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

[e92_m3]

I don't care if it's a Nissan. That sh*t is fast!

Anyway if I can afford one, I would purchase one in a heartbeat. No questions asked.

It's so fast, that I have no intentions of modifying it at all. I'd be happy driving it in stock form.

[330CIZHP]

Grossely incorrect. 599 GTO, GT2 RS, Noble 600, 458 Italia, pre-prod Lexus LFA (and 'ring edition), LP570-4 superleggera etc. all have proven to slaughter the GTR in head to head comparisons around a race track while many offering much superior, visceral, engaging and dynamic driving experience.

No doubt, GTR offers a lot of car and performance numbers to boot for the price that is tough to match and puts it at a much higher padestal, but let's not get carried away there.

Originally Posted by The_BatBoy_187

Lol, why is it people see "Nissan" a word of shame or something? It's a name that actually puts other cars to shame x5 times the price! LOL everyone who ever paid a lot of money on P cars thinking they have the best performance and all that, get what? Ass kicked on a track! And with a few mods it could murder them on straights as well!

The only reason I love the M and like it better is because of comfort IMO; seats, some luxury and decent size with a masterpiece for an engine! But to say that the GTR is " a Nissan " Loooool get over yourselves people. This nissan killed everything, except the GT2 Rs which was actually made for revenge And compare the prices; the GTR is one of the best vehicles out there. If I were to change my car, the GTR would be my choice no doubt!

I respect, love and adore that car. To say it's "just a Nissan" is so ignorant and childish and very freaking stupid.

If it were only equipped with better seats....oh well. To each his own....///M for me

[e92_m3]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Grossely incorrect. 599 GTO, GT2 RS, Noble 600, 458 Italia, Lexus LFA, LP570-4 superleggera etc. all have proven to slaughter the GTR in head to head comparisons around a race track while many offering much superior, visceral, engaging and dynamic driving experience.

No doubt, GTR offers a lot of car and performance numbers for the price that is tough to match, but let's not get carried away there.

The cars following cars you mentioned: The 599 GTO, GT2 RS, Noble 600, 458 Italia, Lexus LFA, and LP570-4 superleggera all costs more than $250,000.

Adding the AMS Alpha 9 package (Worth $22,000) to the GTR and you would be up to par and may even start slaughtering some of the cars you mentioned above.

Max you will spend with the '11 GTR along the AMS Alpha 9 package will be approximately $150,000 (Maybe even cheaper?). Anyway, that's $100,000 cheaper than the least expensive car above, which is the Porsche GT2 RS ($245,000 dealer markup and tax not included).

[The_BatBoy_187]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Grossely incorrect. 599 GTO, GT2 RS, Noble 600, 458 Italia, pre-prod Lexus LFA (and 'ring edition), LP570-4 superleggera etc. all have proven to slaughter the GTR in head to head comparisons around a race track while many offering much superior, visceral, engaging and dynamic driving experience.

No doubt, GTR offers a lot of car and performance numbers to boot for the price that is tough to match and puts it at a much higher padestal, but let's not get carried away there.

Offcourse it will differ in certain tracks/conditions....the current time for a GTR on the Nurburgring is 7:24 if I'm not misinformed...which porsche claimed to be false..but let's not get off topic and go into that dispute.....What I meant when I said "everthing" was actually "most cars that no one thought were touchable by 'a Nissan' " If the GTR weren't that impressive, Porsche would've never even looked at it. I also stated that the GT2 RS was the GTR slayer, not victim. Same goes for 599 GTO, which I didn't even mention because I don't have that much info about it. Long story short, the GTR offers excellent peroformance for its price, just look at all the cars it goes to war with and not to mention the ones it wins; it's an astounding car.

[niqui]

from the pics i saw a while back, the new interior should be a big step up/

that is all that's holding me back, plus my dealer and his zero mod tolerance.

id keep the m3 and get one, or sell the m and get a gt3 if they dont fix the interior.

[boombastic]

I guess someone will eventually jumps in to attack the statement on reliable issues. hehe~

Originally Posted by e92_m3

The cars following cars you mentioned: The 599 GTO, GT2 RS, Noble 600, 458 Italia, Lexus LFA, and LP570-4 superleggera all costs more than $250,000.

Adding the AMS Alpha 9 package (Worth $22,000) to the GTR and you would be up to par and may even start slaughtering some of the cars you mentioned above.

Max you will spend with the '11 GTR along the AMS Alpha 9 package will be approximately $150,000 (Maybe even cheaper?). Anyway, that's $100,000 cheaper than the least expensive car above, which is the Porsche GT2 RS ($245,000 dealer markup and tax not included).

[boombastic]

2012 GTR will have much better interior.

Originally Posted by niqui

from the pics i saw a while back, the new interior should be a big step up/

that is all that's holding me back, plus my dealer and his zero mod tolerance.

id keep the m3 and get one, or sell the m and get a gt3 if they dont fix the interior.

[991GT3]

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.

An M6? Really?
That is the worst car I have ever owned.

[e92_m3]

Originally Posted by boombastic

I guess someone will eventually jumps in to attack the statement on reliable issues. hehe~

Won't be long now... LOL! Hahahahaha..

[stylinexpat]

I sure wish my M3 took off like that. While my M3 is fast it is slow compared to that GTR taking off to 62 MPH in 3 seconds

[swamp2]

^

Pretty much the only way to take off like that is to BE like that, i.e. AWD very advanced LC&TC. Without AWD some unreal power to weight ratios are required for those times. The other thing to consider is that 0-100 or 60-130 are both much more important metrics than 0-62. Of course the car is going to do very well in these but it won't stomp others as badly as it does in this particular type of race/stat.

