Quote:
Originally Posted by 997GT3
I don't believe the GTR is a money loser but I'll research that. Ghosn's goal was to make it a profitable car and the price has crept up because they wanted to keep it in the black.
|
You'll find the first reports of unprofitability surfaced with the announcement of Spec V pricing a long time ago. Nissan want to share the platform further to recoup their development and testing costs (god, I hope they bring the Essence concept to production with this drivetrain); you think that all the time they spent while camped out at the 'Ring and flying their team to Laguna Seca came cheap? While nowhere near as bespoke as the LFA, it's still bespoke compared to, say, the Z06 or Porsche Turbo. For Nissan to profitably offer this car at $85k makes almost zero sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 997GT3
If the LFA and the GTR were even remotely close in price I would easily pick the Lexus over the Nissan.
But that's the problem. The lexus costs 5-6 times as much.
|
Well, why should it be remotely close in price? By the time GT-R production is over, they'll probably sell over 8 times as many cars. Carbon ceramic brakes vs steel. Naturally aspirated engine running to 9k rpm and making 550 hp vs a 485 hp engine relying on turbos. Impeccable build quality and insanely anal attention to detail vs Boxster (maybe?) build quality. When Nissan were developing the GT-R on the 'Ring, they ran 4 laps per stint before the brakes and tires were overwhelmed; the LFA, in its very basic form but with steel brakes, raced in two 24-hour enduros on the most punishing circuit in the world as well as a few other 4-hour races there, in which it recently won its class. CF monocoque built in-house on their own looms vs steel unibody. C'mon, to expect the LFA to cost as little as the GT-R is pretty damn unrealistic. An F430 looks like a damn rip-off in comparison to the GT-R; yet Ferrari moved probably 2500 of them last year, even with a crap economy and the 458 in the wings.