RX469

iTrader: (1)

I also agree! ^ ^

Milla...

Super - yes
Ex ot'ic a - 1 foreign 2 strangely beautiful, etc

subjective by definition as we can see by the various responses here. In my eyes no, not with a Nissan badge.

TXSTYLE

iTrader: (1)

SUPERCAR? Of course. Any other definition is plain blinded hate.

Exotic? Nope.

TRDFantasy

Again, other than it's performance, what else is "super" about the GT-R? It's looks? It's price? It's exclusivity? It's engine sound? Performance is the only thing "super" about the GT-R, and to a lot of people that is not enough to qualify it as a true supercar.

Even the GT-R's performance, is it head and shoulders above it's competition? The Corvette ZR-1 can match it in performance, the Viper ACR actually beats the GT-R in performance, and the 997 Turbo is close to it in performance. Those are the 3 closest competitors to the GT-R.

The GT-R is an amazing achievement, and very close to being a supercar, but it's not quite there. The reasons I don't consider the GT-R a true supercar is the same reason the NSX and MK4 Supra TT were not true supercars. They were high performance sports cars.

Jujharoo

I think you ought to look into definition of Super-car.

According to a special broadcast on Discovery Channel about Supercars, "A super-car is all about performance. It doesn't comprises. It's about speed, handling, and power"

I forgot the host's name, but he has appeared in few shows and magazines (mostly European) He was also the auctioneer on "Chasing classic cars"

So according to that definition, its a pure Super-car.

I think a personal opinion is irrelevant.

TRDFantasy

The GT-R is not universally or unanimously agreed upon as being a supercar, nor does it fit the criteria or definition of a supercar, based on traditional supercars in history.

Wikipedia states that a supercar "is a term generally used for ultra-high-end exotic cars, whose performance is superior to that of its contemporaries."

According to that definition, the GT-R does not fit as a supercar. My examples are the performance of the ZR-1 and Viper ACR. Those are contemporaries of the GT-R, and the GT-R does not beat them.

Again, if the GT-R is a supercar, then under the same logic the NSX and MK4 Supra TT should be classified as supercars, but we know they are not. The NSX and Supra, when they debuted were both some of the best-performing sports cars of their time, just like the GT-R is today.

92 SC400

Yeah, I was just busting your ***** a bit with that comment.

My point is that ANY car can look good with a proper set of aftermarket wheels, however a Supercar or Exotic shouldn't NEED to add aftermarket wheels to achieve a certain Supercar or Exotic status. If the car can't be deemed a Supercar or Exotic from the factory, in stock form, then it is my opinion that it's just meant to be one regardless of how you want to mod it.

Jujharoo

I beg your pardon.
Since you have used an online source to contend your point, here are a few of hundreds, maybe thousands, of sources that do agree that its a Super-car.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_r/index.html

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtest...expensive.html

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=7901

http://www.thesupercars.org/nissan/2...an-gt-r-specv/



I am sorry, but you mentioning these cars, over and over in few different threads now, but they aren't super cars. In their stock form, these cars never produced the numbers that other Super-cars did in that era. Part of it is due to the "Gentlemen's agreement', but these cars were never powerful enough to compete with their rivals.

TRDFantasy

Top Gear or Fifth Gear did a poll about the GT-R quite a while ago about whether the GT-R was a real supercar, and the results were mixed and inconclusive. The vote was split in terms of whether it was a supercar.

The fact that threads like these exist, and discussions like these take place means there is doubt whether the GT-R is a supercar, and if there is doubt that means it is NOT unanimous.

The *same thing* applies to the GT-R !

The GT-R does not produce even 500HP, let alone 600HP. The Carrera GT and Enzo are several years old, yet they produce much more power. The Lambo LP640 produces over 600HP. The Veyron, well there is simply no comparison. The more-than-a-decade old McLaren F1 produces MUCH more power than the GT-R.

Even the Corvette ZR-1 and Viper ACR produce MUCH MORE power than the GT-R.

Also, all of the cars I listed can hit over 200 mph top speed. The GT-R cannot. It tops out at 193-195 mph. Supercars were achieving over 200 mph top speed 20 years ago.

Looking at the GT-R's top speed, HOW that does that make it a supercar?

The GT-R's acceleration times are really amazing for high-performance sports cars, but they don't beat the top supercars.

The NSX and MK4 Supra TT were able to compete with cars like the Ferrari 348, but they could not match the top supercars of the time, JUST LIKE the GT-R today.

Jujharoo

By numbers, I meant performance, not HP.

Now you are comparing GTR to "Top Super-cars"?
I take it that you will never accept it as a 'Super-car'

but at any rate, let me ask you this, do you consider a 997 Turbo a Super-car?

TRDFantasy

What performance? Handling? Acceleration? I already said the GT-R acceleration numbers do not beat a number of supercars, including OLDER supercars. The GT-R's top speed is also laughable compared to 15-20 year old supercars. There are some high-end sedans that achieve a higher top speed than the GT-R!

Just as you compared the NSX and MK4 Supra TT to "top supercars", I did the same. Do you consider the Ferrari 348 a supercar?

Performance does NOT mean ONLY Nurburgring times. Some supercars have never been tested at the 'Ring. There are also cars that have gotten amazing lap times on the 'Ring, which are not actually supercars.

No, the 997 Turbo I do not consider a true supercar, just as I do not consider the GT-R a true supercar. Same thing with the NSX and MK4 Supra TT.

To me, the 997 Turbo and GT-R are very high performance sports cars.

92 SC400

I thought it has been pretty widely accepted that the GT-R probably does make HP more along the lines of 500HP rather than what is "claimed?"

Given your last few sentences, a car cannot be a Supercar until it tops the current BEST Supercar on the market?

So the criteria to be a Supercar is you must: run a 10 second 1/4 mile, top out at no less than 200 MPH, and claim at least 600HP?

Jujharoo

Doh.

There is no point in taking this discussion any further with you.

TRDFantasy

The 997 Turbo is an extremely fast, capable car, but it's still a 911 fundamentally. If you consider the 997 Turbo a supercar, where do you draw the line? Is a Carrera S a "supercar" too?

I ask again, is the Ferrari 348 a supercar? Is the Ferrari F430 a "supercar"? Or is it an exotic high-end sports car?

Is EVERY high performance sports car considered a "supercar" to you?

speedflex

Ok the highjacking has begun here. The thread is a poll and asks whether we THINK the the GT-R is a supercar. No use in bandying back and forth with each other trying to prove a point.

Is it a supercar, I think it is. And for all the reasons stated by others as to why it is. Is it an exotic? No. And for the record, precious few cars truly are exotics. For one thing the GT-R's engine configuration is too traditional. Not enough cylinders, front engine placement... nothing to put it into that rarified stratusphere of V10's and V12's. It is rare in that it is an AWD high performance car but that's not enough. For me what makes a car exotic is not about exclusivity or badge or luxury crapola this and that. It's about engineering, design and rare and specialized materials, layout and construction.

So, Supercar? I haven't yet heard a convincing argument of why it wouldn't be.
Exotic? No (and that's hardly a meaningful demerit for a car this fantastic).