2011 Gtr 0-60!!!!!!!!!!

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

Bruce, that's fine too but I think zero should mean zero and the measurement should only be about what the car does not the drivers reflexes.
I trust magazines that I can duplicate their acceleration numbers (ie Edmunds). I have never been able hit Car and Driver times.

The driver's reflexes have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's just that some cars respond quicker than others when the driver says go.

All else being equal, when the light turns green, the car with the better reflexes wins. At least for the first foot or so. Capiche?

Typically, a stick will have better reflexes at the go sign, because it takes quite a large number of microseconds for the brakes to actually release their death grip.

I'm only mentioning this by way of pointing out that reflexes differ from vehicle to vehicle, and that's just one example.

[devo]

Admittedly, the 2012 GTR will be a beast, but I too have heard and seen many posts/vids which show the .1 turbo easily beating out a GTR in a drag race whether from the dig or roll. The 2012 GTR vs. .2 PDK turbo should have similar results. A turbo S more-so. Nonetheless the 2012 GTR will be very very special, imo.

Bruce brought up some very good points about 0 whatever-60 runs. I consider them rather meaningless. As far as sheer acceleration it should be 0-100 MPH, 1/4 mile and/or 0-125 MPH.

As much as I thought I liked the idea of a GTR I realize I'd rather buy a pre-owned .1 turbo w/a stick for less money. My previous .1 turbo was my all time second favorite car; the .2 GT3 is the favorite.

[997GT3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The driver's reflexes have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's just that some cars respond quicker than others when the driver says go.

All else being equal, when the light turns green, the car with the better reflexes wins. At least for the first foot or so. Capiche?

Typically, a stick will have better reflexes at the go sign, because it takes quite a large number of microseconds for the brakes to actually release their death grip.

I'm only mentioning this by way of pointing out that reflexes differ from vehicle to vehicle, and that's just one example.

And that's an excellent point but I still say 0 should mean 0. Yes 0-60 or whatever isn't really that important to some people but if they are going to publish it it should be right (ie when the car goes from a dead stop)

[997GT3]

Originally Posted by devo

Admittedly, the 2012 GTR will be a beast, but I too have heard and seen many posts/vids which show the .1 turbo easily beating out a GTR in a drag race whether from the dig or roll. The 2012 GTR vs. .2 PDK turbo should have similar results. A turbo S more-so. Nonetheless the 2012 GTR will be very very special, imo.

Bruce brought up some very good points about 0 whatever-60 runs. I consider them rather meaningless. As far as sheer acceleration it should be 0-100 MPH, 1/4 mile and/or 0-125 MPH.

As much as I thought I liked the idea of a GTR I realize I'd rather buy a pre-owned .1 turbo w/a stick for less money. My previous .1 turbo was my all time second favorite car; the .2 GT3 is the favorite.

I find the 0-100 a better measure because it minimizes all the little things Bruce points out and stuff like traction issues higher HP and rear wheel drive cars have.

[GTM_Challenge]

Originally Posted by shift@red

Yes, it has always been faster. the 997.1 turbo trounced it in all acceleration tests and the 997.2 does the same as well as the turbo s.

Its easy to be fast in a car that does everything for you.

Ive raced a few 997 turbos when i had my GT-R we were even up to about 75-80 then i just kept pulling from there. I had a mid pipe and ecu tune on mine for the record at that time.

on the waayyy TOP end, the porsche has the GTRs number. the gearing on the GTR doesnt support much past 190 where a porsche still has gear left.

[NavidM3E92]

I want a GTR for my next car. Im thinking about getting rid of the M for it

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

And that's an excellent point but I still say 0 should mean 0. Yes 0-60 or whatever isn't really that important to some people but if they are going to publish it it should be right (ie when the car goes from a dead stop)

Your position is perfectly fine by me - but my 0 is a more accurate 0, since it takes into account the car's reflexes, which differ from vehicle to vehicle.

Whatever. A foot of rollout is just as good as any other measurement, as long as one compares apples to apples.

[saeedg48]

I got spanked by a GT-R almost a year ago and I still don't forget it.
I'm sitting there shifting gears all day and he just kept passing me.. motherf'r

[997GT3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Your position is perfectly fine by me - but my 0 is a more accurate 0, since it takes into account the car's reflexes, which differ from vehicle to vehicle.

Whatever. A foot of rollout is just as good as any other measurement, as long as one compares apples to apples.

Zero is zero. Once the car moves the clock starts.

[AMOCHOSTO]

erased stupid comment

[zhangzeyuandss]

..with better weather condition (warmer) could be within 2s...that is just insane..makes our Ms felt like a tugboat now. but the price starting at 100k. still a bargain compare to turbo S. but 20k more than 08 GTR...idk

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

Zero is zero. Once the car moves the clock starts.

I assume (and hope) that you're stating that as an opinion. True?

If you're purporting that your 0-60 method of measure is the One True Method, then there are a number of U.S. magazines who disagree with you, and, even though I am personally not sure just exactly what a true 0-60 time is, I have made what I think is an equally strong and defensible case for an alternate method.

Of course, as I've also stated, 0-60 is essentially meaningless in terms of "which car is faster".

In any event, anybody else with an opinion on the One True 0-60 measurement?

[997GT3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I assume (and hope) that you're stating that as an opinion. True?

If you're purporting that your 0-60 method of measure is the One True Method, then there are a number of U.S. magazines who disagree with you, and, even though I am personally not sure just exactly what a true 0-60 time is, I have made what I think is an equally strong and defensible case for an alternate method.

Of course, as I've also stated, 0-60 is essentially meaningless in terms of "which car is faster".

In any event, anybody else with an opinion on the One True 0-60 measurement?

