550hp version) and second-hand 997 Turbo. I went for Turbo, because of the manual transmission, smaller size because I am fan of Porsche.
GTR was never to be on the same level as other fast cars, for one, if it were more expensive noone would buy one, but it was as fast as the much more expensive machinery...for a while.
It was basically a modern Supra.
It never sold really well either.
But I do not believe its times have passed, it's just timeless, it is still a modern Supra, and a great base for tuning.
At one point I was choosing between new GTR (550hp version) and second-hand 997 Turbo. I went for Turbo, because of the manual transmission, smaller size because I am fan of Porsche.
GTR was never to be on the same level as other fast cars, for one, if it were more expensive noone would buy one, but it was as fast as the much more expensive machinery...for a while.
It was basically a modern Supra.
It never sold really well either.
But I do not believe its times have passed, it's just timeless, it is still a modern Supra, and a great base for tuning.
Edited by Ho Lee Kau on Friday 13th January 19:50
Edited by Ho Lee Kau on Friday 13th January 20:13
323ti said:
Always been a great fan of the GT-R, but it's time has passed. When it arrived it swept all before it and really got up Porsche's chuff, which to me was the best part of it.
I still love how Porsche officially tried to belittle the Datsun by saying none of their best test drivers (that would include a certain mr. Rohrl) could get anywhere near the claimed Ring times in the GT-R.
Only for sportAuto's chief editor Horst von Sauria to then do his first lap in it in a staggering 7:38.
Trousers have never dropped lower around Porsche boffins ankles.
After that, Nissan stood still, making their car softer and slower, and Porsche nicked everything that made GT-R's and Skylines fast, the four-wheel steering, the DCT transmission, etc etc. and now run rings around everything else again.
It was fun while it lasted.
GTR never reached official acceleration figures "in the wild".I still love how Porsche officially tried to belittle the Datsun by saying none of their best test drivers (that would include a certain mr. Rohrl) could get anywhere near the claimed Ring times in the GT-R.
Only for sportAuto's chief editor Horst von Sauria to then do his first lap in it in a staggering 7:38.
Trousers have never dropped lower around Porsche boffins ankles.
After that, Nissan stood still, making their car softer and slower, and Porsche nicked everything that made GT-R's and Skylines fast, the four-wheel steering, the DCT transmission, etc etc. and now run rings around everything else again.
It was fun while it lasted.
The Ring car was never shown properly, so no idea how modified it was.
It is an "epoch"-defining car though.
BTW, you do know that Nissan did not develop double-clutch transmission, in fact, Porsche was using it much earlier, but in its race cars, and the first DCT was in a Golf?
Edited by Ho Lee Kau on Friday 13th January 19:58
Tuvra said:
I assume you're referring to the Turbo S running rings around everything else? In regards to a Turbo S versus a GTR, you're comparing a £145,773.00 car with one that costs £80,995.00, thats a 44% difference and considering how close the performance figures are, I'd still consider the GTR a pretty unbelievable performance bargain.
In comparison, If you spend 44% less (£45,357.20) than you do on a GTR your not even in an M4, your in a reasonably well specced A45 AMG / RS3 and thats it, this always blows my mind when I consider the price difference between the 991TS/GTR
Not "attacking" you directly 323, it's just I find the price gets ignored in most discussions when comparing the GTR/991 Turbo S and with such a large price difference, it's almost like comparing apples and oranges, or GTR's and A45's
Only Porsche was tested in numerous magazines and showed the official acceleration figures, and 50 launch-control starts in a row without a problem. - 991 Turbo S: 0-60: 2.5s 0-100: 6.2s
- 2017 GTR: 0-60: 2.9s 0-100: 7.2s
In comparison, If you spend 44% less (£45,357.20) than you do on a GTR your not even in an M4, your in a reasonably well specced A45 AMG / RS3 and thats it, this always blows my mind when I consider the price difference between the 991TS/GTR
Not "attacking" you directly 323, it's just I find the price gets ignored in most discussions when comparing the GTR/991 Turbo S and with such a large price difference, it's almost like comparing apples and oranges, or GTR's and A45's
Nissan never showed official acceleration figures in any tests.
