Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 8:28 PM
Sat Nov 21
14 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jalopnik.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | Email | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler | Email
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin | Email
Associate Editor - Houston:
Matt Hardigree
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Ben Wojdyla
Editor-at-Large:
Mike Spinelli
Contributors:
Mark Arnold
John Krewson | Email
Andy Didorosi
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
oh wait. #ringwars
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
@Steve_in_NC: Hey you guys, remember not to dragon the gtr in public.
10/28/09
But still that time does seem suspect.
Maybe I'm just not that educated about the car and its capabilities.
10/28/09
10/28/09
I just hoped that someone would take their time to help me understand why the car is as good as it is. Which "Power Tryp forever" has done and you have not.
I do have one request:
Don't cluster me with the Porsche fanboys out there. The ZR1 is still faster so I am happy and I don't want to get involved in the quarrel you Nissan fans have with Porsche fans. #ringwars
10/28/09
This car has the same components you will find in a Porsche cup car (their actual race cars) sans the sequential six and full cage. So you can be assured it will run around the 'ring all day (as it does at the Nurburgring 24 and countless other endurance races), whereas the GTR race car is completely different from the street car (it doesn't even have the same kind of engine).
Then there is the whole issue of a lack of third party verification on the Nissan 'ring time. Porsche is famous for its production cars always achieving the claimed performance figures (in fact, they usually undershoot their claims). This has been verified on every last one of their cars, as they have been running the 'ring since before it was cool. This whole tiff started when Porsche walked into a random US Nissan dealership and bought a GT-R, then shipped it home to verify the time. The best they could manage was in the 7:50s. So far, no one has been able to replicate Nissan's time. Add to this that several magazines (I think Motor Trend was one) dynoed their demo car and found it had been tarted up a bit to wow the reviewers (which isn't all that uncommon). This all leads to the conclusion that the GT-R you buy will probably not be able to turn in a 'ring time of 7:26 or 7:29, but the average car owner (myself included) doesn't have the skill to max out the car anyways.
The final straw would be the warranty issue, where Nissan's clearly states that using your launch control will void the warranty as will dynoing it or taking it to a race track. Therefore, if you drive it in any way other than strictly to the letter of the law, the GT-R's data recorder will tell the Dealership next check-up, and ipso facto, warranty retracto. Contrast this to Porsche, which offers trackday and driver's ed (the race track kind, not the passenger brake kind) courses from the dealership, and will warrant it absolutely so long as you don't try to upgrade parts (although who knows how long that will last once VW has had their way).
The end result is a Porsche may be expensive, but it's not just a mark-up. You get what you pay for, and GT-R owners paid for a house on sand.
Oh, and do group me in with the Porsche fanboys: there is no substitute. #ringwars
10/28/09
04/24/09
Good engineering seeks to have an inexpensive, simple to repair part as the weak link in the chain, and to have parts with a durable service life, able to last for major servicing cycles. Grenading transmissions don't meet those specs.
Folks also shouldn't expect that they can abuse their cars mercilessly and expect them to work flawlessly, or that a dealer will perform warranty service on a car that's been used too harshly. Some of what Nissan won't honor seems to be within parameters that should be expected for the car. They may simply be trying to avoid the expense of warranty work, or to forestall a recall.
04/24/09
Only a few transmissions were blown by people who abused the "launch control" and it never happened running on a high speed racetrack.
SO PLEASE SHUT UP.
04/24/09
It has nothing to do with the car's performance in comparison to other cars.
Take another look at the facts.
Nissan works their ass of and wastes a shitload of resources that could have been better spent elsewhere to create a car that could beat the crap out of a 996 Turbo. They load it with all sorts of trick gizmos and gadgets, including the afore-mentioned "launch control", and use all of those gadgets, in order to achieve that goal. They succeed in doing so. They advertise it everywhere and milk it for all its worth, playing on the fact that much of the car's desire stems from the fact that it can beat the 996 Turbo.
People therefore want to buy what Nissan refers to a "special performance car" so that they can use those gadgets themselves in this "very reliable" vehicle with the "ultimate performance made accesible". So when eager owners finally attempt to use those gizmos and gadgets to access that "ultimate performance", regardless of whether or not they grenade the transmission, Nissan informs them that their warranty has been voided. Also, they void your warranty if you do not allow them access to the vehicle black box when you take it in for servicing.
As a result, owners feel more than a little robbed about the fact that they just blew $70+ K (to say nothing of dealer mark-ups) on a "special high performance car" that is only allowed to be driven like a $15K econobox. Add to that the fact that no one else seems to be able to replicate Nissan's claims, be they Porsche or an independent tester, and the frustration is pretty understandable.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Nissan is being more than a little shiesty here.
04/24/09
Seems to me that Nissan has shown twice more that the 7:28 ring time they posted was no joke, and have since backed it up with two more, even faster passes. Nevermind that the new model without the "launch control" or whatever they want to call it still does 0-60 in 3.5 sec, a fact verified by plenty of car mags as of late. Porsche needs to either stop whining or find a better test driver. Perhaps Toshio Suzuki will offer to show them how to drive the GT3 properly as well?
As for the tranny breaking antics, well that's what happens when you go drag racing in a car meant for road racing. Drag racing breaks transmissions, and has broken them in nearly any AWD car ever made. In a ZR1, for instance, you make too much torque, it just lights up the tires because the weak link in the chain is the grip level of the tires. Double that mechanical grip by driving all four wheels, maybe something else has to give? As any former owner of a modded DSM (a very good example of an AWD car that wasn't designed with drag racing in mind) will tell you, that something is usually the transmission. Nissan is covering their asses against retards blowing up expensive transmissions on dragstrips using an undocumented feature they read about on the internet. At least Nissan will still be around to honor their warranty!