I am truly baffled by this hair splitting. Zero to Sixty is zero to sixty. There is no method and it isn't an opinion. It is a rigid set of parameters.
Whether you think its a meaningful measurement is up to you (i don't).
If you want a 1' rollout then it's a "1 foot rollout to 60" measurement.
It seems we're both interested in an (as you said) apples to apples test.
That's why I don't care for magazines that count a 1' rollout. The car is moving at 1'.

Edmunds

http://www.insideline.com/features/h...nd-trucks.html

The term "rollout" might not be familiar, but it comes from the drag strip. The arrangement of the timing beams for drag racing can be confusing, primarily because the 7-inch separation between the "pre-stage" and "stage" beams is not the source of rollout. The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation (11.5 inches, actually) between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock. A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process.

We believe the use of rollout for quarter-mile timed runs is appropriate, as this test is designed to represent an optimum drag strip run that a car owner can replicate at a drag strip. In the spirit of consistency, we also follow NHRA practice when calculating quarter-mile trap speed at the end of the run. So we publish the average speed over the final 66 feet of the quarter-mile run, even though our VBOX can tell us the instantaneous speed at the end of the 1,320-foot course, which is usually faster.

On the other hand, the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view. For one, 0-60-mph acceleration is not a drag-racing convention. More important, it's called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout. While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car's performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it's cheating.

Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway — and fail to tell their customers. We've decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car's real performance, we've begun publishing a clearly marked "with rollout" 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

I am truly baffled by this hair splitting. Zero to Sixty is zero to sixty. There is no method and it isn't an opinion. It is a rigid set of parameters.
Whether you think its a meaningful measurement is up to you (i don't).
If you want a 1' rollout then it's a "1 foot rollout to 60" measurement.
It seems we're both interested in an (as you said) apples to apples test.
That's why I don't care for magazines that count a 1' rollout. The car is moving at 1'...

I have no problem with your belief that "Zero to Sixty is zero to sixty". You are on scientifically good ground. However, the fact is that one foot of rollout is absolutely apples to apples with U.S. magazines.

However, my point is analogous to braking distances. As you are probably aware, different testing methods abound.

My personal preference would be to begin at the exact moment my foot hit the pedal, and not at the point where braking begins. The time between those events varies from car to car, just as in the acceleration example.

Oh well. Since we agree that 0-60 is pretty much immaterial in the scheme of things, I guess that's enough on the topic.

[Peteypab2133]

Originally Posted by Krozi

No offense man....but on the inside it's basically an Altima. It's the same deal with the corvette, fast car but bad craftsmanship. My friend's GTR was in the shop like every other day for problems, and a LOT of electronic problems. I don't know if they have the electronics problems all sorted out now or not. Either way, for the same money I would buy myself a nice M6. Don't care if it's slower.

please don't bring up electrical issues. My E90 rear windows only go up and down 3 days a week. My cousins twin car to mine sun roof wont open and the radio turns on and off every time they drive it.

[persian54]

I love BMW, I loved my 335i with the mods, I liked my Z4, and I'm really liking my M3

but, if I had to chose... I'd take a GTR in a heartbeat

though I love drop tops

after driving Godzilla in Japan 3 years ago... I will own one.
Just... need time.

[MMMorish]

Originally Posted by Krozi

But it's a Nissan.

+1

[creepy coupe]

Nice coats, where can i get one

[thegeneral101]

Originally Posted by Cabinetman

Actually, US MSRP is just shy of $90k unless you get the black edition which is approximately $95k. Still not cheap, but you get a lot of car for the money.

yep its still a pretty good value

[Robert]

Wow this thread certainly bring out the true strip of some people here. Justification of "It's not a BMW" is as bad as saying "I don't care he's from Harvard; he's a <insert a skin color>"

Please try to quantify that. What exactly is a BMW? Otherwise making the comment makes it seem like a brand whore mentality. What is BMW? Taxis in germany? Is that why? GT-R is not a Taxi therefore it's bad?

[adc]

Originally Posted by Krozi

No offense man....but on the inside it's basically an Altima.

That is patently not true - only someone who hasn't driven one can say this. I thought the GT-R was very very well put together, both on the inside and on the outside.

Did I like the interior aesthetic? No, but it had absolutely nothing in common with an Altima.

Originally Posted by Cabinetman

Actually, US MSRP is just shy of $90k unless you get the black edition which is approximately $95k. Still not cheap, but you get a lot of car for the money.

A lot doesn't always equate with better.

Originally Posted by Optherion

If I had to have only one car, I would probably have my M3. If you can afford it, have 5 cars like me and sell your M3 lol.

If I could afford 5 nice cars, the GT-R wouldn't even be on the bottom of my wish list. Nor would the M3 - except perhaps as a nice daily driver? not sure.

I've driven the GT-R and while I can admire the speed, technology etc. it just didn't speak to me - at all. I have no desire to own one.

Is that a sin? Does it make me a BMW cock?

[ADubM3]

I can't believe I just read through 4 pages of this thread. Very interesting.

The facts are the GTR has Super Car performance for a very reasonable price.
0-60 in under or around 3 sec and all for under $100K.

I'm sure the performance will only continue to get better with prices creeping up a little at a time but nothing near exotic prices. I think it's not the most beautiful looking car but I also look at like a "Sore Dick", you just can't beat it.

Would I want one? Sure!


After I have a GT3 RS and Lambo SL in the garage.
As for which would I prefer between my M and GTR that is easy.

That's why I have an M in my garage now. The GTR is a great sports car but
it just doesn't float my boat. If I had an extra $100k I wouldn't think twice.
I'm not sure how often it would move but I would love to have one in my garage any day!