2013 Nissan GT-R Black Edition: The Gran Turismo Car

[adimeister]

Oh damn. The sweetest car. It almost defeats all the top of the line expensive cars out there. My dream car!!

 

[aggroboy]

[citation][nom]bjaminnyc[/nom]Fast but really ugly. For the price a ZR1 is way sexier and probably as fast in most situations. The GTR is a race car lacking the ascetics of a refined sports car.[/citation]
Aesthetics are mostly subjective though, I'm not a big fan of the ZR1 myself.

 

[farensabri]

[citation][nom]Cataclysm_ZA[/nom]I like the GT-R for a number of reasons, but the main one is that its very similar to Porsche. You can drive them to the racetrack, on the track or to the shopping mall in comfort. You can even service them yourself - looking at the hood everything's within an arm's reach and that makes maintenance easy. The reason why I most like it is because it's better than most super cars out there, yet costs half as much, just like the AUDI R8. How on earth Nissan keeps costs down while still performing so well is still a mystery.[/citation]

Nissan didn't keep the costs down, it's just that others (in its class) are overpriced.

 

[amuffin]

Now if I could get one of those as my first car...

 

[cypeq]

[citation][nom]amuffin[/nom]Now if I could get one of those as my first car...[/citation]

It would probably be your coffin. Sorry super car for the first one ? Can you even drive normal one ?

 

[amuffin]

[citation][nom]amuffin[/nom]Now if I could get one of those as my first car...[/citation]

It would probably be your coffin. Sorry super car for the first one ? Can you even drive normal one ?

Not yet, but you'd know what I'd be using a car like this for!

 

[sanilmahambre]

Benchmarks doesn't tell the whole story when it comes to AUTOMOBILE.
A physical confirmation should make a difference!

 

[n1tr0]

Wow, that is one dated looking car in desperate need of an overhaul !
Some of my fondest memories are of road tripping around New Zealand in the late 90's in an R32 (usually top speed limited by the surfboard on the roof), so I'll always have a soft spot for the the GT-R. That being said, the 2013 looks like a cheaply made toy from the late 90's. Like the old R32, I might pick up one that's 5-10 years old as a toy, but it's no supercar worthy of the $100k+. My last Kia Optima rental car had a nicer interior (although the seating at track speed would have been insufficient).
I don't mean to be ripping on the Skyline, it's a classic brand, but for all the wonders of it's engine and drivetrain, but like all the current Nissans, the outside looks dated and the inside feels cheap. At $109k, it's priced the same as a BMW M6 Coupe and the M6 Coupe is just as gadget laden, more powerful, and a world apart in design and comfort. Really, given the ever increasing traffic/congestion, I don't see the point of either of them, it's like having a computer that overclocks to 7Ghz, but it only runs so long as you're pouring in the liquid nitrogen.

 

[tuanies]

Wow, that is one dated looking car in desperate need of an overhaul !
Some of my fondest memories are of road tripping around New Zealand in the late 90's in an R32 (usually top speed limited by the surfboard on the roof), so I'll always have a soft spot for the the GT-R.

The R32 is my second favorite Skyline, first would have to be the RWD R31 Coupe and Wagons, but that's because I had an F31 Infiniti M30 / Nissan Leopard convertible. Although a AWD Turbo Stagea with the Skyline treatments would be nice....

 

[RedJaron]

Considering the base model is ~$60k, it's even more performance for the dollar.

if you can find a new one for 60k you should buy it. the base price is just under 100k.

Whoops, my mistake. I was reading somewhere that a 2012 base GT-R was about $60 - 70k. Looks like I was wrong.

 

[tuanies]

Considering the base model is ~$60k, it's even more performance for the dollar.

if you can find a new one for 60k you should buy it. the base price is just under 100k.

Whoops, my mistake. I was reading somewhere that a 2012 base GT-R was about $60 - 70k. Looks like I was wrong.

It was much cheaper at launch in 2008 but the price has risen year-to-year.

 

[zakaron]

I am certainly impressed by this car, but sadly not interested. It looks fantastic and the specs sheet is brilliant. The thing that holds me back is the transmission. It may be able to spool up the next gear and shift quicker then I ever could, but lack of clutch pedal and H pattern shifter is a deal breaker for me. It would feel like something is missing - and that something would be my input & control. Driver aids are fine, but when the manufacture automatically assumes control away from the driver with no other choices, it becomes more of an insult to my driving ability not giving me that option for a proper manual gearbox. I'd rather drive the 370Z while I drool over the GTR, if that makes any sense.

