Originally Posted by Nine
Where is the ripping, it hurts to read your posts because you side step the entire point. You simply can't accept that performance numbers do not make a 'super car'. Intangibles and price are actually a part of the definition of a super car, it's something that is very expensive and typically an insanely great performing car. This is the entire draw of the GT-R, super car performance at a fraction of the price, it's not ripping, it's fact.
If you think a GT-R is among the list of super cars, well then by your definition a BOSS Mustang and a Z06 should be spoken of in the same sentence with Pagani and Mclaren, do you realize how crazy that is???
Again, this is not ripping just a matter of perspective, not semantics. Performance is one aspect vs. intangibles like a zonda's exhaust, or it's carbon fiber door panel.
You are taking this again personally, without applying a rational arguement.
Frankly if a Boss 302 can hang with a gtr, 458, or Gallardo it would be a supercar but it can't. You offered up one piece of evidence. How would it do around the 'ring or any number of other courses. It would lose badly to the Nissan and other supercars. Christ, it would also get pasted in a straight line.
You obviously don't take my opinion too seriously but you're willing to say practically every respected car reviewer considers a GTR a supercar are wrong? I offered up three guys that know cars a hell of a lot better than anyone on this forum and every one of the said the Nissan was a supercar.
But a suppose you know better than Tiff Nedell, Jason Plato or Jay Leno.
And as far as rational arguments are considered I have offered plenty. All you GTR supercar deniers can say is its not exotic, which isn't a prerequisite, no that there are "intangibles"(ie you can't quantify it).