production GTR not as fast as media ringers. More proof.
2009 Nissan GT-R: 0-60 in 3.5 and 27.4mpg
With all of the hubbub surrounding the recent repairs on our long term 2009 Nissan GT-R we thought we'd bring things back around and focus on the point of the GT-R: going fast. We ran our GT-R (our car purchased from a dealership, not a press vehicle) through all of our normal performance tests, 0-60, 1/4-mile, 60-0, slalom and skidpad. Follow the link for the full details. 2009 Nissan GT-R Performance Test:Acceleration: 0-30: 1.5 0-45: 2.6
0-60: 3.9 0-60 with rollout ( read our How We Test article for more on rollout): 3.5 0-75: 5.5 1/4-mile: 12.0 @ 114.7 Comments: "Seems like both the driver and the car are working properly, but this isn't as quick as we've seen in the past. Launch is good, but 60 and 1/4 (times) are off slightly. Got noticeably slower the more we ran it. Quit at 4 runs." Braking: 60-0: 108 feet 30-0: 28 feet Comments: "Again, everything feels to spec, yet 108 is a long way from previous 98 ft best." Slalom: 73.6 mph Comments: "Suddenly the GT-R feels 400-lbs lighter in the slalom. The biggest challenge is not hitting cones (especially on the driver's right side). Discovered a counter intuitive trait this time: if it understeers, wood the throttle and let the computers take care of it." Skidpad: .91 G Comments: "All setting on full attack but it understeered its way to a .091G. Seems "off" to me." Just to save you the time here are the links to our last GT-R test and one to the last test of a Corvette Z06 (which happened to be stonking fast and the quickest one we've ever tested). Oh, about that 27.4 mpg thing. On the same day as this test I was charged with escorting a test car, ferried by trailer, on a 250+ mile trek. We were limited to Trucks with Trailer speed limits (which were occasionally ignored by my right foot) on California's 5 highway. The digital display read 29.5, but our calculations had it a bit lower; 27.4. Beats my best Z06 mileage (25.5) by a hair. Mike Magrath, Vehicle Testing Assistant @ 5,000 miles
Drop the GTR's MSRP to $50,000 and provide a warranty that covers the car bumper-to-bumper without any weak Nissan "loopholes". Then, I'll buy a GTR along with many others.
But, a $77,000 car that's acceleration equals a $50,000 C6 makes ZERO sense. The GTR's AWD and backseat is nice, but that does not overcome the GTR's faults or overcome the base C6 that has incredible styling, a record of dependability, phenomenal resale value, HUGE aftermarket support, and status as an AMERICAN ICON.
Drop the GTR's MSRP to $50,000 and provide a warranty that covers the car bumper-to-bumper without any weak Nissan "loopholes". Then, I'll buy a GTR along with many others.
But, a $77,000 car that's acceleration equals a $50,000 C6 makes ZERO sense. The GTR's AWD and backseat is nice, but that does not overcome the GTR's faults or overcome the base C6 that has incredible styling, a record of dependability, phenomenal resale value, HUGE aftermarket support, and status as an AMERICAN ICON.
Take that $77K car on the road course with the $50K Vette and see what happens. Even the 12.6@110 mph GTR, the weakest I've ever seen, beat the C6 Z06 on the road course, same day, same mag test. I know a tuner that owns one of the few GTRs out at the moment, apparently the launch control has not been used correctly by a few mags. The weak point for the current GTR among those that want big HP is the trans, it's going to have to be beefed up even more. Regardless, the 12.0 ET isn't too bad. I've seen C6 Z06s in the low 12s at 123 mph in mag tests, doesn't mean that's what they all do.
Drop the GTR's MSRP to $50,000 and provide a warranty that covers the car bumper-to-bumper without any weak Nissan "loopholes". Then, I'll buy a GTR along with many others.
But, a $77,000 car that's acceleration equals a $50,000 C6 makes ZERO sense. The GTR's AWD and backseat is nice, but that does not overcome the GTR's faults or overcome the base C6 that has incredible styling, a record of dependability, phenomenal resale value, HUGE aftermarket support, and status as an AMERICAN ICON.
Is it just 1 GTR they're talking about or a handful or a whole lot? If it's just 1 then ah well... if I was the owner I'd try to return it to get a new one. Seems simple enough but I have no idea what you would have to do to try and do something like that. All I've heard are good things about the GTR and some sprinkles of bad (which is expected with ANY new sports car). I doubt 1, 2, 10 GTR duds will bring Nissan to their knees and drop the price to $50k.
$77,000 sports car acceleration equals a $50,000 C6 makes ZERO sense.... only because we're comparing apples and oranges tho.
On a different perspective... there's also a $110,000 sports car that's acceleration is less than a $50,000 C6 but it might make a little more sense. 2008 Maserati GranTurismo, $110k (MSRP), 4145 lbs, 405 hp V8 339 TQ, 0-60 5.1/sec and IMO looks a hell of a lot better than a GTR or base C6. If you were to give away a 08 Maserati GT, 09 GTR, 08 C6Z.. I bet the Maserati's would get the most business. Doesn't make sense because the C6Z is faster but nevertheless, the Maserati's would sell out first.
You have to remember that people just don't buy cars purely on speed. If that was the case why would you even buy a car? You should build a sports car thats faster than a GTR, C6, C6Z, ZR1 and most supercars. The FFR GTM kit total build cost (including everything, paint, tires, engine.. everything!) $45,000. The GTM looks way better than a GTR, C6Z, ZR1, Porsche, Ferrari.. in fact it looks like a super C6Z or futurestic C6Z. It weighs 2240 lbs, 1.05 lat G's, 70-0 166ft with stock C6 brakes, 1/4 mi 11.0 sec @ 132 mph, 0-60 3.0sec... You just can't beat that at $45,000. And in the mouth is a LS series engine of your choice... even the LS7! (a lot of parts are from the vette).
So in your same perspective, we all kinda make ZERO sense for buying $50k+ value sports cars when there's a better looking+performing supercar that's less than $50k. As a mechanic, building a car myself to specs would be a better warrenty than from Nissan... or GM for that matter. You couldn't blame the Manufacturer about this and that anymore.. cause you'd be building it.
Mag journalist/drivers have no idea on how to extract the most out of a z06. They just come up with excuses.
True, it's just like watching t.v. Are you gonna believe everything that come on the tube?
A worldwide census would show the most accurate results IMO. That way you can factor in ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. But, who really cares about this stuff if you're not a pro driver or have a real investment in racing? If I bought a C6Z and it's fast as lightning but 0.5 sec slower than GM or any magazine advertised I wouldn't even give a darn. All you would see is
It might be quicker and it might not be, but it doesn't change the fact that the GT-R is Butt Freakin' Ugly and no amount of horsepower will fix that!
By the way, heck my 7 year old Corvette does better 0-60 times (3.2) and gets better mileage too (has gotten as high as 32 mpg with 500+ rwhp)................I'll give them props though, theirs is faster around corners!
Corvette Store
production GTR not as fast as media ringers. More proof.
Also "phenomenal resale..."
. It weighs 2240 lbs, 1.05 lat G's, 70-0 166ft with stock C6 brakes, 1/4 mi 11.0 sec @ 132 mph, 0-60 3.0sec... You just can't beat that at $45,000. And in the mouth is a LS series engine of your choice... even the LS7! (a lot of parts are from the vette).