Porsche is more expensive, yes, but people buy it. Noone (well, maybe a few really really hard core fans) would buy GTR at that or even somewhat lower price.
Porsche offers probably the best brand name in the business (forget small-number manufacturers like Ferrari), and it offers much more than just a really fast ride.
Acceleration figures is not everything for most people.
Tuvra said:
Not "attacking" you directly 323, it's just I find the price gets ignored in most discussions when comparing the GTR/991 Turbo S and with such a large price difference, it's almost like comparing apples and oranges, or GTR's and A45's
Not a problem, I'm with you all the way as a matter of fact. Its just that the beauty of the car in 2008 was that it cost 54K and blew almost every other car into the weeds, regardless of price. Nowadays it is only remotely on par speed-wise so you need to drag the price advantage into the story to get back into it, if you see what I mean.
And still the GT-R manages to ruffle the feathers of the Porsche fanboys as Holy Cow eagerly demonstrates which again to me is a quite amusing part of the GT-R legend. All the nonsense about "grenade engines" and "never demonstrated blah" or the ubiquitous "boring computer game of a car" I find richly comic when every journo who's actually driven it says it is quite the opposite.
I had a decent go in a dealer supplied Track Pack GT-R here in Holland a couple of years ago but quickly realized that the car was WAY to fast for a place as cramped and tiny as this.
And so I bought a slow 320bhp Porsche. That's right. Not a 911 of course. After reading Evo magazine too long and watching Chris Harris for all of three minutes they tend to make me violently ill.
323ti said:
I still love how Porsche officially tried to belittle the Datsun by saying none of their best test drivers (that would include a certain mr. Rohrl) could get anywhere near the claimed Ring times in the GT-R.
Only for sportAuto's chief editor Horst von Sauria to then do his first lap in it in a staggering 7:38
Von Saurma is his name.Only for sportAuto's chief editor Horst von Sauria to then do his first lap in it in a staggering 7:38
You remeber certain C.Harris doing twin test GT2 vs GT-R at long gone site called Drivers Republic? Video from the article is still to be found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq1UZzJk6mw
Long story short - GT2 was almost 7 seconds quicker (7:49 vs 7:55,9), despite the manufacturers claimed I think 7:28 for the Nissan and 7:31 for the Porsche. Harris commented something along the lines that he can imagine how a professional could shave almost 20 seconds from his time with a GT2, but can't imagine shaving almost half a minute from the time of a GT-R.
Edited by Zajda on Friday 13th January 22:07
Also, the R35 came out in 2007 and the 991 getting on for five years later, I cant imagine Nissan are going to rest on their laurels with the R36, as a rule, I dont think 911 Turbo owners look at the GTR as an option and GTR buyers probably dont consider the 911 being twice the price.
And anyway, both are so ridiculously fast in standard form I dont think either is going to feel lacking, been in a 991 Turbo, fastest car I have been in, felt more akin to a sports bike acceleration kind of feeling.
And with the GTR, it is kind of todays Sierra Cosworth, in that most seem to be modified in some way, this is considered a mild upgrade, so many are 700 bhp plus.
And anyway, both are so ridiculously fast in standard form I dont think either is going to feel lacking, been in a 991 Turbo, fastest car I have been in, felt more akin to a sports bike acceleration kind of feeling.
And with the GTR, it is kind of todays Sierra Cosworth, in that most seem to be modified in some way, this is considered a mild upgrade, so many are 700 bhp plus.
J4CKO said:
Also, the R35 came out in 2007 and the 991 getting on for five years later, I cant imagine Nissan are going to rest on their laurels with the R36, as a rule, I dont think 911 Turbo owners look at the GTR as an option and GTR buyers probably dont consider the 911 being twice the price.