[TheKosherStogie]

BAM!!!! TURBO S - 2.6 sec from 0 to 60

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...059e7c3413.pdf



Road and Track tested the 2011 911 Turbo S.

0-60 in 2.6 sec
0-100 in 6.3 sec
10.7 @ 128.9 1/4 mile

[d_dot]

i have em both and love em both for totally different reasons. both awesome cars. but yea i agree to much cockyness on these bmw boards. still love u guys tho!

[achenator]

Originally Posted by DD GT3 RD

BAM!!!! TURBO S - 2.6 sec from 0 to 60

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...059e7c3413.pdf



Road and Track tested the 2011 911 Turbo S.

0-60 in 2.6 sec
0-100 in 6.3 sec
10.7 @ 128.9 1/4 mile

BAM! The price of 2 GT-Rs!

[Onurleft]

Originally Posted by boombastic

What's wrong with a Nissan? Only BMW could make better cars? I sold my M3 for the GT-R. No regret at all.

Then I bet you love forking out thousands of dollars for scheduled maintenance under warranty?


haha

Just messing with ya

[graider]

Originally Posted by DD GT3 RD

BAM!!!! TURBO S - 2.6 sec from 0 to 60

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...059e7c3413.pdf



Road and Track tested the 2011 911 Turbo S.

0-60 in 2.6 sec
0-100 in 6.3 sec
10.7 @ 128.9 1/4 mile

you know that is not true 0-60 time right? they do some sort of 5 feet roll out....

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by graider

you know that is not true 0-60 time right? they do some sort of 5 feet roll out....

All the American magazines I know of (save for Consumer Reports) test with one foot of rollout before the clocks start. They do this to zero their times to drag strip clocks, because of reader complaints about apparent acceleration differences between drag times and zero-to-speed times in the past.

Now. Seriously, and without rancor (I hope), just what is a "true" 0-60 time?

Should the clocks start after the car has rolled for a foot? Some other distance?

Should they start when the driver clicks a stop watch? When he or she begins releasing the clutch or brake? When the car begins to move?

Seriously, what is a true 0-60 time? I certainly don't know, and therefore solicit opinions.

[991GT3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

All the American magazines I know of (save for Consumer Reports) test with one foot of rollout before the clocks start. They do this to zero their times to drag strip clocks, because of reader complaints about apparent acceleration differences between drag times and zero-to-speed times in the past.

Now. Seriously, and without rancor (I hope), just what is a "true" 0-60 time?

Should the clocks start after the car has rolled for a foot? Some other distance?

Should they start when the driver clicks a stop watch? When he or she begins releasing the clutch or brake? When the car begins to move?

Seriously, what is a true 0-60 time? I certainly don't know, and therefore solicit opinions.

Edmunds Insideline does true 0-60 acceleration measurements.
0 to 60 or whatever should be true dead stop accelerating.
The 1' foot roll is only meant for the quarter mile and magazines that use it are being lazy and dishonest when measuring 0-whatever.
I have a Racelogic Performancebox (http://www.vboxusa.com/performancedr...ormancebox.php)
and a 1' rollout makes a big difference in acceleration times(about .2-.3 seconds with my X6M and GTR to 60)

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by shift@red

Either way its FASTER than the GTR. And whos to say the GTR wasnt tested in the same manner??

Hasn't the Porsche always been faster than the GT-R in a straight line?

As far as I know, Nissan has never claimed acceleration capable of staying with the big dogs. It's just around a track that they get uppity.

With good reason, obviously.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by 997GT3

Edmunds Insideline does true 0-60 acceleration measurements.
0 to 60 or whatever should be true dead stop accelerating.
The 1' foot roll is only meant for the quarter mile and magazines that use it are being lazy and dishonest when measuring 0-whatever.
I have a Racelogic Performancebox (http://www.vboxusa.com/performancedr...ormancebox.php)
and a 1' rollout makes a big difference in acceleration times(about .2-.3 seconds with my X6M and GTR to 60)

OK, you say the clocks should start when the vehicle begins moving. That's fine, and a defendable argument, I'd say.

On the other hand, I'd say that the clocks should start when the driver tells the car to go via either clutch or brake release. That way, the lazyness in the clutch actuator mechanism (or brake release) plus driveline lash and tire windup are taken into account, as they should be, in my opinion.

That's another defendable position (as I hope you can see).

Meanhwile, in the Americas, one foot of rollout is how it's done, and that's equally allright with me.

Just compare apples to apples, and everything is fine.

Of course, 0-60 times are almost completely immaterial, in my opinion. In a race to 60, just because you do it in 4.9 seconds and the other guy does it in 5.1 doesn't mean you're ahead at the time. It just means you're going faster than the other guy when you hit 60. You may be behind and catching up, even with and about to begin pulling away, or ahead and moving out further. No way to tell.

Bruce

PS - When you begin the clocks at the time the driver signals go via clutch release or brake release, most street cars will take closer to five tenths to go that one foot. Hence the "leaving on the last yellow" strategy common at the drag strip.

[HellaFunctional]

Originally Posted by graider

you know that is not true 0-60 time right? they do some sort of 5 feet roll out....

yeah I know lol
I get so excited when they do their 0-60's and then I remember they have the rollout and my face just goes..
oh =(

[991GT3]

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.