 

[tuanies]

I am certainly impressed by this car, but sadly not interested. It looks fantastic and the specs sheet is brilliant. The thing that holds me back is the transmission. It may be able to spool up the next gear and shift quicker then I ever could, but lack of clutch pedal and H pattern shifter is a deal breaker for me. It would feel like something is missing - and that something would be my input & control. Driver aids are fine, but when the manufacture automatically assumes control away from the driver with no other choices, it becomes more of an insult to my driving ability not giving me that option for a proper manual gearbox. I'd rather drive the 370Z while I drool over the GTR, if that makes any sense.

With enough money you can probably drop the VR38DETT motor into the Z

 

[danwat1234]

[citation][nom]tuanies[/nom]It has continuously variable valve timing control just on the intake side. Variable valve timing is nothing new, every company has their implementations going as far back as VTEC on a Honda. Its technically advanced because it makes a lot of reliable power and a modern DOHC engine. And at the price of the GT-R, I doubt fuel economy is on your mind. Its a motor designed for raw power. Its like asking why a GTX 690 or TITAN consumes more power than a GTX 660, does it? Yes, but do you care that it does? If you're set on buying it, most likely not.[/citation]

But for a car so expensive, why not add auto start/stop? It doesn't cost much to implement.
Yes I know continuously variable valve timing is widespread but most regular cars only have 2 levels of valve lift, not continuous.
BMW and Fiat has some of their vehicles with continuously variable valve lift but most manufactures aren't doing this yet. It would be nice if the GTR would. Then they wouldn't need a throttle plate anymore.

 

[tuanies]

[citation][nom]tuanies[/nom]It has continuously variable valve timing control just on the intake side. Variable valve timing is nothing new, every company has their implementations going as far back as VTEC on a Honda. Its technically advanced because it makes a lot of reliable power and a modern DOHC engine. And at the price of the GT-R, I doubt fuel economy is on your mind. Its a motor designed for raw power. Its like asking why a GTX 690 or TITAN consumes more power than a GTX 660, does it? Yes, but do you care that it does? If you're set on buying it, most likely not.[/citation]

But for a car so expensive, why not add auto start/stop? It doesn't cost much to implement.
Yes I know continuously variable valve timing is widespread but most regular cars only have 2 levels of valve lift, not continuous.
BMW and Fiat has some of their vehicles with continuously variable valve lift but most manufactures aren't doing this yet. It would be nice if the GTR would. Then they wouldn't need a throttle plate anymore.

Because start/stop would probably put more strain on the powertrain and deliver not enough improvement in fuel savings to mitigate the cost and added complication. I've driven a X3 with start/stop, it was very annoying when the engine would start/stop because it was very noticeable.

BMW's VANOS system is excellent, I have it in my E39 touring but I'm not sure if they figured out the seals yet. Granted the hydraulic system continues to function with worn down seals, but you do get quite a bit of power loss. Its a cheap parts fix but still takes an afternoon to do.

 

[cobra5000]

A two year old could take better pictures..

 

[tuanies]

[citation][nom]cobra5000[/nom]A two year old could take better pictures..[/citation]

Sorry. I wasn't used to the blaring CA sun at all hours of the day and had to run the benchmarks, take pictures and drive to LA and head to the airport. I was in an unfamiliar surrounding and short on time.

 

[amuffin]

[citation][nom]cobra5000[/nom]A two year old could take better pictures..[/citation]

Sorry. I wasn't used to the blaring CA sun at all hours of the day and had to run the benchmarks, take pictures and drive to LA and head to the airport. I was in an unfamiliar surrounding and short on time.

I could do the pics for you!!

If I could ever get a job at THG...

 

[daswilhelm]

[citation][nom]daswilhelm[/nom]110 grand is bang for the buck now?[/citation]
The same way a $400 graphics card is when a $400 computer is enough for most people.

[citation][nom]tuanies[/nom]It has continuously variable valve timing control just on the intake side. Variable valve timing is nothing new, every company has their implementations going as far back as VTEC on a Honda. Its technically advanced because it makes a lot of reliable power and a modern DOHC engine. And at the price of the GT-R, I doubt fuel economy is on your mind. Its a motor designed for raw power. Its like asking why a GTX 690 or TITAN consumes more power than a GTX 660, does it? Yes, but do you care that it does? If you're set on buying it, most likely not.[/citation]

But for a car so expensive, why not add auto start/stop? It doesn't cost much to implement.
Yes I know continuously variable valve timing is widespread but most regular cars only have 2 levels of valve lift, not continuous.
BMW and Fiat has some of their vehicles with continuously variable valve lift but most manufactures aren't doing this yet. It would be nice if the GTR would. Then they wouldn't need a throttle plate anymore.

