Car Talk!

RamonGTP · December 24th, 2008, 05:26 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If it can hang with the exotics, then it can hang with the exotics. 3600lbs is not that heavy at all. The Murcielago weighs in at 2 tons. You're complaining about "limiting factors" yet it can STILL hang with the competition despite these "limiting factors"

Fact of the matter is that you simply don't like the car. From a performance perspective your argument is pretty baseless. It's just as fast, handles just as well (if not better) and it's weight is in check with other vehicles in it's class. These are the facts, and whatever reasons you try and come up with to bash the car won't change these facts.

It all comes down to performance and whether you like it or not, it has it. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't' make it untrue. I think you're just upset because a car you don't like has the performance you don't think it's entitled to.

**RobRich** · December 24th, 2008, 08:07 AM

Performance? Come on, this is the United States, the land of pot hole riddled streets and 70MPH Interstate highway speed limits. Who cares about lap times on a German race track? I don't drive on German race tracks? Do you?

The fact of the matter is most street "performance" in the United States is measured from red light to red light. In the land of reality, an aftermarket built sub-$20k DSM, Honda, Supra, Mustang, Firebird, etc. can eat most any "supercar" on a quarter-mile or less straight.

Still, I don't think anyone here is calling the GT-R a slow car. It is actually a rather impressive vehicle. However, lots of people are calling it an overpriced car for whatever various reasons.

There is also the aspect of brand prestige. The bottom line is Nissan is not a supercar brand. Nissan can churn out a 200MPH car, and it is still not going to be a supercar brand. Ford can churn out a 200MPH car, and it is still not going to be a supercar brand. Pontiac can churn out a 200MPH car, and it is still not going to be a supercar brand. Hyundai can churn out a 200MPH car, and it is still not going to be a supercar brand.

Conversely, Ferrari can churn out a 150MPH car, and it is still going to be a supercar brand.

You are coming across as equally defensive about the subject as we are supposedly being offensive. I can't speak for others, but I am more or less picking on the car because of how Nissan has opted to react to some warranty claims (think transmission), not because the GT-R is an underperforming vehicle.

I poke fun at Honda, but not because Honda builds a poor product. I could drive a Honda. I poke fun at Mustangs, but not because Ford builds a poor sports car. I could drive a Mustang. We each simply have preferences, and to be blunt, stereotypes about certain car brands and models.

SoloCamo · December 24th, 2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamonGTP

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If it can hang with the exotics, then it can hang with the exotics. 3600lbs is not that heavy at all. The Murcielago weighs in at 2 tons. You're complaining about "limiting factors" yet it can STILL hang with the competition despite these "limiting factors"

Fact of the matter is that you simply don't like the car. From a performance perspective your argument is pretty baseless. It's just as fast, handles just as well (if not better) and it's weight is in check with other vehicles in it's class. These are the facts, and whatever reasons you try and come up with to bash the car won't change these facts.

It all comes down to performance and whether you like it or not, it has it. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't' make it untrue. I think you're just upset because a car you don't like has the performance you don't think it's entitled to.

The limiting factors to me are not it's performance, I was implying to Nissan's ridiculous warranty regulations. It seems they will void it for using the car well as, a performance car. The other point is that it is a Nissan. Nissan is not an exotic brand and never will be no matter what they create. Are they capable of performance vehicles?? Of course, as they've proved that before the GT-R was even a concept.

Nissan to me is treating the GT-R like a Veyron. 45k brake job? Really?

I don't call a ZR-1 an exotic, either even though it's performance is obviously well above most exotics.

Bizkitkid2001 · December 24th, 2008, 01:16 PM

Every other super car with launch control voids the warranty if used. Its not just Nissan.

**RobRich** · December 24th, 2008, 02:07 PM

AFAIK, launch control does not void warranties on the Cobalt SS, HHR SS, VW GTI, and lots of other cars offering the option.

What Nissan did was offer an option, but basically did little if anything other than a fine print to tell owners that using said option could void warranties. The owners are instead finding out about the fine print when Nissan tells them to replace a $20,000 transmission. That is pretty pathetic IMO, with the resulting negative PR probably being the reason launch control is reportedly being dropped for 2010.

**RobRich** · December 24th, 2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoloCamo

The other point is that it is a Nissan.

That is the major point of contention for so many people. However one slices and dices the various debates, the GT-R is still a Nissan. Nissan builds a good product. Nissan even builds a nice sports car. However, Nissan is not an exotic or supercar brand.

There are plenty of similar examples. Honda built the NSX. Despite an Acura emblem for U.S. customers, it is still a Honda. Ford built the GT. It is still a Ford, and a distinctly overpriced Ford at that. GM builds the Corvette. Even in 1000+ HP twin turbo aftermarket trim, it is still a Chevy. Chrysler builds the Viper, which has been perhaps the mainstream pinnacle of domestic brute force performance since its inception, but it is still a Dodge.

However, you can go buy an used Ferrari 308 for $25k-30k, and it is still readily recognized as an example of a prestigious supercar brand.

Toadman · December 24th, 2008, 03:20 PM

Sounds like a bunch of "yeah it's nice, but it's not a Harley" noise.

**RobRich** · December 24th, 2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toadman

Sounds like a bunch of "yeah it's nice, but it's not a Harley" noise.

Yeah, that is a somewhat fair analogy.

However, to one of the key sticking points, now consider if Harley invalidated the factory warranty because you did a burn out. ;p

Bizkitkid2001 · December 24th, 2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobRich

AFAIK, launch control does not void warranties on the Cobalt SS, HHR SS, VW GTI, and lots of other cars offering the option.

What Nissan did was offer an option, but basically did little if anything other than a fine print to tell owners that using said option could void warranties. The owners are instead finding out about the fine print when Nissan tells them to replace a $20,000 transmission. That is pretty pathetic IMO, with the resulting negative PR probably being the reason launch control is reportedly being dropped for 2010.

The warranty is void for the Cobalt SS, and even if they show that you did a burn out and had wheel hop. Apparantly the Cobalt takes a lot of damage from wheel hopping.

Chevy can also void the warranty for the HRR SS if they can prove that foul play was involved (As in multiple luanch controls in a row, ect...)

I could not find any information about the GTI though. However, VW will void the warranty if you redline the engine, so its just as stupid...

Ferrari is also disabling LC on all US models for 2009, as it voids the warranty. They are doing it for the same reason as Nissan.

Lamborghini won't void the warranty if they know you used LC, unless something breaks from using it.

Lotus also voids the warranty for the Exige if LC is used.

Porsche is the only one I know of that won't void the warranty. But then again, Porsch is the only one where people don't seem to have their cars break after using LC.

**RobRich** · December 24th, 2008, 04:37 PM

Biz, the point is Nissan hyped a featured that ultimately turned out to void warranties, yet left the disclaimer in fine print. Tell the owners up front about the situation, and more to the point, tell them a transmission replacement is going to cost about $20,000*.

On a related note, last I heard, Chevy is not voiding warranties simply for the use of launch control. The deal there is use versus abuse, and that is pretty much between you and a service manager.

Anyway, I hear ya' about Porsche. The difference there is Porsche tends to promote and support the advertised and marketed capabilities of its vehicles, which IIRC, we have previously discussed.

*Ultimately it comes down to the issue that a $20k transmission *should* be able to reliably hold well more than ~450 lb·ft on a straight launch, even if violently coming off the line. IMO, of course.