And anyway, both are so ridiculously fast in standard form I dont think either is going to feel lacking, been in a 991 Turbo, fastest car I have been in, felt more akin to a sports bike acceleration kind of feeling.
And with the GTR, it is kind of todays Sierra Cosworth, in that most seem to be modified in some way, this is considered a mild upgrade, so many are 700 bhp plus.
In Toronto, Canada anyway, there are more new GTRs than 991 Turbos, many driven by young-men from mainland China. I think the GTR just has a legendary status among those who are under 40 that the 911 Turbo doesn't. Or even if the 911 Turbo does, its viewed as an old man's car by some. Personally, in my perfect 10 car garage, as a winter car, I'd love to have a GTR and not a 911 Turbo. If I were going for a 911, I'd want it to be a bit more special like a GT3/RS (which are still cheaper than a Turbo S, and I would still come out ahead financially even if I put daily-driver miles on it), or a Panamera Turbo, which is certainly slower than a 911 Turbo, but not by "that much" on the road, and tons more usable. And anyway, both are so ridiculously fast in standard form I dont think either is going to feel lacking, been in a 991 Turbo, fastest car I have been in, felt more akin to a sports bike acceleration kind of feeling.
And with the GTR, it is kind of todays Sierra Cosworth, in that most seem to be modified in some way, this is considered a mild upgrade, so many are 700 bhp plus.
I know that the 911 Turbo is likely a better driving car than the standard GTR or the Nismo, but I'm not looking for steering delicacy in a car like that, and neither I suspect, are most owners. Rather, I would just want something with an indomitable 4WD system and brutal power.
323ti said:
Tuvra said:
Not "attacking" you directly 323, it's just I find the price gets ignored in most discussions when comparing the GTR/991 Turbo S and with such a large price difference, it's almost like comparing apples and oranges, or GTR's and A45's
Not a problem, I'm with you all the way as a matter of fact. Its just that the beauty of the car in 2008 was that it cost 54K and blew almost every other car into the weeds, regardless of price. Nowadays it is only remotely on par speed-wise so you need to drag the price advantage into the story to get back into it, if you see what I mean.
And still the GT-R manages to ruffle the feathers of the Porsche fanboys as Holy Cow eagerly demonstrates which again to me is a quite amusing part of the GT-R legend. All the nonsense about "grenade engines" and "never demonstrated blah" or the ubiquitous "boring computer game of a car" I find richly comic when every journo who's actually driven it says it is quite the opposite.
I had a decent go in a dealer supplied Track Pack GT-R here in Holland a couple of years ago but quickly realized that the car was WAY to fast for a place as cramped and tiny as this.
And so I bought a slow 320bhp Porsche. That's right. Not a 911 of course. After reading Evo magazine too long and watching Chris Harris for all of three minutes they tend to make me violently ill.
Still, I always found GTR intriguing...but not worth owning. BUT I would not mind driving this LM20, at least I would love to test it for a few days, because Litchfield is a known GTR tuner and I like the looks of this particular car. In my mind, the purpose of R35 is to be tuned. I would not buy a stock GTR even now. My 997T is also tuned, and since it is kind of less technologically advanced than R35 it is kind of raw and scary, and I like that. AND it has the best manual gearbox in the business!
Besides, as mentioned, GTR is very heavy and very big, and overpowered for fun. My Turbo is also overpowered for fun, but at least it is lighter, smaller and manual.
Therefore I have a 981 Boxster S, with NA 3.4L engine. It is relatively light (100s of kilograms compared to 997 and GTR) and it has usable power (and not too much torque! and no turbos!), Boxster is so much fun on winding roads and sounds fantastic! That's the car for fun. OR a bike, of which I have a few. I love my 997T as a fast GT car though. As far as GTR is concerned, it would not be first or even second car....and there is also Z06 Corvette to consider. I do respect GTR though, and it is an epoch-making vehicle, as I said.