Because start/stop would probably put more strain on the powertrain and deliver not enough improvement in fuel savings to mitigate the cost and added complication. I've driven a X3 with start/stop, it was very annoying when the engine would start/stop because it was very noticeable.

BMW's VANOS system is excellent, I have it in my E39 touring but I'm not sure if they figured out the seals yet. Granted the hydraulic system continues to function with worn down seals, but you do get quite a bit of power loss. Its a cheap parts fix but still takes an afternoon to do.

to me, start stop is a terrible idea. most engine damage occurs during starting, and stopping the oil flow to the turbos while they are still spinning is the worst thing you can do to a turbo.

 

[FtsArTek]

[citation][nom]cknobman[/nom]Motor Trend said this car is so fast its scary and no street car should ever need to be this fast. They did a h2h against the Porsche 911 Turbo.Godizlla won.[/citation]

You should see what the one at work is like then... road legal 1,100hp at the wheels (designed by racing, but still can be driven on NZ roads)

My own R33 Skyline is still pretty powerful, 500-odd horsepower at the wheels, and Rear wheel drive only, no 4wd, so it'd show most V8s up when it comes to burnouts.

 

[FtsArTek]

[citation][nom]zakaron[/nom]I am certainly impressed by this car, but sadly not interested. It looks fantastic and the specs sheet is brilliant. The thing that holds me back is the transmission. It may be able to spool up the next gear and shift quicker then I ever could, but lack of clutch pedal and H pattern shifter is a deal breaker for me. It would feel like something is missing - and that something would be my input & control. Driver aids are fine, but when the manufacture automatically assumes control away from the driver with no other choices, it becomes more of an insult to my driving ability not giving me that option for a proper manual gearbox. I'd rather drive the 370Z while I drool over the GTR, if that makes any sense.[/citation]


You can get manual gearboxes fabricated for them, although they're damn expensive. You can also convert an RB25DET/RB26DETT gearbox to be compatible.

 

[FtsArTek]

[citation][nom]FtsArTek[/nom]You should see what the one at work is like then... road legal 1,100hp at the wheels (designed by racing, but still can be driven on NZ roads)My own R33 Skyline is still pretty powerful, 500-odd horsepower at the wheels, and Rear wheel drive only, no 4wd, so it'd show most V8s up when it comes to burnouts.[/citation]

No, auto start/stop actually requires a surprising amount of engineering - the starter motor needs to be able to handle far more usage than a normal one, plus the system will require a lot of work, alternator needs to be better, batteries have to be better, plus the start/stop thing in a large V6 like this is just pointless, they use a LOT of fuel to start.

 

[danwat1234]

With modern fuel injection, it doesn't take much fuel to start. They say if it's idling for more than 10 seconds you are wasting fuel. You don't necessarily need the starter motor to crank the engine. Have the computer realize the piston closest to full compression with clean air and fire it to start the engine rotating.
Auto start stop doesn't require a larger alternator, the battery will charge fast enough without a huge alternator. Yes the battery may need to be upgraded and the starter motor to have the reliability they want. Shouldn't cost much, especially if the engine usually starts from a piston firing.
But I have been doing my own auto start/stop on my Honda Civic for years and years and nothing has quit on me. My oil analysis has also came back with very low wear levels. Most wear happens on cold starts but not on hot starts.
The issue of turbos and oil pressure/flow. Electric oil pumps, the industry is going to variable speed oil pumps. Lots of cars already have electric water pumps now, electric oil pumps is the next step.

 

[RobAC]

[citation][nom]tuanies[/nom]Sorry. I wasn't used to the blaring CA sun at all hours of the day and had to run the benchmarks, take pictures and drive to LA and head to the airport. I was in an unfamiliar surrounding and short on time.[/citation]

No need to apologize. The majority of us understand.

 

[kinggremlin]

[citation][nom]tuanies[/nom]When compared to vehicles that cost $300k+, yes its quite the bargain![/citation]

There are many important aspects to a car that can't be measured with a stopwatch. At $85k when first released, it was a bargain for sure. It was also being sold for a loss. Which made it a bogus comparison to other cars that were sold for a profit. Now that the price has jumped to $110k, it isn't really the same "bargain" it was before. At that price the downsides of the car, most notably the Walmart interior become real negatives.

If you can afford a $110,000 car, you can very likely afford $150,000, which would get you a much nicer 911 Turbo or V10 Audi R8. Both would be a tick slower on a track, which is meaningless on the road where both the Audi and Porsche would be superior.