2013 Nissan GT-R revealed 0-60 in 2.72 and 542 hp
#31
#32
So I am talking from personal experiences, not just observations
Your point is very valid, but the majority of GTR's owners use their car mainly for drag racing, GTR is the #1 drag racer's choice of car. People that love to turn rather have cars like S2000, M3, Cayman, GT3............lighter weight 50/50 balanced NA RWD cars.
My friend who love to turn more then straight line speed just bought a 997 GT3 over a 2010 GTR 2 months ago.
Last edited by BNR34; 11-09-11 at 10:37 AM.
#34
They didn't even have seat belt in those 60s muscle cars
#35
You are not alone, I am not impressed either.
Cars made this amount of HP back in the 60s in the muscle car's days, the elapsed time just gotten A LOT shorter due to excellent computer controlled launch control, 4WD grip and gapless shifting dual clutch tranny.
The rate of acceleration really haven't change in 50 years
If you stay in one gear and go WOT from a roll, the 2013 Nissan GTR is not any faster then a 1960 big block muscle car.
Cars made this amount of HP back in the 60s in the muscle car's days, the elapsed time just gotten A LOT shorter due to excellent computer controlled launch control, 4WD grip and gapless shifting dual clutch tranny.
The rate of acceleration really haven't change in 50 years
If you stay in one gear and go WOT from a roll, the 2013 Nissan GTR is not any faster then a 1960 big block muscle car.
Right now your comments defy fact
Here is a little article from the boys at Motor Trend magazine proving my point
http://forums.motortrend.com/70/6223...son/index.html
What was the Heyday of automotive performance? The longtime enthusiasts will have you believe the 1960’s with big block 427 Chevys or the awesome Shelby Mustangs.
But a quick look at 0-60 times of over 1800 entries in the 0-60 database from the 60’s to today show us, that we are living in that heyday right now. To further add insult to injury we are doing it with smaller engines pushing more horsepower than the big guns of the 60’s!
To give a better perspective below is a general summary of 0-60 times broken down by decades for reference:
Avg
Era
Samples
Average 0-60
1960's
46 Models
Average 0-60 8.75
1970's
218 samples
Average 0-60 11.39
1980's
468 samples
Average 0-60 10.03
1990's
780 samples
Average 0-60 7.69
2000's
288 samples
Average 0-60 6.17
While the 60’s only 46 samples to go by, many of these entries are the faster muscle cars indicative of the performance era. As the 70’s emissions controls took effect we saw a massive degradation on both 0-60 times, but by the 90’s the industry had come full circle and overall performance had surpassed the muscle car era. The trend also continues into this decade with cars that are overall the fastest we have historically seen.
Through the peak and valleys of the decades, the fastest back then still can stand the test of time, and by even today’s standards are pretty respectable.
Era
Fastest 0 to 60
1960's
0-60 4.60 seconds
1965 Shelby Cobra 427 S/C
1970's
0-60 5.00 seconds
1979 Porsche 930 Turbo
1980's
0-60 4.70 seconds
1987 Buick Regal GNX
1990's
0-60 3.40 seconds
1999 Porsche 911 GT1
2000's
0-60 3.10 seconds
2002 Mosler MT900 Photon
Even looking at these figures really doesn’t tell the whole picture. Here are few indicators of how far the industry has actually progressed and put thing in perspective:
[Did you know that the legendary that 1970 Corvette 427 can easily be dispatched by a modern 2003 Dodge Neon SRT-4 in a 0-60 match by half a second?
How about a 1988 Ferrari Mondial getting spanked in a 0-60 match by a garden variety Ford Mustang GT V6 driven by a cheerleader?
Think a 1973 Dodge Charger with the huge 440 might fare better? Well a Lexus 2006 IS250 can match it in quite a bit more comfort.
Read more: http://forums.motortrend.com/70/6223...#ixzz1dETTLYKz
Last edited by I8ABMR; 11-09-11 at 10:35 AM.
#36
wow you typed all that? I really annoyed you huh, I am sorry
Sounds like you don't understand what I meant by "rate of acceleration", it is the slope from the graph of speed over time, dv/dt:
Now go compare the angle of that slope between a 1965 Shelby Cobra 427 S/C vs. a 2012 Nissan GTR, they are the same
Sounds like you don't understand what I meant by "rate of acceleration", it is the slope from the graph of speed over time, dv/dt:
Now go compare the angle of that slope between a 1965 Shelby Cobra 427 S/C vs. a 2012 Nissan GTR, they are the same
#37
I didnt type all of that. It was pasted from motor trend. I have to say I will believe motor trend and their records and modern equipment over your opinion. Any facts to back it up ??? Not trying to flame or argue . I think we may have to agree to disagree. Take a look at the posted 4.6 0-60 time from the magazine compared to the 2.9 second 0-60 for the 2012 GTR. Take care buddy.
btw how did you like the R34s you had? Thats really cool that you got to drive those special beasts
btw how did you like the R34s you had? Thats really cool that you got to drive those special beasts
#38
I didnt type all of that. It was pasted from motor trend. I have to say I will believe motor trend and their records and modern equipment over your opinion. Any facts to back it up ??? Not trying to flame or argue . I think we may have to agree to disagree. Take a look at the posted 4.6 0-60 time from the magazine compared to the 2.9 second 0-60 for the 2012 GTR. Take care buddy.
Or this video would help, the 458 have almost the same 1/4 mile time as a Nissan GTR:
http://youtu.be/hTf0bj7Ho0U
My point was cars didn't get any quicker in the last 50 years, the area that got improved dramatically was efficiency, refinement and safety, but not acceleration at all.
Those old GTRs are insane tuner cars back in the 90s, nothing even came close. I said "tuner" cars because they are EXTREMELY overhyped as a stock car. They are pretty lame stock, run 13s stock, even slower then a stock ISF. They are crazy if you spend $100k+ in mods, but I only got mine up to 450 hp, I had fun, but they are way less cool then people imagine they are.
#40
Facts? I would have to find the acceleration graph of a 1965 Shelby Cobra 427 S/C vs. a 2012 Nissan GTR, I can't do that quickly.
Or this video would help, the 458 have almost the same 1/4 mile time as a Nissan GTR:
http://youtu.be/hTf0bj7Ho0U
My point was cars didn't get any quicker in the last 50 years, the area that got improved dramatically was efficiency, refinement and safety, but not acceleration at all.
Those old GTRs are insane tuner cars back in the 90s, nothing even came close. I said "tuner" cars because they are EXTREMELY overhyped as a stock car. They are pretty lame stock, run 13s stock, even slower then a stock ISF. They are crazy if you spend $100k+ in mods, but I only got mine up to 450 hp, I had fun, but they are way less cool then people imagine they are.
Or this video would help, the 458 have almost the same 1/4 mile time as a Nissan GTR:
http://youtu.be/hTf0bj7Ho0U
My point was cars didn't get any quicker in the last 50 years, the area that got improved dramatically was efficiency, refinement and safety, but not acceleration at all.
Those old GTRs are insane tuner cars back in the 90s, nothing even came close. I said "tuner" cars because they are EXTREMELY overhyped as a stock car. They are pretty lame stock, run 13s stock, even slower then a stock ISF. They are crazy if you spend $100k+ in mods, but I only got mine up to 450 hp, I had fun, but they are way less cool then people imagine they are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnR-4...eature=related
Last edited by I8ABMR; 11-09-11 at 11:53 AM.
#41
We are not disagreeing on something, we are comparing apple to orange
#43
You are right, that was a bad example with a modded Cobra. Only comparing stock to stock is fair.
#44
#45
we are talking an original Cobra vs a bone stock GTR here. Kit cars do not count. To be fair we would have to compare a built GTR to the built kit car. At that point there really is no limit to what mods can be done so compare apples to apples we need to look only at the stock original cobra vs a stock GTR