Like it or not, this car is only .4 seconds slower than a car that has at least 100 more HP and costs $45K more. Plenty of money left over by not buying a POS Chevy to take care of the HP difference.
04/24/09
I don't give two shits who teaches whom to drive. The point is that Porsche is not the only one that is unable to replicate Nissan's claims. In these post-scientific revolution days, people prefer data that is replicable by an outside source. So for that reason, as others suggest, why not give both cars to the same driver on the same day and see what happens? I really don't care which one is actually faster than which, as I wouldn't by either of them, even if I did have the money. But I find the continuation of this whole dumbass slapfight to be ridiculous. Both sides know how to solve the problem. Neither side is willing to put their ass on the line and do it, which tells me that they are both full of shit.
As for the tranny breaking antics, it doesn't matter whether the transmission breaks or not. Any use of the launch control whatsoever voids the warranty. I have listed out the other things that void the warranty at least three other times in this thread, so I'll let you look at that on your own time.
Now for the philosophical failure of Nissan:
If the car requires the use of traction control to achieve the advertised performance that Nissan bases it's marketing scheme around, and the car is subsequently built with that traction control, then why is it forbidden to use it under terms of warranty? If drag racing is such a bad idea in the GT-R, then why did Nissan give demonstrations of the car drag racing? If Nissan wanted to build a sports car that is capable of beating a Porsche and simultaneously making "ultimate performance accessible for all drivers", then why is it a violation of warranty to do so?
Kind of defeats the philosophical purpose of such a car.
Finally, it has nothing to do with what the actual performance of the car is. It has everything to do with Nissan being shady about every aspect of the cars performance and everything that has to do with it. Like I said, I could care less which car is the fastest, and I think the same holds true for the target audience. A Corvette guy is a Corvette guy. A Porsche guy is a Porsche guy. Not much will ever change that. But that doesn't mean that a company has to resort to bullshit tactics like Nissan in order to change it. And as far as the whole "Chevy POS" thing goes, take car to do a better job of separating your own subjective judgments from your reasoning process.
I am a Corvette guy myself, but I have no issue admitting the virtues of Nissan's GT-R. What I take issue with the way that Nissan has treated its customers with regards to the GT-R.
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
They're gonna wait until everyone puts their cards on the table then BAM!! they run a 7:20. Not to mention judging by the video the ACR could probably be faster as well.
04/24/09
Because when it comes down to being aboslutely, positively stupid fast and sticking your entire brand image on that, no one is quite the match of Chevrolet.
04/24/09
04/24/09
Jim Mero's own words that he wasn't as happy as he would have liked with the run as a result of track conditions, as well as his overt indication that he would like another chance on a better day, provides some circumstantial evidence that Chevrolet may have been sandbagging it, or at the very least has the potential to better.
04/24/09
04/24/09
The ZR1 has only a 0.3 second lead on the GT-R? It makes no difference. That's just 0.3 seconds that the GT-R couldn't hack. It doesn't matter what if the time margin is 0.3 seconds or 30 seconds, winning is winning, and the ZR1 wins. On the winner's podium, that's all that counts. Anything else is s meaningless pity party for the loser.
/Sorry, I couldn't help it. I was forced to sit through F&F last night.
04/24/09
Go watch the video of their run, there's time to be found, he messed up on a couple of corners. Not that I could do any better mind you, just saying that the current time for the ZR1 is not the best it's capable of.
04/24/09
04/24/09
+ Watch video
04/24/09
I feel the ZR-1's time will be beat, but that's kind a sad thing to think about, a much lighter, much more powerful car, with much better brakes, that costs roughly twice as much after dealer markup(that I've seen) is only .3 seconds faster around the 'ring?
All of these cars are amazing machines, and that's why they make different cars, different opinions warrant different products.
04/24/09
And dealer markup makes the car twice as "expensive" from the mfg? The mfg put the most performance out per dollar by far.....which is why there's dealer markup. You can't add that in when comparing engineering feats, only in a purchase decision.
04/24/09
04/24/09
No, but it is worth 0.3 seconds and the peace of mind that comes from knowing that you actually own your car and have the ultimate say over it.
Collectibility and resale value will likely be higher as well.
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
Your really an idiot hey. How many trannys were affected. Do some reserch defor you start yapping.
04/24/09
I mean... really?
(When you're going to say something like this you should really do some research before you start yapping... wouldn't take much to figure out GT-R blowing transmissions is sort of a meme here.)
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
I wonder what vehicle surrently for sale in the US would be the slowest.
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
@engineerd: Look at this one pushing a 430
04/24/09
I don't care how big the 450 is, but 600 ft-lbs is not going to be the slowest around the ring.
The smart, outgoing Prius, and probably some others are way slower. And at the slow speeds "handling" is relative cuz they can all take the turns at similar slow speeds.
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
I have no doubt that the F-450 would be able to out accelerate a Smart ForTwo, but there is in fact a tangible difference in handling. Even if both were to take a given turn at the exact same speed, the F-450 weighs almost three times what the ForTwo does, meaning that it carries significantly more inertia in a given direction to account for, requiring that much more effort to re-direct that inertia, which naturally comes out the cost of a significant amount of that inertia. My money says that Smart ForTwo comes out of that turn at a higher speed.
Also, diesels make all their power in low-to-mid RPM range, and whipping around a race track usually involves a lot of high RPM work, where most diesels lose their edge.
04/24/09
04/24/09
I love the honesty. To be fair to the Sienna, however, it would likely clown my Saturn SL2. Not that that's saying much, but still.
@Tiberiuswise, now with incriminating, commas:
No, I think the Wrangler would be competitive, if not outright faster, as after the five or six turns, any true wrangler owner would say "fuck this", veer of the track, and cut across the land to get back to the finish line in record time.