Finally, Porsche upped their game, Nissan hasn't, here is an example:
http://www.caradvice.com.au/508488/2017-nissan-gtr...
Edited by Ho Lee Kau on Saturday 14th January 16:12
Zajda said:
323ti said:
I still love how Porsche officially tried to belittle the Datsun by saying none of their best test drivers (that would include a certain mr. Rohrl) could get anywhere near the claimed Ring times in the GT-R.
Only for sportAuto's chief editor Horst von Sauria to then do his first lap in it in a staggering 7:38
Von Saurma is his name.Only for sportAuto's chief editor Horst von Sauria to then do his first lap in it in a staggering 7:38
You remeber certain C.Harris doing twin test GT2 vs GT-R at long gone site called Drivers Republic? Video from the article is still to be found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq1UZzJk6mw
Long story short - GT2 was almost 7 seconds quicker (7:49 vs 7:55,9), despite the manufacturers claimed I think 7:28 for the Nissan and 7:31 for the Porsche. Harris commented something along the lines that he can imagine how a professional could shave almost 20 seconds from his time with a GT2, but can't imagine shaving almost half a minute from the time of a GT-R.
Edited by Zajda on Friday 13th January 22:07
Nissan had to show off to make a splash, but never showed factory figures in the wild.
It's facts, whatever Nissan fanboys say.
https://youtu.be/A5DRCTW-Q7o
http://www.caradvice.com.au/508488/2017-nissan-gtr...
BlackPrince said:
J4CKO said:
Also, the R35 came out in 2007 and the 991 getting on for five years later, I cant imagine Nissan are going to rest on their laurels with the R36, as a rule, I dont think 911 Turbo owners look at the GTR as an option and GTR buyers probably dont consider the 911 being twice the price.
And anyway, both are so ridiculously fast in standard form I dont think either is going to feel lacking, been in a 991 Turbo, fastest car I have been in, felt more akin to a sports bike acceleration kind of feeling.
And with the GTR, it is kind of todays Sierra Cosworth, in that most seem to be modified in some way, this is considered a mild upgrade, so many are 700 bhp plus.
In Toronto, Canada anyway, there are more new GTRs than 991 Turbos, many driven by young-men from mainland China. I think the GTR just has a legendary status among those who are under 40 that the 911 Turbo doesn't. Or even if the 911 Turbo does, its viewed as an old man's car by some. Personally, in my perfect 10 car garage, as a winter car, I'd love to have a GTR and not a 911 Turbo. If I were going for a 911, I'd want it to be a bit more special like a GT3/RS (which are still cheaper than a Turbo S, and I would still come out ahead financially even if I put daily-driver miles on it), or a Panamera Turbo, which is certainly slower than a 911 Turbo, but not by "that much" on the road, and tons more usable. And anyway, both are so ridiculously fast in standard form I dont think either is going to feel lacking, been in a 991 Turbo, fastest car I have been in, felt more akin to a sports bike acceleration kind of feeling.
And with the GTR, it is kind of todays Sierra Cosworth, in that most seem to be modified in some way, this is considered a mild upgrade, so many are 700 bhp plus.
I know that the 911 Turbo is likely a better driving car than the standard GTR or the Nismo, but I'm not looking for steering delicacy in a car like that, and neither I suspect, are most owners. Rather, I would just want something with an indomitable 4WD system and brutal power.
Ho Lee Kau said:
Haven't seen GTRs with significant mileage. Have seen numerous Turbos with significant mileage, these cars are made for driving. 200000, 300000km, no problem. And 997.2 Turbo (with PDK and 530hp) were already so polished they are perfect for everyday driving all year round.
Most of the Canadian GTRs from 2009 for sale have around 60k miles. Most 911 Turbos have no more than 40k and even those are rare. I'm sure that 911 Turbos can do even a million miles, but my point was just that anecdotally, most GTRs round here tend to get used more like workhorses relative to the 911 Turbos, which for some weird reason are still mostly used in summerGassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff