I read an article about the next Skyline GTR. It's expected to make your pockets about $70,000 dollars lighter, but it only packs around 450 horses. Can anyone confirm this? If this is true? How would it stand, on paper and the road, against a Shelby GT500? Or is it way too early to compare potential value and performance?

yeah i really need to lighten my wallet $70,000 dollars...too early to compare

A little early to compare but just the price makes me go with the Gt500.

I don't give two shits about horsepower, and the GT500 designers have already stated that handling was an afterthought with the GT500. Their tire and suspension setup is designed to allow the car to launch better. For example, they have 30 mm wider rubber on the rear, which keeps the rear tires from going up in smoke, but it doesn't help the car's tendency to understeer.

ur comparing a car that took 6~7 years to develope aganist a car that was base on something made to be cheap and fast for its price tag.

Ur comparing a car that was ment to be extreamly ahead of its time, against and ordenary sport car.

Ur comparing Nissan's flagship performance car (as Kman put it) against something down the line for ford...

It's not like the GT500 isn't every bit as legendary as the GT-R is, and it's also Ford's flagship performance car (since the GT counts as a supercar, IMO). However, it's just designed to do something that I don't much care to do...

but i don't believe ford set up a maintanace garage next to the nurburgring just to develope the GT500.

I can't really speculate anything about either of these cars but give the GT500 a little more credit. The car is built on a whole new chassis and has a motor from a supercar. The suspension is designed to handle well. It has the same rear suspension setup that gave ford the win in the Grand Am against porshe and BMW. The car is a real performer not just a half thought out mustang with a bigger engine dropped under the hood.

i agree it should be given some more credit , it will be tasty

Oh yeah, I don't mean to say the GT500 is a bad car at all. If drag racing and hot rodding is your thing, then it's the best car to come from an American company in a long time. The handling isn't necessarily bad, either. I'm just saying that there are many better-handling vehicles for less money. Also, with 475 horsepower, performance-tuned engine and a 4000-lb curb weight, the gas mileage is going to be absolutely abyssmal. C&D estimated 13/21 when they tested it, and I don't doubt it. I know that performance cars are not supposed to get great gas mileage, but I think that at least 20 mpg combined is reasonable.

Oh yeah, I don't mean to say the GT500 is a bad car at all. If drag racing and hot rodding is your thing, then it's the best car to come from an American company in a long time. The handling isn't necessarily bad, either. I'm just saying that there are many better-handling vehicles for less money. Also, with 475 horsepower, performance-tuned engine and a 4000-lb curb weight, the gas mileage is going to be absolutely abyssmal. C&D estimated 13/21 when they tested it, and I don't doubt it. I know that performance cars are not supposed to get great gas mileage, but I think that at least 20 mpg combined is reasonable.

im sorry but i dont know anything about the new GT500...but i think i just understood that it is going to have 475hp and 4000 curb weight.

and your saying that the GTR "ONLY" packs 450hp??? you act as if the GT500 is on top of 600hp+. your talking 25hp and i doubt the GTR is gonna weigh more than 3500lbs. this makes the power to weight better than the GT500.

combined with the "no power robbing AWD system" of the new GTR. yes thats right, an AWD car that doesnt suffer from AWD powertrain loss. the front wheels are powered by electric motors, obviously at a very high performance level. this minimizes weight and powertrain loss of a standard AWD system but still all the performance benefits. the Nissan Cube and a few others already ahve this electronic system in production but are only offered to Japan.

from looking at numbers that we already know...it looks like for $70k...it doesnt get much better. but we will have to wait to see what nissan actually does.

I would go with the GT-R (at least for now)....

Although this is all speculation, I think the extensive testing that nissan has been doing and the new technologies that will be implemented in the car are going to make it an awesome performer overall, track and street. Also, there's the advantage of AWD in adverse weather, and I believe that it is supposed to be a 4 seater as well. Though the cobra will undoubtedly be the acceleration bang for buck, i highly doubt it'll be as fun to track as the GT-R. Plus, if a highly tuned R35 GT-R sounds anywhere near as good as an R34.......drooooooool......

The next GTR is going to have to be an absolute corker to change my opinion about Skylines.


At the moment I'll take the Mustang, given that little is actually known about the 2007 GTR.

and any nissan costing $70,000 is going to have to pass the 911 test first.....

and any nissan costing $70,000 is going to have to pass the 911 test first.....

well that wont be needed beings it has been registered for 2007 under the Infiniti badge.

and i agree with Jimster and Drunken Monkey...the GTR better be something special because i never cared for the skylines really except for their performance capabilities and for $70k it better be something really special, which im sure it will be...but it better be unbelievable.

but i know right now, i would never take any mustang over it unless the GTR doesnt come to america then i guess i would be forced to. no disrespect to the mustang...i just have never liked them.

At $70,000, you can keep your Nissan/Infiniti, I'll take a Porsche 997 thank you very much.

I loved the R32 GT-R, but I think that the GT-R went downhill with the R33 and R34. They were just too big and too heavy for my tastes. Hopefully this new GT-R can keep its curb weight under 3500 lbs. I speculate that it's going to get embarrassed pretty badly by the new Z06, but we'll have to wait until we have more info on it.

The Z06 is 500hp (if i remeber correctly) i bet it will be lighting fast, but i think given GT-R's gizmodo maybe it be able to slice the Z06, and as for the 997 comment i think that's quite ignorent, alot of ppl think that because is Japanese it will never be better then German, while they never even driven a Japanese sport car before. The R34 Skyline GT-R can do a mid 7min lap around the Nurburgring, i highly doubt a normal 997 will even be able to crack 8min barrier.

At $70,000, you can keep your Nissan/Infiniti, I'll take a Porsche 997 thank you very much.

well if thats not narrow-minded, i dont know what is...:rolleyes:

we havent seen or do we have any confirmed speculations about the car and already people are saying they would rather have this car because of the brand. im completely dumbfounded at the ignorance of people as a whole...

anyways, im not going to say if anything will outhandle or if it will even be worth talking about. the only confirmation we know is that it will be made...

we dont know anything about the car...it could turn into a $200k exotic for all we know. you assume that the Z06 will destroy it in the handling department on what basis??? we know absolutely nothing about the suspension, the weight, the motor, the aerodynamics, the...anything. hell it could get outhandled by $12k economy car for all we know if you want to just have an opinion for no apparent reason.

im not defending it because im a 'nissan' guy, like most of you assume...but more or less because, your statements have no meaning beings we know absolutely nothing about the car.

ill tell you one thing...nissan is not a fool. they know what their competition will be and it will compete. if the Z06 is a $70k and car manufacturers know that if they are going to build a car for the same purpose as the Z06 and at the same price it better perform as well or better than one or else they will lose money...it would be asinine to think any different.

For some strange reason, I don't think the GTR will be worth the 70k price tag. This is disappointing to me because I'd love to own it. But at 70k, I'd have to settle for the GT500.

Who knows, get 'em on the track together and you may not be able to tell that there is a $30,000 difference between the two.

whoa.... i didn't mention the 911 because it's german and 'better'.
i mentioned it because like it or not, it is the benchmark car in that price range (or it that going to go to the new cayman s?).
like it or not, in the real world, where buying a car is more than just about the specs, would you buy a car that would retain more than 50% of its price over three years or the car that wouldn't?

or is that only something that people like me think about....

For some strange reason, I don't think the GTR will be worth the 70k price tag. This is disappointing to me because I'd love to own it. But at 70k, I'd have to settle for the GT500.

Who knows, get 'em on the track together and you may not be able to tell that there is a $30,000 difference between the two.

you guys act like this $70k price tag is set in stone...there has been no confirmation buy anyone from nissan that says how much it is going to cost. it started at $50k and then there were rumors of it being $120k. sounds like someone just picked a medium and went with it...

anyways, maybe your right...but you sure as hell cant tell now. reguardless it will be worth the price tag. im sure it will be yet another japanese car way ahead of its time with new inventions, gizmos, and technology that Ford and GM would only hope to have at their disposal 10 years from now.

what im trying to say is that whether the performance is on par with the GT500 for the price tag or not...it will be a much more technological advanced which means more money. if you want a car that took many years of research, development, and testing...then your going to have to pay some money. if you want a bigger motor thrown in a well-designed car get the GT500.

but like i keep repeating...maybe the GTR will cost $40k also and it will compete with the GT500. then whats going to be the better bang for buck??? this comparison is ridiculous for the simple fact that your comparing a car that hasnt even had a concept built let alone on its way to production lines. when we KNOW something about the car instead of rumors and gossip then we could possibly make a comparison out of this. but as of right now...your choosing between 2 brands, not 2 cars.

the funny thing is, at the risk of sounding more than a little cynical, i don't think that ford are going to do anything drastically new to a mustang beyond a bigger engine (and reworked suspension to cope), anytime soon and hence it's pretty safe to compare mustangs up to the year 2015.......

The R34 Skyline GT-R can do a mid 7min lap around the Nurburgring, i highly doubt a normal 997 will even be able to crack 8min barrier.

I've never heard of a stock R34 pulling a mid 7 minute lap, though I think some heavily modified ones have reached that mark. Also, the 997S has already achieved a sub 8 minute lap, though I'm not sure if the base 997 has or not.

I don't know if you guys know or not, but there was an actual interview with Nissan's senior VP regarding the R35 GT-R. Obviously he hasn't divulged all the specs and what not, but he's given some important details nevertheless. And seeing as how its coming from a Nissan official, I'd say the info is pretty reliable. Take a look:

http://urbanracer.com/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=1437

whoa.... i didn't mention the 911 because it's german and 'better'.
i mentioned it because like it or not, it is the benchmark car in that price range (or it that going to go to the new cayman s?).
like it or not, in the real world, where buying a car is more than just about the specs, would you buy a car that would retain more than 50% of its price over three years or the car that wouldn't?

or is that only something that people like me think about....

infiniti holds its value very well...as does nissan if you havent kept track lately, nissan is making some of the best selling cars out right now.

i personally would buy the car that is best all around...and as of right now i dont know which car is going to be the best overall. if it were nme i would sacrifice its value holding abilities if it is a better car in every other category. and like i keep saying we have no idea what the GTR is going to do, what it is...

how do you know the GTR will not take the place of the 991 as the benchmark car in that price range...you dont. because when we are talking the future...no one ever knows.

it seems that everyone knows exactly what this car is about...so someone enlighten me. :nono:


Take a look:

http://urbanracer.com/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=1437

so now we have a credible person stating that it will probably be under 500hp, AWD, and between $60k-$100k.

so now we have a credible person stating that it will be under 500hp, AWD, and between $60k-$100k.

Well, some people were questioning whether the car might even compete directly with the GT500 in the $40-50K range. But with a confirmation of a $60-100K pricetag and a level of performance significantly greater than the R34, its pretty safe to say that it'll be an M5 competitor at the very least, if not a Z06 and 997TT competitor. Plus there were a couple of other important points in the article, including that the car will have key features based on the GT-R design heritage and that it will look nothing like the G35 or 350Z.

last year they said that hte V35 GTR is using the 996 turbo as the benchmark. so it should atleast run a 12.2 in the 1/4 and should atleast out handle it. the older R34 already handles on par with the 996 turbo and stops on par also.

I'll agree that it's to early to tell with both but I'll say this. I think the Skyline will probably outhandle the Cobra but straight line it'll be a dog fight. I hear the 1/4 mile will be pretty low. Also, remember how easy '03 Cobras were to get horsepower? Now, think of that same potential with the GT-40s engine. I personally think the Cobra will have a much better response in the aftermarket.

i think there's a big confusion about cars and ring time.
it was the R33 that made the claim of being the first production car to go below 8 minutes in standard form. it has however, been rumoured that the car was running on very non-standard tyres......

8 minutes is actually hard to do and many fast cars have failed, lambos and ferraris included that have much more bhp than the R33 does.

I'm sorry k3, and you're right, comparing the two cars at this point is completely pointless. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the new Corvette Z06 is among the greatest performance values of all time, and if anyone were to beat its bang for buck, especially a car made by a Japanese company, I'd be extremely surprised. The Infiniti GT-R may indeed run with the Corvette Z06, but if it does, I'd expect it to cost about a hundred grand. Not because Nissan is less experienced at building fast cars than Chevy, but simply because the Japanese put more time and money into finely engineering their cars, so their performance comes at a higher price.

I'll agree that it's to early to tell with both but I'll say this. I think the Skyline will probably outhandle the Cobra but straight line it'll be a dog fight. I hear the 1/4 mile will be pretty low. Also, remember how easy '03 Cobras were to get horsepower? Now, think of that same potential with the GT-40s engine. I personally think the Cobra will have a much better response in the aftermarket.

umm...i doubt that the GTR will be any harder to mod if they use the most talked about engine rght now, a totally redesigned VQ32DETT. we all know that turbocharged, in general, are alot easier to source power out of than Naturally Aspirated. and we all know that when building turboed cars the manufacturer usually builds them alot stronger than need be. every turbocharged engine nissan has assembled can make incredibly big power numbers with little modification.

-SR20DET can handle 400whp+ on stock internals
-RB series can handle anywhere from 450-600whp on stock internals ranging from the RB20 to the 26.
-VG30DETT can handle 500whp on stock internals
-etc

i doubt the Cobra will have a much better response to aftermarket upgrades if nissan uses this particular engine. i would say they would be on par with each other when it comes to aftermarket response. but i doubt many people will be modifying either car as the price is rather high on either car for the tuner crowd.

I'm sorry k3, and you're right, comparing the two cars at this point is completely pointless. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the new Corvette Z06 is among the greatest performance values of all time, and if anyone were to beat its bang for buck, especially a car made by a Japanese company, I'd be extremely surprised. The Infiniti GT-R may indeed run with the Corvette Z06, but if it does, I'd expect it to cost about a hundred grand. Not because Nissan is less experienced at building fast cars than Chevy, but simply because the Japanese put more time and money into finely engineering their cars, so their performance comes at a higher price.

i agree....but it can be done. but if you look at it in another way its a whole different ball game.

you usually get alot better value when you buy a Japanese car. the vettes performance shouldnt be that hard to match with the GTR's rumored engine output. i bet it will be able to be on par if not beat the vette in handling...i think it would be the 1/4 mile that the GTR would be a little slower in.

a well refined AWD system will allow the GTR to have so much more grip...

i think someone just stated that the R33 was the a car among many other higher end cars that would run that particular course in under 8 seconds which was better than laborghinis and such, with the benefit of better tires. the new GTR will without a doubt do everything phenominally better than the R33. just a thought...

i personally dont see any problem with the GTR keeping pace with the Z06 if not beating it in handling with the benefit of a good AWD system working on its side.

Big question for all you GT-R fans, since the upcoming car will be under the Infiniti name in the US, will they try and keep at the level of sportiness of the previous Nissan Skyline GT-Rs, or will they try to make it a sports coupe with a luxury component much like the BMW M3?

I ask this because cars like the GT500 and the Z06 Vettes are pure sports cars, with few luxuries, making them very different cars from a luxury/sports coupe. A more luxury focused GT-R might not be the same kind of car that the R32, R33, and R34 were. Just a thought.

A heavier, more luxurious GT-R would not be very good competition for the lighter and stronger Z06 Vette.

I was also wondering just how the GT-Rs AWD system affects the car's reliability. I recall reading about how terrible the previous generation skyline GT-Rs were in reliability, although I may be mistaken.

O, and I'd still take a 997 over the Skyline. A smooth N/A RWD car just appeals to me more then a Turbo AWD car. Its not an ignorant comment, its just my personal preference.

Big question for all you GT-R fans, since the upcoming car will be under the Infiniti name in the US, will they try and keep at the level of sportiness of the previous Nissan Skyline GT-Rs, or will they try to make it a sports coupe with a luxury component much like the BMW M3?

im not a GTR fan but i will give my response anyways...

well thats our problem...we dont know. nobody knows for sure...i cant imagine the interior would be any less luxurious than a 350Z or G35 in that aspect. but i cant imagine it beings a full out luxurious interior. Nissan/Infiniti is also doing many things to keep the weight of the car similar to that of the current 350Z but with ALOT more power. the basic reason why nissan/infiniti decided to introduce the new GTR (it will not carry the skyline name any longer) as an Infiniti is because the simple fact that it is going to be much harder for the Biased American Economy to pay good money for a Nissan. most of the population has no idea that Nissan is directly related with Infiniti. just ignorance i suppose...


I ask this because cars like the GT500 and the Z06 Vettes are pure sports cars, with few luxuries, making them very different cars from a luxury/sports coupe. A more luxury focused GT-R might not be the same kind of car that the R32, R33, and R34 were. Just a thought.

i think if it carries the name (GTR) of the flagship of Nissan Racing ...im sure it will perform like a pure sports car no matter what it is. and the GT500 is far from a pure sports car...more of Ford going back to the roots of a pure muscle car.


A heavier, more luxurious GT-R would not be very good competition for the lighter and stronger Z06 Vette.
i think that would be an under-statement. once again we have no idea about the weight of the GTR, but im sure it will be far from a luxury car but i bet it will have a very classy, BMW M-series like interior but it guarantee it will not ride like a 745Li.


I was also wondering just how the GT-Rs AWD system affects the car's reliability. I recall reading about how terrible the previous generation skyline GT-Rs were in reliability, although I may be mistaken.

this would be irrelevant though i have never heard anything about this. reguardless, nissan/infiniti is using a totally new electronic AWD system. it will be a RWD car with Electic motors that will power the front wheels through a very well calculated and advanced computer sytem that will monitor turning angles, slippage, accelerator level, etc. it will be the most technological advanced system on the market. it is currently going through several stages of testing on the Nissan Cube and other cars being offered to Japan to work out all the bugs and gliches before the GTR hits assembly lines...


O, and I'd still take a 997 over the Skyline. A smooth N/A RWD car just appeals to me more then a Turbo AWD car. Its not an ignorant comment, its just my personal preference.
i still dont know how you could say that and you know absolutely nothing about the car...its your opinion but it is obviously quite questionable and biased. how do you knows its going to be turboed???
if i were to have the money or will to buy either of these cars...i would atleast wait until we know something about the GTR to choose which one would be my choice. but then again...im the type of person who feels that if Kia makes a better car than Ferrari, i would take the Kia because it is a better car rather than just buying the ferrari because of its heritage or name. i buy cars based on the car itself...not the name.

Total perforamnce wise, I hope the newest incarnation of the Skyline beats the GT 500. For thirty thousand more on the bottom line, it should. If the new Cobra takes to modification as well as the 03+ snakes do, then don't even try to line up and rev... Game over...

I was also wondering just how the GT-Rs AWD system affects the car's reliability. I recall reading about how terrible the previous generation skyline GT-Rs were in reliability, although I may be mistaken.



i have no idea where you heard that rumor because its totally false. the tranny on the GT-R along with stock clutch is unbreakable. stock tranny GT-Rs have lasted with over 700whp. the stock clutch could handle repeated 8000rpm clutch drops without going up in smoke. the tranny can take extreme shock, and the engine is almost as bulletproof as the supra TT engine. the only trannys that had problems is the later model R33's which has a weak third gear. and they didn't start finding this problems 8 years later. and the only cars that exhibits this problem is the monster hp GT-R's. the R32 and the R34 trannys were all unbreakable.

in fact i can even bet money that the GTR tranny can handle waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more stress then your precious BMW or porsche tranny's can.

i do admit i'm questioning how the car would be once they added all the luxury crap to it since its going to be labeled as an infiniti. but only time will tell. its honestly too early to compare. but please don't spread false info about the previous GTR's toughness. this car is extremely over engineered and is basically a detuned 500hp car from the factory.

and to brodie50, if this new GTR is anything like the older ones, i'm sure it will take mods as well as a cobra. RazorGTR ( a moderator here ) has a R32 with only a intake, homemade boost controller, full exhuast and hes running 12.0 flat and trapping almost 120mph. his third gear takes him to 120mph.

in fact i can even bet money that the GTR tranny can handle waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more stress then your precious BMW or porsche tranny's can.



I'd hope so too, because my precious BMW's are far easier to fix than GTR's. :)

I'd hope so too, because my precious BMW's are far easier to fix than GTR's. :)

Tell that to the lady next to the street when their 318i is poping out smoke due to heavy traffic jam. and for the next month or so she have to take the public transportation.

On the other hand, Nissan car even the JDM never get stuck, and even if they went into the service centre, that evening the owner can take his lovely car home.

(by the way this is very normal in Thailand to see BMW, Mercedes and other European car over heat simply because the were build with the highist standar and they never brake :grinno: )

Big question for all you GT-R fans, since the upcoming car will be under the Infiniti name in the US, will they try and keep at the level of sportiness of the previous Nissan Skyline GT-Rs, or will they try to make it a sports coupe with a luxury component much like the BMW M3?
According to Hiroshi Tamura, the product planner for the R34 GT-R and the upcoming model, the new car will be a huge improvement. In an interview with car, he talked about Porsche's step from the 993 to the 996 and Ferrari's jump from the 355 to the 360, and said 'we must make an even bigger leap.' It should be world class in terms of performance.

Just as an FYI, apparently the GT-R and Lexus LF-A test mules are already faster than Porsche's 997 Turbo mule on the Nurburgring. The two Japanese cars have become real rivals, and I heard the drivers almost killed each other going into one corner because neither would yield. :lol:

I ask this because cars like the GT500 and the Z06 Vettes are pure sports cars, with few luxuries, making them very different cars from a luxury/sports coupe. A more luxury focused GT-R might not be the same kind of car that the R32, R33, and R34 were. Just a thought.

A heavier, more luxurious GT-R would not be very good competition for the lighter and stronger Z06 Vette.
Well, hopefully the GT-R won't be too luxury focused. One thing that gives us hope in this regard is that there will be a bigger luxury coupe from Infiniti shortly after the GT-R's release. A coupe version of the M45 will be available, which can afford to be more luxury oriented and perhaps compete with the BMW 6-series, upcoming Audi A6 coupe, and lower end MB SLs and CLs. This M45 coupe can take care of the luxury end, and let the GT-R be more hardcore.

With the best rumored specs thus far, the GT-R should beat the next M3(including the CSL), could possibly match the Ferrari 430, and come close to the C6 Z06. The GT-R should be shorter than a G35 Coupe, longer than a 350Z, but much wider than both. With some aluminum in the chassis, and aluminum and carbon fiber body panels, combined with the lighter e4wd system, the rumored weight of 3064lbs could be a reality. With a speculated 480hp, the GT-R would have a power to weight better than the F430, but not quite as good as the C6 Z06.


The GT500 should be a good bit cheaper than the GT-R, but they are aimed at slightly different audiences and have great performance in different ways. I think the GT-R(with the above specs) would be faster, but the Mustang will be a bargain in comparison.

Of course, Ford could always make a more hardcore GT350 with a bit more power(500?), less weight, and better handling via IRS. :iceslolan

Tell that to the lady next to the street when their 318i is poping out smoke due to heavy traffic jam. and for the next month or so she have to take the public transportation.

On the other hand, Nissan car even the JDM never get stuck, and even if they went into the service centre, that evening the owner can take his lovely car home.

(by the way this is very normal in Thailand to see BMW, Mercedes and other European car over heat simply because the were build with the highist standar and they never brake :grinno: )
From what I can understand from that, sounds like your neighbour needs to find a new garage, because anyone that takes a month to fix a 318i needs a swift kick in the ass. Anyway back to what I was saying, I've never worked on GTR's and never would (But I've talked to plenty who have) hence I can safely say that I'll stick to my BMW, at least I know that when something goes wrong I can have it back on the road at the end of the weekend, I don't have to worry about AWD or turbos or 4WS or a computerised display of how fast I'm cornering or any other surplus crap. It's quite comforting really.


For what it's worth I've seen more broken down Nissans holding up a lane of traffic than pretty much every maker except the cars from British Leyland and Mitsubishi. Bluebirds were the worst offenders, followed by Cefiro's (This was mainly back a few years ago before I moved to Italy)

Although current bmw's are certainly not unreliable, I'm pretty sure that the GT-R will be engineered to be more reliable. After all, nissan/infiniti does have the reputation for making some of the more reliable cars, and since nissan has been testing and developing this car for such a long time, I'm sure they'll engineer it to be quite reliable.

That said, I don't know how easily the car will respond to major mods though. I'm sure that to an extent the car will surely be modifiable, as modification was certiainly a highlight of previous GT-Rs. But since the R35 won't be using the mighty straight 6 from previous generations, I'm not sure if the engine is going to be able to handle some of the massive power outputs that the the older skylines were putting out.

From what I can understand from that, sounds like your neighbour needs to find a new garage, because anyone that takes a month to fix a 318i needs a swift kick in the ass. Anyway back to what I was saying, I've never worked on GTR's and never would (But I've talked to plenty who have) hence I can safely say that I'll stick to my BMW, at least I know that when something goes wrong I can have it back on the road at the end of the weekend, I don't have to worry about AWD or turbos or 4WS or a computerised display of how fast I'm cornering or any other surplus crap. It's quite comforting really.


For what it's worth I've seen more broken down Nissans holding up a lane of traffic than pretty much every maker except the cars from British Leyland and Mitsubishi. Bluebirds were the worst offenders, followed by Cefiro's (This was mainly back a few years ago before I moved to Italy)

Yea u should, the offical importer of BMW need a good kick in the ass. oh and ppl here don't go to anything but offical BMW service centre. and as for the bluebirds and cefiro, i don't what ur talking about but i have both the A32 and the A33 they run perfect (these car goes 50+km per day) we never having broken before. the only time that the A32 went in for a un-schudle service was when my cousin crash.

Hey, i never knew they were plenty of Skyline GT-R R34 in italy too :screwy:

The only country that get them offically in Europe is The U.K.

I don't give two shits about horsepower, and the GT500 designers have already stated that handling was an afterthought with the GT500. Their tire and suspension setup is designed to allow the car to launch better. For example, they have 30 mm wider rubber on the rear, which keeps the rear tires from going up in smoke, but it doesn't help the car's tendency to understeer.

Where did they state that?

The following is from Motor Trend May 2005 pages 54, 55, and 56:

"Hau Tai-Tang, the 2005 Mustang's chief program engineer, was handed the reins at SVT last fall."

"Visceral feedback from all driver inputs will be greatly increased; differentiated, yet well harmonized."

"We won't hesitate to have you do a driving comparison against IRS-suspended competitors."

There might be lighter, high-performance versions of the new Mustang coming.

The GT500 should be a good bit cheaper than the GT-R, but they are aimed at slightly different audiences and have great performance in different ways. I think the GT-R(with the above specs) would be faster, but the Mustang will be a bargain in comparison.

Of course, Ford could always make a more hardcore GT350 with a bit more power(500?), less weight, and better handling via IRS. :iceslolan

Well, of course Ford cooooouuuuld do that, but I'd rather see a new Mustang with a n/a 5.0L or 5.4L. Lighter, packing an IRS, and right around 30-35k.

Well, of course Ford cooooouuuuld do that, but I'd rather see a new Mustang with a n/a 5.0L or 5.4L. Lighter, packing an IRS, and right around 30-35k.

I would like to see something like the cammer motor in another mustang. A 5.0 DOHC and leave the cobras rear suspension in it. Its proven to work very well and would leave the cost down in the 30-35 range. I don't support the idea of IRS in the new mustang because it would just be a retrofit like the last cobras were. The only real benefit from that was ride quality and weight distribution. The new cobras rear is much better and will outhandle the last cobra.

I was actually getting my info from Car and Driver's article, not Motor Trend's.

Big power isn't much good unless it gets to the ground without excessive wheelspin, which is why the production GT500 will have a lot more rear tire than the New York show car, which hunkered over a set of 19-inch wheels wearing 255/45 tires. The initial production run of GT500s will roll on 9.5-by-18-inch wheels with sticky Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires—255/45 front, 285/40 rear.

"We just couldn't get the 255s to hook up," says O'Connell. "Almost every run was going up in smoke."

The test mule's responses were colored by mild understeer—not too surprising, given the weight distribution and big disparity between the front and rear contact patches. And not unwelcome, since it makes the car's responses predictable. Which is just what the SVT guys want.

"What we want is a little bit of steady-state understeer," says Tom Chapman, SVT's vehicle dynamics supervisor. "We don't want to overdo it on agility, but we still want it to be fun to drive. Besides, we figure the driver can correct for understeer with his right foot any time he wants."

There you have the chief vehicle engineer admitting that agility is not the vehicle's number one priority. They are designed the handling to be acceptable given the car's power, but they're not designing it to be outstanding by any means. If you want outstanding handling for that kind of money, you can buy an Evo, STi, or 350Z. The GT500 is made with one thing distinctly in mind: power.

At $70,000, you can keep your Nissan/Infiniti, I'll take a Porsche 997 thank you very much.

Nice car, but watch out for RMS.

RMS (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=379671)

The Z06 is 500hp (if i remeber correctly) i bet it will be lighting fast, but i think given GT-R's gizmodo maybe it be able to slice the Z06, and as for the 997 comment i think that's quite ignorent, alot of ppl think that because is Japanese it will never be better then German, while they never even driven a Japanese sport car before. The R34 Skyline GT-R can do a mid 7min lap around the Nurburgring, i highly doubt a normal 997 will even be able to crack 8min barrier.

The new Corvette Z06 has 505 hp.

New Z06 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=420611)

if you want a bigger motor thrown in a well-designed car get the GT500.

A more powerful engine is not the only thing the new GT500 has.

the funny thing is, at the risk of sounding more than a little cynical, i don't think that ford are going to do anything drastically new to a mustang beyond a bigger engine (and reworked suspension to cope), anytime soon and hence it's pretty safe to compare mustangs up to the year 2015.......

Ford is developing a new 3.5 liter V-6.

i doubt the Cobra will have a much better response to aftermarket upgrades if nissan uses this particular engine.

690 hp is available for 2003-2004 Mustang SVT Cobras (4.6 liter V-8) from factory performance parts. There is a huge aftermarket for Mustangs.

I was actually getting my info from Car and Driver's article, not Motor Trend's.





There you have the chief vehicle engineer admitting that agility is not the vehicle's number one priority. They are designed the handling to be acceptable given the car's power, but they're not designing it to be outstanding by any means. If you want outstanding handling for that kind of money, you can buy an Evo, STi, or 350Z. The GT500 is made with one thing distinctly in mind: power.

They want safe understeer. The BMW M3 has some understeer for safe handling. Why not wait to drive the car before writing it off?

Anyways, the GT500 will be a GT car.

That said, I don't know how easily the car will respond to major mods though. I'm sure that to an extent the car will surely be modifiable, as modification was certiainly a highlight of previous GT-Rs. But since the R35 won't be using the mighty straight 6 from previous generations, I'm not sure if the engine is going to be able to handle some of the massive power outputs that the the older skylines were putting out.

it will resond well to major mods if they do indeed use the highly talked about VQ32DETT. people refuse to understand that the RB series was dropped in favor of the VQ because the VQ is superior, not because nissan got up one morning and decided to make some changes. the VQ is a far superior and more up to date motor than the RB series so dont be surprised to see this motor easily modified well beyond what you would expect. if you have ever read...the hardest thing for 350Z/G35 tuners to oversome is fuel managment, not the engines capabilities. with the higher compression of the VQ35DE it can still hold enormous amount of boost for an otherwise internally stock motor. its rather impressing...

690 hp is available for 2003-2004 Mustang SVT Cobras (4.6 liter V-8) from factory performance parts. There is a huge aftermarket for Mustangs.

obviously you have never heard of Nismo or of the RB26DETT...it is just as easy to see big power gains as any mustang. look it up...

you obviously have never heard of combining posts either...:rolleyes:

The new GT-R is going to outperform just about everything on the market when it makes it debut.

obviously you have never heard of Nismo or of the RB26DETT...it is just as easy to see big power gains as any mustang. look it up...

you obviously have never heard of combining posts either...:rolleyes:

I've heard of Nismo, but the aftermarket for the Mustang in North America is bigger than the Skyline or the 350Z.

Who cares about combining posts?

Well, of course Ford cooooouuuuld do that, but I'd rather see a new Mustang with a n/a 5.0L or 5.4L. Lighter, packing an IRS, and right around 30-35k.

That's a good idea too. Such a car would help fill in the huge gap between the 300hp Mustang GT and the 450-475hp GT500.

However, I'm talking about a car that would be an even better performer than the GT500. With such a high weight and less power, the GT500 won't be able to keep up with the Z06. A lighter, better handling, and more powerful GT350 could turn the tide.

The GT350 would have less interior amenities than the GT500 and Mustang GT, but a bit more than the Mustang Cobra R. Handling and lower weight would be key. Even the Cobra R was 3589lbs, and the later supercharged Cobras were over 3600lbs. That might sound like a lot, but it's better than this 4000lbs some of you are talking about for the GT500. Maybe the weight of the older cars could be a goal for the GT350.

I didn't know it until recently, but the original GT500 was the 'softer' car, while the GT350 was the hardcore car. I figured the GT500 was faster just because of the bigger number, but the opposite was true. Instead of offering the Shelby GR-1, a GT350 might be easier for Ford to do.

I've heard of Nismo, but the aftermarket for the Mustang in North America is bigger than the Skyline or the 350Z.

Who cares about combining posts?

:lol: that is irrelevant...the skyline isnt even offered to the US so i would hope the mustang aftermarket would be bigger. plus, we werent discussing whos aftermarket is bigger. we were discussion the capabilities of these motors and the power you can gain from simple modifications. bottom line: the previous skylines had a huge aftermarket and they were easy to mod just like the mustang. the mustang is no better and probably will not be any better but we cannot determine this yet so it is a lost caused to get your panties in a bunch about it.

just remember: if the VQ32DETT is built and placed in the GTR's engine bay...it will be a monster stock and it will take very well to modifications just like its predecessors.

also, do some searching on Nismo...it is huge and its not just the 350Z, it is all Nissan cars as a whole. Nismo takes Nissan's performance cars to new heights...check out the Nismo R34 GT-R Z-Tune.

BTW: im sure there are soem people that care about combining posts...instead of people havign to skip over several worthless posts, they can skip over 1.

A more powerful engine is not the only thing the new GT500 has.
It may as well...bottom line, it will not be anywhere close to the cars mentioned about in this thread. If you want an all around performance car, Ford offeres the GT. Otherwise Ford dedicates most of their products for straight line performance ebcause this is what the American Economy thrives upon.

i remember ford trying to offer an IRS on the 05 mustang but they heard nothing but complaints from the mustang community about them dropping the obselete solid axle. a company builds cars to sell, so if the people want inferior technology, thats what they will get.

Otherwise Ford dedicates most of their products for straight line performance ebcause this is what the American Economy thrives upon.

i remember ford trying to offer an IRS on the 05 mustang but they heard nothing but complaints from the mustang community about them dropping the obselete solid axle. a company builds cars to sell, so if the people want inferior technology, thats what they will get.

So the Ford Falcon is dedicated only for straight line performance?

Ford Falcon (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=379989)

The new Mustang has won four races in Grand-Am Cup.

http://www.grandamerican.com/

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/grandcup/2005/dt/grandcup-2005-dt-jt-0108.jpg

http://grand-am.com/CONTENT/Photos/Gallery/2005/05CALcupS800-04.jpg

It may as well...bottom line, it will not be anywhere close to the cars mentioned about in this thread. If you want an all around performance car, Ford offeres the GT. Otherwise Ford dedicates most of their products for straight line performance ebcause this is what the American Economy thrives upon.

The way you worded makes it sound like the Mustang GT has poor handling, which isn't true by any stretch of the imagination. What is true, though, is that the Mustang, along with most other pony cars, have always been viewed primarily as cheap and powerful drag racers. Sure, the handling on some of them happens to be quite good (I'm always sticking up for the Camaro and Firebird, for example), but it's still not what the car is meant for in the eye of the general public. Like k3 said, a company builds cars to sell, and since the Mustang has always thrived due to its low price and high torque, that's what people expect out of it.

So the Ford Falcon is dedicated only for straight line performance?

Ford Falcon (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=379989)

The new Mustang has won four races in Grand-Am Cup.

http://www.grandamerican.com/


if you re-read my post...i said that "the american economy thrives upon". which would elead one to assume i was talking about Ford America...not any other country. i think it was you that tried to exclude the Japanese market when talking about the Skyline and now you include the Austrailian market when talking about Ford. i will repeat, Ford, just like any other car manufacturer, builds cars to suit the public...the European Ford industry has a whole different line of cars that offer much much better all around performance cars than does the American market.

i never said that the mustang was a bad handling car...i simply said, it will and does not handle better than any of the cars mentioned in this thread. if you find this incorrect...i think you should open your mind a little and do some comparing of your own and then come back with a valid argument.

the porsche, GTR, Z06, etc will be and are dedficated to all around best performance values...the GT500 will not be so much because this is not what they are buildign it for. if it were it would be in the same price range as the before-mentioned.

The way you worded makes it sound like the Mustang GT has poor handling, which isn't true by any stretch of the imagination. What is true, though, is that the Mustang, along with most other pony cars, have always been viewed primarily as cheap and powerful drag racers. Sure, the handling on some of them happens to be quite good (I'm always sticking up for the Camaro and Firebird, for example), but it's still not what the car is meant for in the eye of the general public. Like k3 said, a company builds cars to sell, and since the Mustang has always thrived due to its low price and high torque, that's what people expect out of it.
ahh...but you know this is not what i meant at all. i was simply stating that it will not be anywhere close to what a Z06, porsche 911, and the new GTR can do on a track.
it will be a pony car, not a detuned race car. you simply cannot expect a $40k car built, first and fore most, for straight line performance and stick in a class of cars dedicated to be the best performing sports cars under $100k.
japanese and european companies dont and probably will never have a car that will compete directly with the american pony cars that are recently coming back to life. these companies build cars to suit their own market and then offer it to the US...so in general, in other countries, you have people that are into much different types of performance which leads to these companies producing cars built directly for this type of performance.

i never said that the mustang was a bad handling car...i simply said, it will and does not handle better than any of the cars mentioned in this thread. if you find this incorrect...i think you should open your mind a little and do some comparing of your own and then come back with a valid argument.

The new Mustang isn't a sports car like the 911, Z06, or the other cars in this thread, but it still is interesting that it has won four races in Grand-Am Cup against BMW M3s, Porsche 911s, Nissan 350Zs, and other cars. I know it doesn't handle as well as those cars and Ford might make a new GT350.

the European Ford industry has a whole different line of cars that offer much much better all around performance cars than does the American market.

Which European Ford has better all around performance than the Ford GT?

I didn't know it until recently, but the original GT500 was the 'softer' car, while the GT350 was the hardcore car. I figured the GT500 was faster just because of the bigger number, but the opposite was true.

Sorry but this isn't true. The GT-350s had small blocks while the GT-500s had big blocks.

Instead of offering the Shelby GR-1, a GT350 might be easier for Ford to do.

I don't think so. A 600 hp Mustang that does 0-60 around 3.3 seconds and can run 10s, that's a fast Mustang. It'd probably run really high too.

In fact, SVT thought about making a high end Mustang close to something like the GT-40 but the Ford higher ups though a lower costing GT-500 would be a better way to go.

The new Mustang isn't a sports car like the 911, Z06, or the other cars in this thread, but it still is interesting that it has won four races in Grand-Am Cup against BMW M3s, Porsche 911s, Nissan 350Zs, and other cars. I know it doesn't handle as well as those cars and Ford might make a new GT350.



Which European Ford has better all around performance than the Ford GT?

yeah, i know it isnt a sports car like the 911, Z06, and soon to be GTR. thats EXACTLY what i was trying to convey to you and you went on a rave about how the mustang won 4 races in Grand-Am Cup, like that really matters.
...and when Ford might make a new GT350 we will have to discuss this but as it does not pertain to anything stated in this thread i find it quite idiotic to speak of it.

also, i was not inferring that the European cars are better than the GT...i was trying to show you that Ford dedicates its cars to selling, like any other car manufacturer. in Europe, they are not so set on 1/4mile performance...this is why ford makes different cars for them that actually have handling in mind while building the car. not an after thought...

it is the american economy that is so set on 1/4 mile performance and could care less about any other aspect of the car. so ford makes cars like the mustang for these people...they think about how well the car handles afterward. eventhough, the mustang is a good handling car for its price, throwing a larger motor in it will not make it compete with $70k sports cars around a track.

i dont even know what the problem is...you act as if i said that the mustang cant handle worth shit and the chevy aveo is on par with it. i simply stated that it cannot compete with the $70k sports cars listed above, which happen to be built for all around 'exotic, super car' like performance.

i simply stated that it cannot compete with the $70k sports cars listed above, which happen to be built for all around 'exotic, super car' like performance.

Well a normal Mustang can't but the GT-R is a little over $100,000 so it can hold its own. It's a full fledge racing car and that's the one that has probably won all the races. I saw a thing on Discovery channel and they put a lot, and I mean a WHOLE LOT of work into the suspension on that thing.

Well a normal Mustang can't but the GT-R is a little over $100,000 so it can hold its own. It's a full fledge racing car and that's the one that has probably won all the races. I saw a thing on Discovery channel and they put a lot, and I mean a WHOLE LOT of work into the suspension on that thing.

yeah..i have read small portions about that car. but its a whole other car and we were referring to the normal mustang so this is a different story...

we could start a new comparison when the Infiniti GTR becomes a reality and compare it to the Mustang GT-R...if you feel it is necessary. if nissan makes this car like some are speculating, this thing could be competing with $100k+ cars like the Ford GT and cars of the such. just a matter of time before we actually have some information about the car...

yeah, i know it isnt a sports car like the 911, Z06, and soon to be GTR. thats EXACTLY what i was trying to convey to you and you went on a rave about how the mustang won 4 races in Grand-Am Cup, like that really matters.
...and when Ford might make a new GT350 we will have to discuss this but as it does not pertain to anything stated in this thread i find it quite idiotic to speak of it.

also, i was not inferring that the European cars are better than the GT...i was trying to show you that Ford dedicates its cars to selling, like any other car manufacturer. in Europe, they are not so set on 1/4mile performance...this is why ford makes different cars for them that actually have handling in mind while building the car. not an after thought...

it is the american economy that is so set on 1/4 mile performance and could care less about any other aspect of the car. so ford makes cars like the mustang for these people...they think about how well the car handles afterward. eventhough, the mustang is a good handling car for its price, throwing a larger motor in it will not make it compete with $70k sports cars around a track.

i dont even know what the problem is...you act as if i said that the mustang cant handle worth shit and the chevy aveo is on par with it. i simply stated that it cannot compete with the $70k sports cars listed above, which happen to be built for all around 'exotic, super car' like performance.

So people who buy Mustangs could care less about handling?

Anyways, the following is from Motor Trend May 2005:

"Drag racers prefer that old solid rear, and many have reinstalled them in last-generation IRS Mustang Cobras for reliability. But Thai-Tang didn't develop the new Mustangs--Shelby 500s by SVT or otherwise--to be straight-line performers."

"Hau Tai-Tang, the 2005 Mustang's chief program engineer, was handed the reins at SVT last fall."

http://media.ford.com/products/adrenalincon/hau_thai_tang_250.jpg

Yea u should, the offical importer of BMW need a good kick in the ass. oh and ppl here don't go to anything but offical BMW service centre. and as for the bluebirds and cefiro, i don't what ur talking about but i have both the A32 and the A33 they run perfect (these car goes 50+km per day) we never having broken before. the only time that the A32 went in for a un-schudle service was when my cousin crash.

Hey, i never knew they were plenty of Skyline GT-R R34 in italy too :screwy:

The only country that get them offically in Europe is The U.K.
There isn't, but I came from New Zealand, where there is a lot of them.



As for Cefiro's I generally meant the A31.

So people who buy Mustangs could care less about handling?

Anyways, the following is from Motor Trend May 2005:

"Drag racers prefer that old solid rear, and many have reinstalled them in last-generation IRS Mustang Cobras for reliability. But Thai-Tang didn't develop the new Mustangs--Shelby 500s by SVT or otherwise--to be straight-line performers."

"Hau Tai-Tang, the 2005 Mustang's chief program engineer, was handed the reins at SVT last fall."

http://media.ford.com/products/adrenalincon/hau_thai_tang_250.jpg
for the most part, people who buy mustangs do not have handling as the first thing on their mind.

and this confirms that people like the inferior solid axle and people who buy mustangs care more about drag racing than any other type of racing.

i never said that it is a strictly straight line performer...once again, i simply said it will not out handle $70k sports cars. i do not know what you are trying to prove anymore...as we both have came to the agreement that the mustang/gt500 will not out-handle the $70k sports cars listed in this thread.

the mustang handles rather well...but once AGAIN, it will NOT out-handle $70k sports cars. these cars are built to handle exceptional...not have decent handling thrown in the mix of good straight line performance.

I have no more argument, they did just what I wanted. Call me a typical american but I like the solid axel and I like that it will outhandle most cars without loosing the solid rear. To me its the closest you will get to 500 hp stock south of $40000. I don't think anyone will dislike this car, even if its not their favorite.

You guys are really wrapped up in the handling of the GT500. I don't see how having a solid rear axle is such a downfall on the design. It has its strengths and its weaknesses in its design. It may be inferior if your putting it on a track, but not when its on the strip (as where most people will bring it).

I would compare the GTR with the type of cars that are more in its class for instance: the Z06, 997, 430, etc. Hell it may be totally different, but I guess it is just to early to really know what the GTR will pack. Call me biased, but I think the Z06 is going to blow them all away especially considering its base price being under 70k!

You guys are really wrapped up in the handling of the GT500. I don't see how having a solid rear axle is such a downfall on the design. It has its strengths and its weaknesses in its design. It may be inferior if your putting it on a track, but not when its on the strip (as where most people will bring it).

I would compare the GTR with the type of cars that are more in its class for instance: the Z06, 997, 430, etc. Hell it may be totally different, but I guess it is just to early to really know what the GTR will pack. Call me biased, but I think the Z06 is going to blow them all away especially considering its base price being under 70k!

wow...thank you for confirming what i have been preaching this entire last 2 pages. jeez...:lol:

the solid axle is fine...but it is inferior when it comes to comparing it to $70k performance cars. ford is doing a dandy job of building the car to suit the public but they are not building it to beat a corvette around a track. they are building it to give a cheaper alternative for those wanting straight line performance. it is rather innovative and a very smart marketing move if you ask me and i think it will sell very well in the US market.

i thinkt eh mustang GT is a rather mistifying car myself...how ford has used and professionalized the solid axle for so long and so many times, that they can get it to compte with such cars as the 350Z with far superior technology. its either embarassing that ford has been using it that long or it is rather impressive that a company is able to to do this...

anyways, bottom line has been stated over and over: the GT500 will not beat or even come close to a Z06, 911 or the upcoming GTR around a track. in 1/4 mile performance we can have a comparison...in any other, the GT500 is not being built for it.

There isn't, but I came from New Zealand, where there is a lot of them.



As for Cefiro's I generally meant the A31.

I see what u mean.....

the A31 that are sold in new zeland are mostly the late 80's model with milage way way above 100,000, these car are mostly gather from lot in japan where they were sitting for age since no one in japan will buy a second hand car above 100,000km mark. same with the skyline

I see what u mean.....

the A31 that are sold in new zeland are mostly the late 80's model with milage way way above 100,000, these car are mostly gather from lot in japan where they were sitting for age since no one in japan will buy a second hand car above 100,000km mark. same with the skyline
Yeah, the A31 was a bad car to start with in the first place, it was Nissans first real attempt at stuffing gadgets into a car but keeping it down to a price. Didn't work, at all.


I suppose A31's would be thin on the ground in NZ now days, partly due to them being illegal to import and partly because the drifter-lads have taken a particular liking to them.

Yeah, the A31 was a bad car to start with in the first place, it was Nissans first real attempt at stuffing gadgets into a car but keeping it down to a price. Didn't work, at all.


I suppose A31's would be thin on the ground in NZ now days, partly due to them being illegal to import and partly because the drifter-lads have taken a particular liking to them.

Na...they are great car, in Thailand we have them all over the place they run fine. they are cheap to run and to maintain because they are plenty of part to swap from. the later model was basiclly a 4 door S13/R32. and i just love the look

I can understand why u have pretty bad opion on them, but u got to try have a new one or one that was kept nicely. these car then will really shine :)

Never buy a second hand car exported from Japan, beacuse these car are the one that no Japanese want soo they are basiclly a non-cut 1/2cut (u get what i am getting at?)

i thinkt eh mustang GT is a rather mistifying car myself...how ford has used and professionalized the solid axle for so long and so many times, that they can get it to compte with such cars as the 350Z with far superior technology. its either embarassing that ford has been using it that long or it is rather impressive that a company is able to to do this...


I don't see why it would be embarrasing considering you forget this new chassis that the 05-up Mustangs sit on was designed around an IRS read-end.

But the public outcry about having a straight-axle was so great that Ford mid-stream went and spent more time and money to actually create a whole new solid-axled to fit into this chassis.

So as long as sales are up which they are 70% increase from 04 to 05. And the customers who buy the cars get what they want.... What does Ford have to be ashamed of?

I don't see why it would be embarrasing considering you forget this new chassis that the 05-up Mustangs sit on was designed around an IRS read-end.

But the public outcry about having a straight-axle was so great that Ford mid-stream went and spent more time and money to actually create a whole new solid-axled to fit into this chassis.

So as long as sales are up which they are 70% increase from 04 to 05. And the customers who buy the cars get what they want.... What does Ford have to be ashamed of?

i have said everything you just said in previous posted so you are not bringing any new information which i dont already know. i was simply stating that to some it may be kind of embarassing that ford has used this ancient technology for so long that they have made it handle as well as other companies independent suspensions. it was mroe of a hint of sarcasm but i think you misunderstood my point...or just picked certain words out of my post. in that same exact sentence i also mentioned that it could also be that it is rather impressive what ford can do with the solid axle.

through this thread, i have found out that Mustang owners can be very sensitive when even the slightest thought of Ford not being perfect arises...i find it quite amusing. :lol:

Sort of off topic but the 05 Mustang chassis is actually completely unique to the mustang. During the design stages they started out with the lincoln LS chassis but it was gradually changed more and more and it really dosn't retain much, I think only the floor pan is the same. The lincoln LS not only has IRS but it also has double wishbone front suspension. That Neither of those setups are part of the new GT. The 4.6 wouldn't fit between the suspension with the LS's front suspension, and the idea of lowering the displacement more was out of the question. The wheel base was also changed and the rear suspension....well that has already been discussed to exhaustion. The result is a car that will turn peoples heads and command respect with its raw but modern power. At the same time its a car that you will not easily outhandle without a more serious car than your average daily commuter. I am pretty pleased with the results because it dosn't sacrifice its reputation as a straight line oriented car, but still can handle and brake well enough to make everyone happy. K3 was right when he compared the mustang to a 350Z or Rx8, they are at least in the same price region. The comparrison of a theoretical 70000 dollar 07 Skyline and the 40000 dollar alleged GT500 are way off. To me its like comparing a Ford F150 to an Infiniti FX, they are alike in that you can order them with similar power packages, but they are designed with totally different things in mind, and really do not compete in the same market. Nobody on the market for a new skyline is going to change their mind and get a bad ass mustang, and nobody jumping in line to order their GT500 is even considering spending 75% more on a skyline.

wow...thank you for confirming what i have been preaching this entire last 2 pages. jeez...:lol:

the solid axle is fine...but it is inferior when it comes to comparing it to $70k performance cars. ford is doing a dandy job of building the car to suit the public but they are not building it to beat a corvette around a track. they are building it to give a cheaper alternative for those wanting straight line performance. it is rather innovative and a very smart marketing move if you ask me and i think it will sell very well in the US market.

i thinkt eh mustang GT is a rather mistifying car myself...how ford has used and professionalized the solid axle for so long and so many times, that they can get it to compte with such cars as the 350Z with far superior technology. its either embarassing that ford has been using it that long or it is rather impressive that a company is able to to do this...

anyways, bottom line has been stated over and over: the GT500 will not beat or even come close to a Z06, 911 or the upcoming GTR around a track. in 1/4 mile performance we can have a comparison...in any other, the GT500 is not being built for it.

Road & Track actually drove a 2007 Ford Shelby Cobra GT500 prototype around Grattan Raceway Park in Michigan in their August 2005 issue. The following is from that issue:

"Chassis balance was blessedly close to neutral, enough so that grin-inducing throttle steer is the preferred technique at the limit, and transitions came with natural accuracy."

http://www.grattanraceway.com/

Ur comparing Nissan's flagship performance car (as Kman put it) against something down the line for ford...

:lol: Id have to agree on that

Nissan > Ford

To all in advance - please dont refer to saleen as ford because there completely different.

Road & Track actually drove a 2007 Ford Shelby Cobra GT500 prototype around Grattan Raceway Park in Michigan in their August 2005 issue. The following is from that issue:

"Chassis balance was blessedly close to neutral, enough so that grin-inducing throttle steer is the preferred technique at the limit, and transitions came with natural accuracy."

http://www.grattanraceway.com/

what the hell is your point??? and these comments are in comparison to what???

i dont even know what your are trying to convince me of anymore. before i thought you were trying to argue that the GT500 would handle just as well as the GTR, Z06, and 911. but this cant be, as you have agreed with me a few posts ago.

now your bringing in info about the a test drive of the GT500...i could say a 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis Station Wagon seems well balanced and handles naturally. the problem with your quote is that they werent comparing it to a vette or anything for that matter. if they were, they probably would have said that, "The GT500 seems to handle much better than we first would have thought, but it is not anywhere close to the agility and all out finess around a turn that the Corvettte Z06 and cars of the like possess."

i dont want to keep reading claims that the GT500 seems like a nice car...if you are going to keep quoting articles, atleast make it pertain to this thread. you are just finding quotes that praise the gt500 and/or mustang with no comparison to any other cars.

your not going to convince me or anyone else that the GT500 will be on par with these, $70k sports cars, by quoting people that say that the GT500 sees to be well-balanced.

To TatII: Sounds like your buddy has an impressive car. I forgot about propbably the most slept on mod for any car: The DRIVER MOD lol. Predator tune, smaller pulley and exhaust on the Cobra, and your looking at a drivers race between the two. As I stated before, for 30,000 more, I would hope that the 07 would be more luxurious and better handling then the GT 500. Apples to oranges in my book...

The GT500 isn't meant to compete with cars like the 07 GTR, and vice versa. The 07 GTR is meant to compete with cars like the new Z06. In which case i'll take teh z06.

Is this thing about Ford building a high end GT350 just another rumor or does it actually carry some weight?

Rumor, I am sure we will see more mustang models in the next few years though, GT350 or not.

Yeah, I just came up with the GT350 thing off the top of my head. I think it would make more sense than having that Shelby GR-1. The Mustang could be a lot cheaper, even if it was $50k.

A price that high would certainly give Ford some room to play with development. Maybe some lighter body panels, a great handling suspension setup(maybe time at the Nurburgring like the Z06), and of course, more power. Although $50k is a lot for a Mustang, it would still be almost $15k less than the Z06.

what the hell is your point??? and these comments are in comparison to what???

i dont even know what your are trying to convince me of anymore. before i thought you were trying to argue that the GT500 would handle just as well as the GTR, Z06, and 911. but this cant be, as you have agreed with me a few posts ago.

now your bringing in info about the a test drive of the GT500...i could say a 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis Station Wagon seems well balanced and handles naturally. the problem with your quote is that they werent comparing it to a vette or anything for that matter. if they were, they probably would have said that, "The GT500 seems to handle much better than we first would have thought, but it is not anywhere close to the agility and all out finess around a turn that the Corvettte Z06 and cars of the like possess."

i dont want to keep reading claims that the GT500 seems like a nice car...if you are going to keep quoting articles, atleast make it pertain to this thread. you are just finding quotes that praise the gt500 and/or mustang with no comparison to any other cars.

your not going to convince me or anyone else that the GT500 will be on par with these, $70k sports cars, by quoting people that say that the GT500 sees to be well-balanced.

I quoted Road & Track because you said the following:

"they are building it to give a cheaper alternative for those wanting straight line performance."

I know that the GT500 won't compete with the new Corvette Z06.

The GT500 isn't meant to compete with cars like the 07 GTR, and vice versa. The 07 GTR is meant to compete with cars like the new Z06. In which case i'll take teh z06.

The GTR hasn't been released.

Anyways...

The official time for the new Corvette Z06 at the Nurburgring is 7:43.

I quoted Road & Track because you said the following:

"they are building it to give a cheaper alternative for those wanting straight line performance."



but that statement was in comparison to the porsche 911, z06 corvette...and ford it building the GT500 to give a cheaper alternative to these cars for those seaking straight line performance. i dont think my statement could be any more true...

k3smostwanted,

Do you think that SVT isn't developing the handling of the GT500?

k3smostwanted,

Do you think that SVT isn't developing the handling of the GT500?

i dont really care who is developing it...it will not be on par with the Z06 and before mentioned cars.

It could handle as well as those cars...if ford wanted it to. Eventually they have to say "straightline or twisties" cause Front engine-RWD means that eventually something's gotta give.

I don't see why you guys are getting so worked up on the handling of the GT500. The current cobra doesn't handle as well as the current vette, but its cheaper and has tons of mod potential....I don't hear any of the cobra fans complaining. The market for the cobra primarily consists of drag racers whether you would like to admit it or not, not that some wouldn't want to track it, but the majority are into straightline racing. Why else do we see so many mustangs, camaros, etc. at drag strips? If there was really so much demand for having a world-class handling mustang instead of a primarily straightline mustang, ford would have made it by now.

Also, just because the GT500 may not handle as well as the vette doesn't mean that it can't handle decently. For example, the 350Z has been praised for having very good handling, so just because we say it won't be able to beat the new Z06 or 911 around a track doesn't mean we are bashing it or saying that its handling sucks.....it just means that the vette and 911, which are much more expensive than the 350Z and have undergone extensive development in handling and track use, should be able to beat it around a track, and do. Similarly, the GT500 may have pretty good handling, but it is VERY unlikely that it will be on par with the vette or porsche.

Put it into perspective......the Z06 has 505hp and less weight than a ferrari F430.....this may very well put the F430, upcoming 997 TT, and the viper to shame.....so if you look at it in those terms, then there is absolutely no shame in losing to the vette, especially when your GT500 is $15-20K cheaper. And don't think I'm saying that ford is not capable of making fast track cars....the ford GT is a perfect example of a race bred car. All I'm saying is that there is no need for a significantly cheaper GT500 to have to be able to compete with the exotic-level performance of the Z06

I don't see why you guys are getting so worked up on the handling of the GT500. The current cobra doesn't handle as well as the current vette, but its cheaper and has tons of mod potential....I don't hear any of the cobra fans complaining. The market for the cobra primarily consists of drag racers whether you would like to admit it or not, not that some wouldn't want to track it, but the majority are into straightline racing. Why else do we see so many mustangs, camaros, etc. at drag strips? If there was really so much demand for having a world-class handling mustang instead of a primarily straightline mustang, ford would have made it by now.

Also, just because the GT500 may not handle as well as the vette doesn't mean that it can't handle decently. For example, the 350Z has been praised for having very good handling, so just because we say it won't be able to beat the new Z06 or 911 around a track doesn't mean we are bashing it or saying that its handling sucks.....it just means that the vette and 911, which are much more expensive than the 350Z and have undergone extensive development in handling and track use, should be able to beat it around a track, and do. Similarly, the GT500 may have pretty good handling, but it is VERY unlikely that it will be on par with the vette or porsche.

Put it into perspective......the Z06 has 505hp and less weight than a ferrari F430.....this may very well put the F430, upcoming 997 TT, and the viper to shame.....so if you look at it in those terms, then there is absolutely no shame in losing to the vette, especially when your GT500 is $15-20K cheaper. And don't think I'm saying that ford is not capable of making fast track cars....the ford GT is a perfect example of a race bred car. All I'm saying is that there is no need for a significantly cheaper GT500 to have to be able to compete with the exotic-level performance of the Z06

yeah, we know...that what i have been saying all along. the GT500 will not be a bad handling car but it will not be on par with the 911 or Z06. someone obviously wanted to argue the point...

no one is caught up on handling of the GT500. everyone knows that will handle fine for what it is but everyone also knows that it will not be on par with higher end cars.

i dont know where all these GT500 groupies came from...its getting ridiculous. i can understand defending a car you like but saying it will handle just as well as the new Z06 corvette and then take that back and state several times how well he GT500 handles. its a little...overwhelming.

is there anyone on my side that feels that the new $70k GTR will out perform the GT500??? :eek7:

If there was really so much demand for having a world-class handling mustang instead of a primarily straightline mustang, ford would have made it by now.
They did. It's called the Cobra R...and they need to make a new one. It could have an NA 5.4L, be called the GT350R and slot in under the GT500.

is there anyone on my side that feels that the new $70k GTR will out perform the GT500???
I don't see how that couldn't be the case. Not with awd, similar power, better aerodynamics(probably) and much less weight. Of course, for that much money, the GT-R should be better.

I don't see how that couldn't be the case. Not with awd, similar power, better aerodynamics(probably) and much less weight. Of course, for that much money, the GT-R should be better.

thank you...

k3, your calling the GT 500 suppoters "groupies" now? Pot, meet kettle. The skyline has the most fanboi's of ANY Japanese import, the amount of nutswinging is hilarious. So lets chill on the name calling, what do you say?

k3, your calling the GT 500 suppoters "groupies" now? Pot, meet kettle. The skyline has the most fanboi's of ANY Japanese import, the amount of nutswinging is hilarious. So lets chill on the name calling, what do you say?

i dont find groupies name calling...yes the skyline does probably have the biggest amount of groupies beside the supra but its a good thing nobody in this thread is discussing a skyline. instead we are discussing a new breed of Nissan/Infiniti high performance, no longer to carry the skyline badge or image.

i find groupies as simply something to refer to someone who sides on one cause no matter what the occasion. if you read throughout this thread there have been many people to defend the GT500's performance when it clearly would be the black sheep in this particular comparison. i just find it ludicrous...

i dont really care who is developing it...it will not be on par with the Z06 and before mentioned cars.

I wasn't talking about the GT500 vs other cars.

Do you think the GT500 is only being developed for straight line performance?

I wasn't talking about the GT500 vs other cars.

Do you think the GT500 is only being developed for straight line performance?

The GT500 is not competing with anything. Its a supermustang. Its still a mustang but twice as good at everything a GT is good at. It will be faster and handle better than any current mustang. Its not really a purpose built car at all. Its only real purpose is to be the best mustang.
If you like mustangs you will love this car.

Do you think the GT500 is only being developed for straight line performance?

no i think it is being built for straight line performance...but not only. i think that the way it handles will not be a key factor in the build of this car. i dont think handling will play a huge role in the build or the people buying ths car. there are very few people who buy a mustang because it handles so well. they buy it because it has very good HP for very minute money and the GT500 will take this to a new level.

im not at all inferring that the car will handle like a mini van, i am simply saying that it will not compete with cars way out of its class. these cars we are speaking of will compete with $150k+ exotics in all-around performance.

i was very surprised at how well the mustang handles and im sure the GT500 will be no different but i will and never will expect to compete with the cars mentioned above.

guys give K3 a brake, am i the only guy who understand what he is talking about!? he is simply saying that the GT500 will not be as good as the exotic car in handling.

He never mention that it will be shopping trolly!!!

k3, your calling the GT 500 suppoters "groupies" now? Pot, meet kettle. The skyline has the most fanboi's of ANY Japanese import, the amount of nutswinging is hilarious. So lets chill on the name calling, what do you say?


Sorry man, i really got to say something on this. It really piss me off seeing how 2f2f destroyed skyline.

In Japan and South East Asia (where all the country are RHD) Skyline club here the average of the owner, i am pretty sure are all at least early 30's. In Japan skyline GT-R are extreamly expensive (5.6million car for japanese are super expensive, since even M35 cost 4million yen). so little kids don't have the money to own them.

As in south east Asia due to the import tax these car are either own by mid age ehthuasit or kids with very very rich parent. most of the time it means these kids recives good education.

So for us here Skyline GT-R is sort of nich item, for the people who are successful or on the top bit of the piramid.

So Skyline GT-R owner here where it was created for, are quite unlike the one in the USA

I hear what your saying fairlady. I'm not dumping on the skyline as a car. The Nismo Skyline GT-R I was reading about busted out a near 10 flat quarter mile run. And handling wise, I never said the GT 500 would out handle the Skyline or the C6 ZO6. My point this whole time was, your going to get a whole lot of performance out of a 40,000 dollar car in the GT 500. No disrespect to the Skyline guys who know there shit.

I hear what your saying fairlady. I'm not dumping on the skyline as a car. The Nismo Skyline GT-R I was reading about busted out a near 10 flat quarter mile run. And handling wise, I never said the GT 500 would out handle the Skyline or the C6 ZO6. My point this whole time was, your going to get a whole lot of performance out of a 40,000 dollar car in the GT 500. No disrespect to the Skyline guys who know there shit.

Thanks you and i have to agree with u that GT500 is giving alot for 40k

My point this whole time was, your going to get a whole lot of performance out of a 40,000 dollar car in the GT 500.

there is no doubt in my mind it may be the best performance value under $40k...just like the current 05 mustang is the just about the best performance value.

what i got from the last... oh say... 3 pages?


ok?
yea, ok!
er... ok...?
OK, DUH!!
oh yea, ok!
wait... what?
ok!
ok ok...
wait, you didnt say ok?
yes i did, ok?
oh, ok!

i think you've laid the issue to rest.

shopping cart < regular mustang < GT500 < Z06 ?~? GT-R

err...ok, yea i said ok

what i got from the last... oh say... 3 pages?


ok?
yea, ok!
er... ok...?
OK, DUH!!
oh yea, ok!
wait... what?
ok!
ok ok...
wait, you didnt say ok?
yes i did, ok?
oh, ok!

i think you've laid the issue to rest.

shopping cart < regular mustang < GT500 < Z06 ?~? GT-R

and by this post...you are not helping matters. :rolleyes:

what i got from the last... oh say... 3 pages?


ok?
yea, ok!
er... ok...?
OK, DUH!!
oh yea, ok!
wait... what?
ok!
ok ok...
wait, you didnt say ok?
yes i did, ok?
oh, ok!

i think you've laid the issue to rest.

shopping cart < regular mustang < GT500 < Z06 ?~? GT-R
haha, you said "ok" lots of times.







I love lamp.

jimster, are you just looking at random things and saying you love them?

What did I get from pik d's post? Shopping carts own Neons...

Woohoo 7 pages FULLY READ!!! I can't possibly not post. Not a bad thread considering it repeated itself, and debated the blatantly obvious facts for 5 pages........... which is the gt500 will handle on the level with the gt-r even given it's breed, and lack of another $30k worth of car :p . Glad we got this panned out. :iceslolan

Woohoo 7 pages FULLY READ!!! I can't possibly not post. Not a bad thread considering it repeated itself, and debated the blatantly obvious facts for 5 pages........... which is the gt500 will handle on the level with the gt-r even given it's breed, and lack of another $30k worth of car :p . Glad we got this panned out. :iceslolan

this is a stupid post with the only result of 4 million reposts of what the entire thread was about...

smelly pirate hooker

americans companies crack me up some times... i think it was chevy buti cant remember.... like a week ago, i saw a commercial for a truck that said "now with THREE VALVES... thats right 3 intead of 2 which means better performance!!!" idk, what the hell they were trying to prove since some japanese cars had 4 vpc in the mid 1980's lol... TWENTYFIVE YEARS LATER..... THREE VALVES!! which is why im still confused as to why even the new corvettes wouldnt have 4

is there an explanation to that :screwy:

this is a stupid post with the only result of 4 million reposts of what the entire thread was about...

smelly pirate hooker

americans companies crack me up some times... i think it was chevy buti cant remember.... like a week ago, i saw a commercial for a truck that said "now with THREE VALVES... thats right 3 intead of 2 which means better performance!!!" idk, what the hell they were trying to prove since some japanese cars had 4 vpc in the mid 1980's lol... TWENTYFIVE YEARS LATER..... THREE VALVES!! which is why im still confused as to why even the new corvettes wouldnt have 4

is there an explanation to that :screwy:

Hell, let's go back further. Jaguar, Aston Martin, Auto Union, Alfa Romeo, Maserati were building DOHC 4 valve per cylinder with twin ignition back in the 40's! However, those were on in-line engines.

With V-shaped engines, there's a stronger case for pushrods than most people realize. Overhead camshafts is a very inefficient use of space and is heavier because the heads have to be bolstered so much more in order to support the camshafts. With a pushrod design, it's more complicated to get 3 or 4 valves per cylinder and it's also not a big issue because v8's displace enough that it's easy get tremendous power with 2 valves. Why spend the extra money if it isn't necessary? Pushrods may add reciprocating mass, but they're still perfectly capable of revving 8000rpm+.

this is a stupid post with the only result of 4 million reposts of what the entire thread was about...

smelly pirate hooker

americans companies crack me up some times... i think it was chevy buti cant remember.... like a week ago, i saw a commercial for a truck that said "now with THREE VALVES... thats right 3 intead of 2 which means better performance!!!" idk, what the hell they were trying to prove since some japanese cars had 4 vpc in the mid 1980's lol... TWENTYFIVE YEARS LATER..... THREE VALVES!! which is why im still confused as to why even the new corvettes wouldnt have 4

is there an explanation to that :screwy:

Actually that was ford that had that commercial. They do have 4 valve engines and have had them for some time. I think it is impressive that their base line V8 has 3 valves per cylinder. The same argument could be made that japanese are just now making V8s. Nobody cares though, just as nobody cares about how many valves you have. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Look at the new vette, 500 hp pushrod 2valve motor.

i know that ford has cars with 4 valves per cylinder, but the corvette designed to be chevys top sports car, i would think they would have it... and i guess 9ball explained it "Why spend the extra money if it isn't necessary?" its known for the best bang for you buck.. i just think it could be better idk

and obviously you don't know how valves and number of valves affect engine performance.
having more valves doesn't mean anything.
i.e having a 5 valve four pot isn't going to automatically make it a better engine than a four valve one.

Read this I posted this thread in the beginning of the summer. http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=409529

this is a stupid post with the only result of 4 million reposts of what the entire thread was about...

smelly pirate hooker

americans companies crack me up some times... i think it was chevy buti cant remember.... like a week ago, i saw a commercial for a truck that said "now with THREE VALVES... thats right 3 intead of 2 which means better performance!!!" idk, what the hell they were trying to prove since some japanese cars had 4 vpc in the mid 1980's lol... TWENTYFIVE YEARS LATER..... THREE VALVES!! which is why im still confused as to why even the new corvettes wouldnt have 4

is there an explanation to that :screwy:

The 1990 Corvette ZR-1 had a DOHC 32 valve V-8.

The official time for the new Corvette Z06 at the Nurburgring, arguably the toughest track in the world, is 7:43. The new Z06 gets 26 mpg on the highway.

http://www.nuerburgring.de/

New Corvette Z06 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=420611)

The Panoz Esperante has a Ford SVT 4.6 liter 420 hp DOHC 32 valve V-8.

The Saleen S7R doesn't have four valves per cylinder, but unlike most supercars it has already proven itself with nearly 40 races around the world.

the hemispherical engine is still one of the most if not the most efficient motor ever built. it isnt a 4 valve per cylinder...

if american companies can make an engine and still have it compete and beat the competition then there is nothing to even complain about. who gives a f***...a corvette is pushing 500hp, you cant argue with numbers.

[QUOTE=ghetto7o2azn]this is a stupid post with the only result of 4 million reposts of what the entire thread was about...

smelly pirate hooker

americans companies crack me up some times... i think it was chevy buti cant remember.... like a week ago, i saw a commercial for a truck that said "now with THREE VALVES... thats right 3 intead of 2 which means better performance!!!" idk, what the hell they were trying to prove since some japanese cars had 4 vpc in the mid 1980's lol... TWENTYFIVE YEARS LATER..... THREE VALVES!! which is why im still confused as to why even the new corvettes wouldnt have 4

is there an explanation to that :screwy:[/QUOTE

Mercedes has used the 3 valves ohc design for a long time and has had great success with it, and chevy did build the zr1 which was an ohc 350, proved to be pointless, they couldve made the same power with a pushrod with way less complication, less money and work.. plus havin the over head cams took away from the well known "workability" in other words easyness to work on which is what has made the 350 such a popular engine. on top of all that ford has a new crate which is a 5.0 dohc (Cammer) out of the box 440 hp and capable of alot more. the prob is the engines first off arent cost effective and alot of people dont feel the over head cams warrant the cost... so havin a 3 valve as a base engine is pretty decent.

Alright guys, you want to know why Ford has gone to an OHC/3-valve per cylinder setup on the "standard" modular V-8's? Pull up a chair, but be willing to listen a while, because there are several reasons.

First of all, the idea of a 3-valve engine is not especially new at Ford, they played around with a 3-valve version of a heavily modified 427ci V-8 for possible GT40 duty back in the late 60's, and a SOHC/3-valve modular V-8 has been on the drawing board for the modular V-8 lineup since it's debut, which is going on 15 years for those who are counting.

But, what are the advantages to a SOHC/3-valve V-8?

1: Torque, and lots of it, all over the rpm band too. The 3-valve OHC design is unique in this respect, as it makes torque like a 2-valve, pushrod V-8 but in a multi-valve, OHC design. For those who know DOHC engines well, this says a lot. The 3-valve SOHC typically breathes better than even a 2-valve SOHC unit and makes a case for possibly even being just a bit torquier than comparable 2-valve pushord designs down low.

For reference, and for those unfamiliar with these things, DOHC/4-valve designs typically breath really well and make good peak hp, but give up a lot in the low end torque department. A 3-valve SOHC breathes almost as well as a 4-valve DOHC design does, but still makes torque like a pushrod design. Neat trick huh?

2: 3-valve engines have proven to be very clean from an emissions standpoint, it is simply inherent in the design itself. This was a big reason for Mercedes going the 3-valve route, and of course for Ford as well.

3: The design barely costs more than a SOHC/2-valve, all the while providing much of the benefit of a DOHC/4-valve and some things, like good low end torque, that the typical DOHC/4-valve cannot muster.

Sorry to go off topic, but that should end this little side trip for everyone.

is there anyone on my side that feels that the new $70k GTR will out perform the GT500??? :eek7:

For my vote, no. Let me explain why.

First of all, the GTR weight advantage discussed in this thread is something I can only find a source for within this thread. The GT500 will weigh in at about 3,800lbs acording to Ford making the car about 300lbs heavier than the typical 05 Mustang GT. The Infiniti G35 coupe weighs in at barely north of 3,500lbs in 6m, rwd trim.

The transition this platform is making to get to "GTR" status seems unlikely to shed any weight, and the addition of turbos and awd necessary to make that transition would seem likely to make that figure edge northward at least a bit even if weight saving changes are made elsewhere. My bet,whatever "lightweight" rumours might or might not be the GTR will weigh at least what the GT500 does when rubber actually meets the road.

Second, the GT500 is going to pack a serious amount more hp and torque than will the GTR, Nissan enthusiasts prayers for otherwise not withstanding. 475hp has become an "at least" rated hp figure for the GT500 at this point, and SVT has indicated that the tradition of under-rating will continue with this car. Put simply, whatever the GT500 will bring to the party it will be more than 475 actual hp. The 450hp rumours floating for the GTR are on the rosy side of things, and everyone knows it.

Nissan has expressed concern over rocking the hp boat within certain markets where the GTR will be sold and has even hinted that hp will be closer to 400 than 450 in interviews in order to not cause problems. One thing Nissan made certain is that nothing remotely like 500hp is coming in this car and that means the GT500 will have a pretty serious hp advantage and an almost certainly ridiculous advantage in terms of torque.

What does this mean? Any GTR handling advantage had better be pretty large as the Nissan obviously cannot depend on a weight advantage verses the GT500 and the Nissan is going to give up serious power to the Ford. Also note tha the GT500's brakes are massive and well designed as well, no GTR advantage to be had here either.

Last, the GTR will likely be depending on it's awd for any serious handling advantage when compared to the GT500 as the basic chassis it shares with the 350Z does not post significantly better handling numbers than an 05 Mustang GT wearing all-season tires. The latest Motor tend Comparo shoes an Enthusiast model 350Z posting a 67.8mph slalom to the Mustang GT's 65.4mph run. 2mph in the slalom is not insignificant until you take a few other things into consideration. First of these should be that I picked the comparo that offered what is essentially the largest advantage in measured handling for the Nissan I could find. (when comparing a 17" tired 350Z to a Mustang GT that is...no Track models). In other words, this is about as good as it gets for the Z car.

Sharp eyed observers might also notice that the Z weighs about 300lb less than the Mustang GT it is running against and has a roughly 4 inch shorter wheelbase than does the Mustang. The two above advantages are not things that are going to translate over to the larger upcoming GTR. Also, an interesting qoute by the MT staff referred to the fact that the 350Z wasn't light, and didn't possess lazer-like reflexes, but did exactly what it was told. Ironically, this sounds a lot like the statement R&T made regarding the GT500 which prompted you to criticize it's agility. Just curious, but do you expect a longer wheelbase, heavier curb weight, and awd to somehow make this car more nimble?

Thumb through your favorite magazines for info on the more comparable, in weight and size, G35 coupe and what you'll find is that the Inifniti tends to slalom eerily close to an 05 Mustang GT and typically runs the skidpad within a hair of what a Mustang can muster as well. The G35 tends to turn in the high .8x range even nipping .90 on occasion, the Mustang GT tends to run in the high .8x range. The G35 does have a longer wheelbase than the Mustang, which obviously sacrifices slalom speed but almost certainly gains some skidpad in the process.

The one thing that I have yet to find is anything that would indicate a large, inherent overall handling advantage for the GTR based on known chassis characteristics. Every review of the GT500 thus far has indicated that handling is fantastic. I fully expect awd to make a difference and give the GTR a noticeable edge in terms of handling, but I expect it to be a good bit smaller than do the Nissan fanboys on this site and not nearly enough to overcome a serious GT500 acceleration advantage in most situations.

No, the GT500 wont handle like a Z06 Vette, but I expect it to put a standard C6 on the trailer which should be enough IMO, combined with the relatively large power advantage, to make the GT500 faster on all but the twistiest or roughest of tracks when compared to the GTR. Godzilla be damned...Kong lives.

For my vote, no. Let me explain why.

First of all, the GTR weight advantage discussed in this thread is something I can only find a source for within this thread. The GT500 will weigh in at about 3,800lbs acording to Ford making the car about 300lbs heavier than the typical 05 Mustang GT. The Infiniti G35 coupe weighs in at barely north of 3,500lbs in 6m, rwd trim.

The transition this platform is making to get to "GTR" status seems unlikely to shed any weight, and the addition of turbos and awd necessary to make that transition would seem likely to make that figure edge northward at least a bit even if weight saving changes are made elsewhere. My bet,whatever "lightweight" rumours might or might not be the GTR will weigh at least what the GT500 does when rubber actually meets the road.

the Infiniti G35 is loaded with extra weight for factory leather/heated seats and other luxurious things that make it weigh substantially more. the GTR will be rumored to be alot of CF much like the Special Edition R34 Skylines if i am not mistaken. reguardless the GTR will not may much more if more at all than the 350Z which last time i checked weighed in at around 3300-3400lbs. like i have said a couple times in this thread already, the GTR will use a new electronic motor assisted AWD system. it will cut back alot on weight in comparison to standard AWD set-ups. who said it was going to have turbos? the motor being used still hasnt been confirmed. the most popular rumor seems to be the VQ32DETT assisted by Cosworth but there have also been rumors of TT V8's and a naturally aspirated V8.


Second, the GT500 is going to pack a serious amount more hp and torque than will the GTR, Nissan enthusiasts prayers for otherwise not withstanding.

and you know this because you talked to Mr. Nissan himself, eh? you dont know how much power it is going to pack, you just assume that the Ford V8 will pack more power and torque but i doubt this will be the case. Nissan is designing this car to compete with the Z06 vette and other cars of the class, so i doubt they think they can get away with a mere 400hp in comparison to the vettes 500+hp. trust me...they want the GTR to sell, not sit on a showroom floor. i have pin-pointed some information straight out of an official representative of Nissan Corp. that states that 500hp is a good number to prepare for the new GTR.

Nissan has expressed concern over rocking the hp boat within certain markets where the GTR will be sold and has even hinted that hp will be closer to 400 than 450 in interviews in order to not cause problems.
i would like to see proof of where you read this...as i said in the previous paragraph, i have supporting proof in my previous posts in this same thread. you might want to go back and brush up...

What does this mean? Any GTR handling advantage had better be pretty large as the Nissan obviously cannot depend on a weight advantage verses the GT500 and the Nissan is going to give up serious power to the Ford. Also note tha the GT500's brakes are massive and well designed as well, no GTR advantage to be had here either.

the GTR still may have an advantage in weight...i like i said in the very first paragraph, Nissan is taking extra measures to assure that the GTR will not weigh in at more than the current 350Z/G35. it also had AWD which will in general help the car stick much better to the road. so there is one advantage...not to mention aerodynamics, shorter wheel base, etc.

Last, the GTR will likely be depending on it's awd for any serious handling advantage when compared to the GT500 as the basic chassis it shares with the 350Z does not post significantly better handling numbers than an 05 Mustang GT wearing all-season tires. The latest Motor tend Comparo shoes an Enthusiast model 350Z posting a 67.8mph slalom to the Mustang GT's 65.4mph run. 2mph in the slalom is not insignificant until you take a few other things into consideration. First of these should be that I picked the comparo that offered what is essentially the largest advantage in measured handling for the Nissan I could find. (when comparing a 17" tired 350Z to a Mustang GT that is...no Track models). In other words, this is about as good as it gets for the Z car.
you must forget that the similarity in chassis between the 350Z and GTR is where the similarities will end. totally new suspension will be in need to cooperate with the new E-AWD system. so this whole paragraph is irrelevant. comparing the 350Z to the new GTR would be like comparing the Infiniti J30 to the Nissan 300zx :screwy:...one of the cars are and was built for a different level of performance. im sure i could sit down and think of many other comparisons like this between different manufacturers but that is the first that came to mind.


Just curious, but do you expect a longer wheelbase, heavier curb weight, and awd to somehow make this car more nimble?

how about a exotic sports car like suspension in comparison to the 350Z's mere sporty suspension? i really would appreciate it if you would stop comparing the 350Z to the GTR...do you really think Nissan would charge people an extra $40K for something that performs the same as the miniscule $30k sporty coupe???


Every review of the GT500 thus far has indicated that handling is fantastic.
in comparison to what??? if they werent comparing it to the GTR, their opinion is worthless.

I fully expect awd to make a difference and give the GTR a noticeable edge in terms of handling, but I expect it to be a good bit smaller than do the Nissan fanboys on this site and not nearly enough to overcome a serious GT500 acceleration advantage in most situations.
yeah, i doubt it will be that much faster in the 1/4 mile than the GT500. this is why people will be buying a $70k sports car instead of a $40k muscle car. cars made for 2 totally different purposes will thus serve 2 totally different purposes.

Godzilla be damned...Kong lives.
this statement pretty much sums up your whole argument...:eek7:

the Infiniti G35 is loaded with extra weight for factory leather/heated seats and other luxurious things that make it weigh substantially more. the GTR will be rumored to be alot of CF much like the Special Edition R34 Skylines if i am not mistaken. reguardless the GTR will not may much more if more at all than the 350Z which last time i checked weighed in at around 3300-3400lbs. like i have said a couple times in this thread already, the GTR will use a new electronic motor assisted AWD system. it will cut back alot on weight in comparison to standard AWD set-ups. who said it was going to have turbos? the motor being used still hasnt been confirmed. the most popular rumor seems to be the VQ32DETT assisted by Cosworth but there have also been rumors of TT V8's and a naturally aspirated V8.



and you know this because you talked to Mr. Nissan himself, eh? you dont know how much power it is going to pack, you just assume that the Ford V8 will pack more power and torque but i doubt this will be the case. Nissan is designing this car to compete with the Z06 vette and other cars of the class, so i doubt they think they can get away with a mere 400hp in comparison to the vettes 500+hp. trust me...they want the GTR to sell, not sit on a showroom floor. i have pin-pointed some information straight out of an official representative of Nissan Corp. that states that 500hp is a good number to prepare for the new GTR.

i would like to see proof of where you read this...as i said in the previous paragraph, i have supporting proof in my previous posts in this same thread. you might want to go back and brush up...


the GTR still may have an advantage in weight...i like i said in the very first paragraph, Nissan is taking extra measures to assure that the GTR will not weigh in at more than the current 350Z/G35. it also had AWD which will in general help the car stick much better to the road. so there is one advantage...not to mention aerodynamics, shorter wheel base, etc.

you must forget that the similarity in chassis between the 350Z and GTR is where the similarities will end. totally new suspension will be in need to cooperate with the new E-AWD system. so this whole paragraph is irrelevant. comparing the 350Z to the new GTR would be like comparing the Infiniti J30 to the Nissan 300zx :screwy:...one of the cars are and was built for a different level of performance. im sure i could sit down and think of many other comparisons like this between different manufacturers but that is the first that came to mind.



how about a exotic sports car like suspension in comparison to the 350Z's mere sporty suspension? i really would appreciate it if you would stop comparing the 350Z to the GTR...do you really think Nissan would charge people an extra $40K for something that performs the same as the miniscule $30k sporty coupe???


in comparison to what??? if they werent comparing it to the GTR, their opinion is worthless.

yeah, i doubt it will be that much faster in the 1/4 mile than the GT500. this is why people will be buying a $70k sports car instead of a $40k muscle car. cars made for 2 totally different purposes will thus serve 2 totally different purposes.

this statement pretty much sums up your whole argument...:eek7:


Just let me add some more...

The new GT-R is not using the current Z33/V35's chassis, they are using the new FM chassis (front midship). so they are two different car. Until now no one has yet test drive it yet except ppl inside nissan so plz don't say things u don't know, say only what they had already told us

All I care about is RB or VQ - I really want another RB but I really don't think its going to happen.

the Infiniti G35 is loaded with extra weight for factory leather/heated seats and other luxurious things that make it weigh substantially more. the GTR will be rumored to be alot of CF much like the Special Edition R34 Skylines if i am not mistaken. reguardless the GTR will not may much more if more at all than the 350Z which last time i checked weighed in at around 3300-3400lbs. like i have said a couple times in this thread already, the GTR will use a new electronic motor assisted AWD system. it will cut back alot on weight in comparison to standard AWD set-ups. who said it was going to have turbos? the motor being used still hasnt been confirmed. the most popular rumor seems to be the VQ32DETT assisted by Cosworth but there have also been rumors of TT V8's and a naturally aspirated V8.


and you know this because you talked to Mr. Nissan himself, eh? you dont know how much power it is going to pack, you just assume that the Ford V8 will pack more power and torque but i doubt this will be the case. Nissan is designing this car to compete with the Z06 vette and other cars of the class, so i doubt they think they can get away with a mere 400hp in comparison to the vettes 500+hp. trust me...they want the GTR to sell, not sit on a showroom floor. i have pin-pointed some information straight out of an official representative of Nissan Corp. that states that 500hp is a good number to prepare for the new GTR.

i would like to see proof of where you read this...as i said in the previous paragraph, i have supporting proof in my previous posts in this same thread. you might want to go back and brush up...


the GTR still may have an advantage in weight...i like i said in the very first paragraph, Nissan is taking extra measures to assure that the GTR will not weigh in at more than the current 350Z/G35. it also had AWD which will in general help the car stick much better to the road. so there is one advantage...not to mention aerodynamics, shorter wheel base, etc.

you must forget that the similarity in chassis between the 350Z and GTR is where the similarities will end. totally new suspension will be in need to cooperate with the new E-AWD system. so this whole paragraph is irrelevant. comparing the 350Z to the new GTR would be like comparing the Infiniti J30 to the Nissan 300zx :screwy:...one of the cars are and was built for a different level of performance. im sure i could sit down and think of many other comparisons like this between different manufacturers but that is the first that came to mind.



how about a exotic sports car like suspension in comparison to the 350Z's mere sporty suspension? i really would appreciate it if you would stop comparing the 350Z to the GTR...do you really think Nissan would charge people an extra $40K for something that performs the same as the miniscule $30k sporty coupe???


in comparison to what??? if they werent comparing it to the GTR, their opinion is worthless.

yeah, i doubt it will be that much faster in the 1/4 mile than the GT500. this is why people will be buying a $70k sports car instead of a $40k muscle car. cars made for 2 totally different purposes will thus serve 2 totally different purposes.

this statement pretty much sums up your whole argument...:eek7:


Alright, first of all you can dream about carbon fiber and hybrid awd somehow magically turning a 3,800lb car into a 3,300lb one if you wish, but simple logic tells us otherwise. A standard 350Z with manual transmissions weighs in at over 3,300 lbs when the truth is told. They can weigh a good bit more than that when you add amenities and larger wheels, and carbon fibre or not in the latest Import Racer Mag article regarding The GTR (titled something ridiculous like "Holy Hell:, 400hp") Nissan mentioned that this car would be more luxurious than former GTR's. In other words, all those amenities that add heft to the G35 you mentioned are going right into this car. When you consider that this car is larger than the 350Z as well......3300lbs is just not happening.

And yes, there have been rumours of a possible V-8 instead of a twin turbo 6, etc. As of late however, rumours stress a falling out with Cosworth and mags like Edmunds, Autoweek, Motor Trend, and Import Racer have all most recently reported that an inline-6 seems most likely by far at this point (virtually certain even) and that the hp number will be something like 400. That many people all guessing the exact same thing without somebody planting a bug in their ear.....yeah right.

A few sources have played with the 450hp number, but it is so few in number compared to those reporting less, and so against what Carlos Ghosn said in a speech (as reported by Edmunds) and what the Nissan powers that be inicated in that ridiculous "Holy Hell: 400hp" article, that they can pretty safely be summed up to speculation. That is four magazines, one speech by the CEO of Nissan, and on article interviewing people in the know from Nissan all disagreeing with your pipe-dream 500hp number and strangely agreeing almost lock step with one another. Guess which info I'm going with?

As for my sources, the Edmunds article is from May 23rd, the Import Racer magazine the "Holy Hell" article can be found in is on sale now (can't miss it, look for the only magazine willing to make a big deal out of a near 100k Japanese car making 400hp), and the Motor trend is also on sale now. For reference, the "Holy Hell" article in Import Racer is where Nissan states emphatically that something near 400hp will be it as they don't want to cause problems in some markets (most likely the japanese market). I do expect that the car to be slightly under-rated in keeping with tradition, but if the car is rated at 400hp actual hp will be below 450 without doubt....there is a limit to under-rating. Also, that same article is where Nissan officials state that the interior will be more "luxurious" than previous GTR's. That sure sounds like added weight to me in a car that is larger overall than even the G35 coupe...forget the 350Z. But, to answer your question about hpl no, I didn't talk to Mr. Nissan, the people listed above did.

As for my GT500 info, I get most of it from "The Mustang Source .com", which is by far the most reliable source for upcoming Mustang info anywhere. Of course, I base this assumption on goofy things like the fact that the owner of the site sat between SVT head Hau Tai Tang and Shelby himself at dinner before the NYIAS GT500 unveiling. But, I could see how he could be out of the loop anyway. ;)

Now, lets discuss your sources, since you brought up the subject and as a mod should set an example. First of all, you earlier stated that the GT-R would be a "detuned race car" but that the GT500 was essentially just a muscled-up street thug. Well, I hate to burst your bubble but in actuality the GT500 really is a detuned race car but I have as yet to see any car race in which Nissan was claiming to run a version of the upcoming GT-R's suspension setup. According to SVT and Ford the GT500's suspension is essentially a street-tuned version of what underpins the very successful Grand Am cup Mustang race car. And actually, development of the GT500's suspension on a race track in a competitive series was part of the reason Ford wanted to run grand Am Cup to begin with. Your source for the info stating the GTR's race bred roots and the Mustang lack of racing pedigree was?

Back to hard facts....you know the Grand Am Cup car, the Mustang that regularly thumps 911's, M3's, and Cadillac CTS V-Series sedans running in the same class. And for those out of the know these cars are not tube framed wannabe's, these are converted street cars running race-spec versions of the factory suspensions. That Grand Am Cup car also gives up some hp and a large amount of torque to the GT500, which essentially means that whatever the Grand Am cup car does to the 911, M3, etc...the GT500 should handily to to their street counterparts. when you consider the production-based underpinnings that these cars use. None too shabby for a car mostly designed to go in a straight line wouldn't you say? roflmao

Also, I will gladly stop comparing the GTR to the 350Z when Nissan decides to not base the GT-R on a modified, however heavily, version of that car's chassis. As for your question basically asking wether or not I think Nissan would be willing to under-deliver in terms of hp on a 80k car....where it applies to the Skyline absolutely. The Skyline has always been about handling and it's tuner following, but never about earth shattering power. Even when taking under-rating into consideration the Skyline has just never been a wonder from a hp standpoint in stock trim. An about 400hp car in this generation would signify roughly a 100hp jump over last generation, several cars that cost less than a Skyline have seriously outpowered it in stock trim in the past and nothing indicates this will change now with the new car.

The closer a race track gets to an autocross course, the more advantage the Skyline will have when compared to the GT500. The Nissan's awd will ad an advantage, but not the enormous one indicated in this thread. The GT500 will absolutely thrash the Nissan in terms of sheerpower and nothing but sheer conjecture or wishful thinking indicates otherwise. And, in spite of the fact that the live rear-axle doesn't wow the import crowd on the spec sheet, it works.....and it works very well indeed. To qoute Car and Driver "The GT500's handling is awesome. Turn in was precise and corners accurate and linear. With the new Mustang's elongated wheelbase the big engine's heft is carried mainly between the axles and understeer is minimal".

Or, how about the fact that Car and Driver also mentioned that the ride was still excellent and the car possibly quieter than the standard Mustang GT when cruising. If Nissan resorts to the same kind of ride that makes the Track Model 350Z such a buckboard on rough roads to improve handling further I will be very unimpressed, especially considering that this is a GT.

Again, as the roads get rougher, wetter, or more autcross-like in nature the GTR will gain an advantage. The smoother the road, and the longer the straights, the faster the GT500 is going to get. That awd system had better be beyond magical to overcome what is likely to be a near 100 or more hp disadvantage, and a serious torque disadvantage too, against a car that weighs about the same and that has already proven it can outhandle an E46 M3 on a race track with less hp than the production version will have.

All I care about is RB or VQ - I really want another RB but I really don't think its going to happen.

yeah i doubt it, the RB engine is outdated and the new VQ is a much better engine overall. trust me, im sure the tunability is just a good as the RB and might even be better. when engines get outdated, they get replaced by something newer and more updated. Nissan will use the better engine. life goes on...

i am pretty sure they are offering a VQ30DET as we speak to Japan in teh Gloria or some other cars over there.

Just let me add some more...

The new GT-R is not using the current Z33/V35's chassis, they are using the new FM chassis (front midship). so they are two different car. Until now no one has yet test drive it yet except ppl inside nissan so plz don't say things u don't know, say only what they had already told us

Actually, my understanding is that Nissan is calling this "new" chassis FR-L. I know that the current V35 chassis is often referred to as FM and it is a front-midship design, but the chassis code for the GTR will indeed be FR-L. However, a heavily modified version of what underpins the Skyline is still a heavily modified version of what underpins the Skyline no matter how you say it. So, who is it that knows again?

Alright, first of all you can dream about carbon fiber and hybrid awd somehow magically turning a 3,800lb car into a 3,300lb one if you wish, but simple logic tells us otherwise. A standard 350Z with manual transmissions weighs in at over 3,300 lbs when the truth is know. They can weigh a good bit more than that when you dd amenities and larger wheels, and carbon fibre or not in the latest Import Racer Mag article regarding The GTR (titled something ridiculous like "Holy Hell:, 400hp") Nissan mentioned that this car would be more luxurious and that they had previously used cheaper interior bits and features than some might expect in these cars. In other words, all those amenities that add heft to the G35 you mentioned are going right into this car. When you consider that this car is larger than the 350Z as well......3300lbs is just not happening.

And yes, there have been rumours of a possible V-8 instead of a twin turbo 6, etc. As of late however, rumours stress a falling out with Cosworth and mags like Edmunds, Autoweek, Motor Trend, and Import Racer have all most recently reported that an inline-6 seems most likely by far at this point (virtually certain even) and that the hp number will be something like 400. That many people all guessing the exact same thing.....yeah right. A few sources have played with the 450hp number, but it is so few in number, and so against what Carlos Ghosn said in a speech (as reported by Edmunds) and what the Nissan powers that be inicated in that ridiculous "Holy Hell: 400hp" article they can pretty safely be summed up to speculation. That is five magazines, one speech by the CEO of Nissan, and on article interviewing a Nissan insider all disagreeing with your pipe-dream 500hp number and strangely agreeing almosy lock step with one another. Guess which info I'm going with?

As for my sources, the Edmunds article is from May 23rd, the Import Racer magazine the "Holy Hell" article can be found in is on sale now (can't miss it, look for the only magazine willing to make a big deal out of a near 100k Japanese car making 400hp), and the Motor trend is also on sale now. For reference, the "Holy Hell" article in Import Racer is where Nissan states emphatically that something near 400hp will be it as they don't want to cause problems in some markets (most likely the japanese market). I expect the car to be slightly under-rated, but if the car is rated at 400hp actual hp will be below 450 without doubt. That same article is where Nissan officials state that the interior will be more "luxurious". Sounds like added weight to me. So, in a nutshell no, I didn't talk to Mr. Nissan, they did....lol

As for my GT500 info, I get most of it from "The Mustang Source .com", which is by far the most reliable source for upcoming Mustang info anywhere. Of course, I base this assumption on goofy things like the fact that the owner of the site actually sat between SVT head Hau Tai Tang and Shelby himself at dinner before the NYIAS GT500 unveiling. But, I could see how he could be out of the loop. ;)

Now, lets discuss your sources, since you brought up the subject and as a mod should set an example. First of all, earlier you stated that the GT-R would be a "detuned race car", but that the GT500 was essentially just a muscled-up street thug. Well, hate to burst your bubble but in actuality the GT500 really is a detuned race car, but I have yet to see any car race claiming to run a version of the upcoming GT-R's suspension setup. You see, according to SVT and Ford the GT500's suspension is essentially a sreet tuned version of what underpins the very successful Grand Am cup race car. And actually, development of this suspension was part of the reason Ford wanted to run grand Am cup. Your source for the info staing otherwise was?

But back to facts....you know the car, the Mustang that regularly thumps 911's, M3's, and Cadillac CTS V-Series sedans running in the same class. And, these are not tube framed wannabe's, these are converted street cars running slightly modified versions of factory suspensions. That Grand Am cup car also gives up some hp and a large amount of torque to the GT500, which essentially means that whatever the Grand Am cup car does to the 911, M3, etc...the GT500 should handily to to their street counterparts considering the production-based underpinnings these cars use. None too shabby for a car mostly designed to go in a straight line wouldn't you say. roflmao

Also, I will gladly stop comparing the GTR to the 350Z when Nissan decides to not base the GT-R on a modified, however heavily, version of that car's chassis. As for your question basically asking wether or nopt I think Nissan would be willing to under-deliver on a 80k car.....in terms of hp and where it applies to the Skyline...absolutely. The Skyline has always been about handling and it's tuner following. Even when taking under-rating into consideration the Skyline has never been a wonder from a hp standpoint in stock trim. An about 400hp car in this generation would signify roughly a 100hp jump over last generation, several cars that cost less than a Skyline have seriously outpowered it in stock trim, nothing indicates this will change now.

The closer a race track gets to an autocross course, the more advantage the Skyline will have. In terms of power the GT500 is simply going to walk all over the Skyline, and nothing but sheer conjecture or wishful thinking indicates otherwise. And, in spite of the fact that the live rear-axle doesn't wow the import crowd on the spec sheet, it works. And, it works very well indeed. To qoute Car and Driver "The GT500's handling is awesome. Turn in was precise and corners accurate and linear. With the new Mustang's elongated wheelbase the big engine's heft is carried mainly between the axles and understeer is minimal".

Or, how about the fact that Car and Driver also mentioned that the ride was still excellent and the car possibly quieter than the standard Mustang GT when cruising. If Nissan resorts to the same kind of ride that makes the Track Model 350Z such a buckboard on rough roads to improve handling further I will be very unimpressed, especially considering that this is a GT.

Like I said before, as the roads get rougher, wetter, or more autcross-like in nature the GTR will gain an advantage. The smoother the road, and the longer the straights, the faster the GT500 is going to get. That awd system had better be beyond magical to overcome what is likely to be a near 100 or more hp disadvantage, and a serious torque disadvantage too, against a car that weighs about the same and that has already proven it can outhandle an E46 M3 on a race track with less hp than the production version will have.

look, i really didnt read all of this because i know i have read the facts out of magazines and other credible sources. I am only defending the GTR from anti-nissan enthusiasts. i personally am not a nissan fan-boy and i dont like where they are going with the car. i am simply bringing facts that i have learned over the past months. all my argument rests in the previous 8 pages. i would just be repeating myself all over again if i sat here and explained every comment and how you have no idea what the car is going to be like. we have speculations from magazine articles that tend to be very vague. the only info i have seen out of Goshn mouth is that it will be less than 500hp, this doesnt mean that it isnt going to be 499hp. also, nissan has a knack for underrating their cars a great amount to avoid the higher tax charges and what not in some countries. i have also read and directed an article that i have in a magazine from the Nissan director in charge of design that says it will have 500hp+ to be competitive with its competition.

we will have to wait until all of these speculations come to life. as of right now you comparing a car that has a solid basis of informations supplied by Ford against a car that Nissan seems to be keeping under wraps as long as possible. if you want to keep up and argument for a few more pages about something that doesnt exist be my guest but the bottom line is we will have to wait to give the GTR a fair argument.

if you really think a $40k re-designed $25k car is going to compete with brand new, all new technology, $70k sports car....you may want to re-think your position.

all i can say is that if this holds true...Nissan engineers and designers are a bunch of morons for attempting to rip people off. I am sure this won't happen because we all know, if a manufacturer wants to sell cars, they have to build the car to compete or exceed the standard. for $70k it better perform better than an BMW M3 but not a good as a Porshe 911 Twin Turbo. Nissan doesnt have a strong exotic like sports car background so they will have to build the car to perform that much better to get any chance of selling this car the way they want to sell it. a little common sense will lead you to believe that the GT500 wont have quite the performance as the GTR.

Nissan doesnt have a strong exotic like sports car background so they will have to build the car to perform that much better to get any chance of selling this car the way they want to sell it. a little common sense will lead you to believe that the GT500 wont have quite the performance as the GTR.

You mean the same way a 35k 350Z Track model outperforms a 25k Mustang GT? Oh wait, that's right, it doesn't. A big price tag and a GTR badge don't make a car faster even if it should. In a straight line the GT500 will humble the GTR (the Nissan might edge the Shelby to 60 due to awd....look for the laws of physics to make it all downshill for the GTR from there.) Ther GTR will have an edge in handling, but the race track will have to cater to the GTR to turn that into a win.

You are basing your conslusions on a heritage, a price tag, and the idea that Nissan feels pressure to over-perform. I am basing mine on power and knowledge about the GT500's chassis and suspension. To put it bluntly, you are saying that the GTR will be able to outrun wholesale a E46 BMW M3 that has been infused with roughly 100 more hp and an even greater increase in torque. In light of the fact that the GT500's supension setup has claimed several race track victories over E46 M3's in a car with closer to 400hp than the GT500's 475+ this is an accurate summation.

I have read all that you have said, but I just don't see it.

(the Nissan might edge the Shelby to 60 due to awd....look for the laws of physics to make it all downshill for the GTR from there.) Ther GTR will have an edge in handling, but the race track will have to cater to the GTR to turn that into a win.

and you so sure of this because you have driven both cars, correct? look the bottom line is that we dont know anything about the GTR except speculations. we all know how car manufacturers like to tell us one thing and do another. this keeps other manufactuers from successfully getting a head start on a new idea. its called strategy and getting a head start...and this is what Nissan as been doing for decades.

and about your little physics logic...that is where you are wrong. if you have been reading and knew anything about the new speculations of the new GTR you would have noticed the new AWD system that is unlike any other. this must be the 10th time i have talked about this. drivetrain loss, weight, and all of the other downfalls of a normal AWD system do not apply to this new AWD system. i refuse to repeat myself once again...i have talked about it several times in this thread so just look back or do a little browsing.


You are basing your conslusions on a heritage, a price tag, and the idea that Nissan feels pressure to over-perform. I am basing mine on power and knowledge about the GT500's chassis and suspension.
which has no certain relevance because you are not comparing it to anything, let alone the new GTR. any number you bring into play of the GT500 will not mean anything because we know nothing about the GTR for sure. like i said in an earlier post before this thread was brought back, we will have to re-evaluate this discussion when we have some basic information about the GTR. some of you seem to get on a high horse to brag about the GT500 and what magazine articles say about it. well, those same people have nothing to compare it too. so these points and opinions have no validity when trying to argue that it is going to be better or on par as the GTR. :screwy:
To put it bluntly, you are saying that the GTR will be able to outrun wholesale a E46 BMW M3 that has been infused with roughly 100 more hp and an even greater increase in torque. In light of the fact that the GT500's supension setup has claimed several race track victories over E46 M3's in a car with closer to 400hp than the GT500's 475+ this is an accurate summation.
no, i said it should...beings we are have a discussion on no apparent data. all we have is speculations. so my speculation is just a good as the next person. i would speculate that the GTR will have better performance than an E46 M3 and less performance than a Porshe 911 Twin Turbo. i used simple logic to come to these terms...simple logic being, if a car built for the same purpose as another with a different price tag. depending on that certain price tag it should be better or worse. our automotive industry revolves around this theory and logical way of thinking.

I have read all that you have said, but I just don't see it.
And I feel the same...If you would feel free to open up a new thread after the New York Auto Show that debuts the new GTR, I would be more than happy to further discuss this debate with you and whoever else feels that I am out of my mind. As for right now, this topic has been beaten to death for 9 pages. I feel that anything you have to say, I can combat with quotes from previous posts of my own. Feel free to post and then go back and read my comments in an earlier posts because I am almost positive anything i say would just be repetitive. You have no basis for a good argument for the simple fact that we "KNOW" asbolutely nothing about the new GTR.

well i don't really have much to say but syr74 stated that the cobra has a history of being underated from the factory. well the same can be said about a GTR. a car that weights 3500lbs and runs a 12.9 in the 1/4 can no way make only 276hp. most GTR are dynoing around 300whp stock. so just because nissan decides to rate it at 475 hp doesn't mean its actually goin to be only 475hp. they just rating it there so that insurance would be easier on the wallet.

and also almost any RB26 powered GTR will beat a E46 M3 stock for stock. the R33's official lap time on the ring is 8:01 second driven by Kurosawa. and hte unofficial lap time for the R34 is around 7:57 seconds. the E46 M3 can't even come close to breaking the 8 minute barrier and not even the M3 CSL can break the 8 minute barrier. the E46 is just too heavy for the race track to be really fast. even a Z33 350Z track model will lap just as fast as the M. and the RB powered GTR's will run circles around it. remember the car is very underated so the M3 won't even have a top end advantage over it. the Z33 350Z weights 3200lbs. and the 18 inch alloys made by rays engineering is actually lighter then the 17 inch alloys used for the base model.

and about your little physics logic...that is where you are wrong. if you have been reading and knew anything about the new speculations of the new GTR you would have noticed the new AWD system that is unlike any other. this must be the 10th time i have talked about this. drivetrain loss, weight, and all of the other downfalls of a normal AWD system do not apply to this new AWD system. i refuse to repeat myself once again...i have talked about it several times in this thread so just look back or do a little browsing.

I'm a big fan of all-wheel-drive (in fact, I just bought a new Impreza 2.5 RS, I'll have pics in my sig soon), and I know quite a bit about it, and this just sounds wrong to me. There is no such thing as a free lunch; if you want the added traction of sending power to all four wheels, there must be some sort of drawback. There may be no additional drivetrain loss, but those advanced electric motors are still taking up weight, and they're certainly adding to the cost of the car. And even though Nissan has used them on other cars before over in Japan, I doubt they'll be without a few glitches at first. No matter which way you cut it, when traction isn't an issue, all-wheel-drive is doing jack shit for you. (Disclaimer: I am not in any way, shape, or form defending the Mustang or bashing the Nissan; I'm just replying to one individual comment that caught my eye.)

I'm a big fan of all-wheel-drive (in fact, I just bought a new Impreza 2.5 RS, I'll have pics in my sig soon), and I know quite a bit about it, and this just sounds wrong to me. There is no such thing as a free lunch; if you want the added traction of sending power to all four wheels, there must be some sort of drawback. There may be no additional drivetrain loss, but those advanced electric motors are still taking up weight, and they're certainly adding to the cost of the car. And even though Nissan has used them on other cars before over in Japan, I doubt they'll be without a few glitches at first. No matter which way you cut it, when traction isn't an issue, all-wheel-drive is doing jack shit for you. (Disclaimer: I am not in any way, shape, or form defending the Mustang or bashing the Nissan; I'm just replying to one individual comment that caught my eye.)

yes, you have a point but this is the beauty of Electronic AWD. it can easily be monitored by a computer much like the Acura RL and Anti-Lock Brake Systems. it only is activated when needed or at the push of a button. the only draw-back i see is cost and the weight. but the weight of it is so insignificant that removing the spare tire could make up for the weight of the electronic motors. the cost...who cars? anyone spending $75k on a car isnt going to care if it was a few grand cheaper. as for gliches, we will have to wait and see. we cant say there will be and we cant say there wont be...

you have to remember the advantages are much stronger than the disadvantage of adding an extra 50lbs worth of electronic motors. with an electronic AWD system instead of your standard Mechanical, you do not think there will be some easy way to easily switch off the system while testing top speed?

i remember reading that it will be a very complex system that actually can enable the car to add more power to the front right wheel than left or vise-versa.

so once again, to repeat what i have already said...the downfalls of this system are GREATLY overcome by the positives of the system. of course, if you want AWD you have to make some sacrifices but in this case the sacrifices or very minute that it will only help the car in every sense of the term performance.

negatives:
-it will probably add a little weight to the car (not enough to even consider a disadvantage)
-it is technological advanced so gliches may be a problem that nissan will have to fix
-it made add a little more to the already high price tag (chipping in a few extra grand isnt going to hurt anyones pocket that already has the money to spend on the car)

positives:
-no drivetrain loss
-can be switched on and off for different types of driving where a RWD car would have an advantage
-can transfer more power between sides of the car
-all advantages of a standard AWD system
-its lighter than a standard AWD system
-etc

and you so sure of this because you have driven both cars, correct? look the bottom line is that we dont know anything about the GTR except speculations. we all know how car manufacturers like to tell us one thing and do another. this keeps other manufactuers from successfully getting a head start on a new idea. its called strategy and getting a head start...and this is what Nissan as been doing for decades.

and about your little physics logic...that is where you are wrong. if you have been reading and knew anything about the new speculations of the new GTR you would have noticed the new AWD system that is unlike any other. this must be the 10th time i have talked about this. drivetrain loss, weight, and all of the other downfalls of a normal AWD system do not apply to this new AWD system. i refuse to repeat myself once again...i have talked about it several times in this thread so just look back or do a little browsing.


which has no certain relevance because you are not comparing it to anything, let alone the new GTR. any number you bring into play of the GT500 will not mean anything because we know nothing about the GTR for sure. like i said in an earlier post before this thread was brought back, we will have to re-evaluate this discussion when we have some basic information about the GTR. some of you seem to get on a high horse to brag about the GT500 and what magazine articles say about it. well, those same people have nothing to compare it too. so these points and opinions have no validity when trying to argue that it is going to be better or on par as the GTR. :screwy:

no, i said it should...beings we are have a discussion on no apparent data. all we have is speculations. so my speculation is just a good as the next person. i would speculate that the GTR will have better performance than an E46 M3 and less performance than a Porshe 911 Twin Turbo. i used simple logic to come to these terms...simple logic being, if a car built for the same purpose as another with a different price tag. depending on that certain price tag it should be better or worse. our automotive industry revolves around this theory and logical way of thinking.

And I feel the same...If you would feel free to open up a new thread after the New York Auto Show that debuts the new GTR, I would be more than happy to further discuss this debate with you and whoever else feels that I am out of my mind. As for right now, this topic has been beaten to death for 9 pages. I feel that anything you have to say, I can combat with quotes from previous posts of my own. Feel free to post and then go back and read my comments in an earlier posts because I am almost positive anything i say would just be repetitive. You have no basis for a good argument for the simple fact that we "KNOW" asbolutely nothing about the new GTR.

Actually, I find it kind of ironic that you claim "we" know nothing about the GTR so any assumptions I make are pointless, but then you point out characteristics of the cars upcoming awd system as fact. You state definatively that parasitic loss, weight gain and all the other issues that go along with awd don't apply here, but if "we" know nothing about the GTR how do you know this? It becomes more ironic with each post, as you readily cite how any theories I may draw are baseless due to a lack of info, but then always seem to point out how obvious it is that the GTR will be the faster car based on info we know. Not trying to start a ruckus, but which is it?

That said, I read all the posts in this thread, and can only surmise from your statements that you find your argument so compelling I must have missed it to disagree. I indeed read it, and I indeed disagree anyway. This awd system may well be better than some or most others, but it will still have drawbacks, because there really is no free lunch in this world as somebody else stated.

The awd system may not add as much weight as the typical awd system, but it will add weight simply due to the fact that more equipment is needed to drive four wheels than two. Parasitic drag may be minimized, but driving four wheels absolutely creates more parasitic drag than driving two so there will be more of this as well when compared to an awd car. 9to be fair you own up to this somewhat in your most recent post)

My conclusions and assumptions are based on what we have seen from Nissan recently, what we have seen from Nissan in regard to the GTR specifically through history, and what we know about the upcoming model and what we can surmise from conjecture. Anything anybody says is conjecture, but that would be the point of this thread, now wouldn't it?

well i don't really have much to say but syr74 stated that the cobra has a history of being underated from the factory. well the same can be said about a GTR. a car that weights 3500lbs and runs a 12.9 in the 1/4 can no way make only 276hp. most GTR are dynoing around 300whp stock. so just because nissan decides to rate it at 475 hp doesn't mean its actually goin to be only 475hp. they just rating it there so that insurance would be easier on the wallet.

and also almost any RB26 powered GTR will beat a E46 M3 stock for stock. the R33's official lap time on the ring is 8:01 second driven by Kurosawa. and hte unofficial lap time for the R34 is around 7:57 seconds. the E46 M3 can't even come close to breaking the 8 minute barrier and not even the M3 CSL can break the 8 minute barrier. the E46 is just too heavy for the race track to be really fast. even a Z33 350Z track model will lap just as fast as the M. and the RB powered GTR's will run circles around it. remember the car is very underated so the M3 won't even have a top end advantage over it. the Z33 350Z weights 3200lbs. and the 18 inch alloys made by rays engineering is actually lighter then the 17 inch alloys used for the base model.

I appreciate your input, and if you'll look back I acknowledge that the Skyline has traditionally been under-rated itself. I can even buy an awhp number somewhere around 300 (even though this seems a bit high) as this equates to about 350hp, maybe 360hp, at the crank taking into account the higher drag an awd system creates. I will say that I have seen several 1/4 mile runs for GTR's posted and breaking into the twelves even by a tenth would seem rare, but not unbelievable for a 350hp car with awd that weighs 3500lbs.

All of that said, I have little doubt Nissan will under-rate the new car. I would be extremely surprised to see a car rated at 475hp to say the least, and would actually be very surprised to see a car that actually makes 475hp from Nissan. Again, enthusiast's wishing aside the number 400 keeps popping up for a hp rating and I think this is pretty much what we will see. Given that I would be very surprised to see an actual hp rating of anything more than 450, and think that may be pushing it given what Nissan has said and rumours indicate.

As for a Skyline outrunning an E46 M3, I don't doubt it and never claimed it wouldn't. I pointed out that a race ready version of the GT500's suspension setup is currently dominating BMW M3's on the race track, and that the GT500 will possess more than 100 more hp than the Grand Am Cup Mustang already outrunning E46 M3's on a road course. Also note, that these M3's are making a decent bit more hp than the stock rating of 333hp, something more like 350hp or more.

To be fair, that Grand Am Cup Mustang GT is making more like 400hp, but again, the GT500 is going to gain another 100hp or so over that race spec Mustang GT which is already convinicingly outrunning slightly tweaked E46 M3's. To make this long story short, (I know, too late) the GT500 is going to be a lot faster than the Grand Am Cup Mustang from a perspective of power. The Grand Am Cup Mustang is generally seriously faster than the E46 M3's it races against on road courses and that Mustang uses a race spec version of the GT500's suspension. What does this say about the GT500?

Remember that we are talking about a BMW that only makes 333hp and so little torque that it is amazing it goes as fast as it does. I am not surprised a Skyline will outrun it, but the cars handling is very good and taking it from a power level more akin to an 05 Mustang GT to something closer to An E55 AMG's power level is likely going to make a pretty massive difference in overall performance, and that is my point. The GT500 is pretty cimilar to doing exactly that, only with a suspension that apparently works even a bit better than the Bimmer, at least on smooth roads.

This is like adding a minimum of 150hp (I said 100 earlier in an attempt to remain very conservative as the result seemed pretty obvious to me eiether way, but that apparently didn't get my point accross) and something like 250ft-lbs of torque to an M3, give it a bit of a suspension tweak and then claim that the upcoming Skyline will absolutely outrun it. That would put you in some pretty heady company indeed and is bold indeed considering that rumours indicate this GTR will be more "civilized" compared to older models. Again, I don't see it

yes, you have a point but this is the beauty of Electronic AWD. it can easily be monitored by a computer much like the Acura RL and Anti-Lock Brake Systems. it only is activated when needed or at the push of a button. the only draw-back i see is cost and the weight. but the weight of it is so insignificant that removing the spare tire could make up for the weight of the electronic motors. the cost...who cars? anyone spending $75k on a car isnt going to care if it was a few grand cheaper. as for gliches, we will have to wait and see. we cant say there will be and we cant say there wont be...

you have to remember the advantages are much stronger than the disadvantage of adding an extra 50lbs worth of electronic motors. with an electronic AWD system instead of your standard Mechanical, you do not think there will be some easy way to easily switch off the system while testing top speed?

i remember reading that it will be a very complex system that actually can enable the car to add more power to the front right wheel than left or vise-versa.

so once again, to repeat what i have already said...the downfalls of this system are GREATLY overcome by the positives of the system. of course, if you want AWD you have to make some sacrifices but in this case the sacrifices or very minute that it will only help the car in every sense of the term performance.

negatives:
-it will probably add a little weight to the car (not enough to even consider a disadvantage)
-it is technological advanced so gliches may be a problem that nissan will have to fix
-it made add a little more to the already high price tag (chipping in a few extra grand isnt going to hurt anyones pocket that already has the money to spend on the car)

positives:
-no drivetrain loss
-can be switched on and off for different types of driving where a RWD car would have an advantage
-can transfer more power between sides of the car
-all advantages of a standard AWD system
-its lighter than a standard AWD system
-etc

I've read and understand everyone's viewpoint here. It may be too early to judge now. K3SMOSTWANTED I've read your viewpoint again and again. It made me wonder why you kept repeating yourself and didn't just give up along time ago. The GT500 may not be on par with the GTR in terms of handling.

Anyway, I've got one issue with what you're saying though. It's my understanding that the GTR will be more luxurious than a ZO6. It will be competitive performance wise. AND..... it will PACKED with leading edge technology. All this for less than a ZO6. For 70-75k I'd figure this car would have to give up one of those benefits. It would either be less luxurious, not be a 475-500hp Godzilla, or not be the technological wonder that I've heard it will be. I could be wrong but all this packed in a 75k car sounds alittle too good to be true.

As for the GT500, I DO think the weight will be an issue and will most likely be the it's LARGEST disadvantage when traction is not an issue.

alright syk74 now i understand what your saying better now. well i honestly can't wait to see both of these cars out on the road. they both are going to be beast. but its really too early to compare the GTR. all we see are prototypes running around the ring and who knows what the real one is going to be like.

I'll admit that I've underestimated the new Mustang's handling. I still have bad images in my head of the sloppy and haphazard handling associated with the previous generation Mustang, in large part due to its 26-year old chassis, not to mention the below-average steering rack and shifter linkage. Though I expect the GT500 to exhibit steady-state understeer at the limit, it won't necessarily be a slow pig around the track. There's no doubt in my mind that the straighter the road is and the shallower the curves are, the faster it will be, though.

Actually, I find it kind of ironic that you claim "we" know nothing about the GTR so any assumptions I make are pointless, but then you point out characteristics of the cars upcoming awd system as fact. You state definatively that parasitic loss, weight gain and all the other issues that go along with awd don't apply here, but if "we" know nothing about the GTR how do you know this? It becomes more ironic with each post, as you readily cite how any theories I may draw are baseless due to a lack of info, but then always seem to point out how obvious it is that the GTR will be the faster car based on info we know. Not trying to start a ruckus, but which is it?

That said, I read all the posts in this thread, and can only surmise from your statements that you find your argument so compelling I must have missed it to disagree. I indeed read it, and I indeed disagree anyway. This awd system may well be better than some or most others, but it will still have drawbacks, because there really is no free lunch in this world as somebody else stated.

The awd system may not add as much weight as the typical awd system, but it will add weight simply due to the fact that more equipment is needed to drive four wheels than two. Parasitic drag may be minimized, but driving four wheels absolutely creates more parasitic drag than driving two so there will be more of this as well when compared to an awd car. 9to be fair you own up to this somewhat in your most recent post)

My conclusions and assumptions are based on what we have seen from Nissan recently, what we have seen from Nissan in regard to the GTR specifically through history, and what we know about the upcoming model and what we can surmise from conjecture. Anything anybody says is conjecture, but that would be the point of this thread, now wouldn't it?

honestly, i do not know what the point of this thread is anymore. there have been so many off topic argument and arguments with different people.

i am sorry for not making myself clear and leaving you thinking that i dont have my mind made up. what i am compelling to you is that this is worthless to argue about it but then again i will defend the car on the speculations we already have. it really isnt that hard of a concept to grasp...

i really do think the GT500 will be a good performer but i do not think it will perform better than the GTR will. the R32-R34 Skyline GTR's could probably out handle the GT500 with some of the R34 models running circles around the GT500. do you honestly think that Nissan will charge people more money for something that doesnt even perform as good as the 1989 and other previous models???

just to add, i do not understand why everyone is making it so hard to grasp the idea of electronically assisted motors powering the Front wheels. think about it...it works, this is why nissan speculates using the system. would it be so hard to understand if GM or Ford came out with the idea? i am trying to fulfill an argument without being biased...i am in the middle, just because i own a Nissan doesnt mean i like everything they do and that i am a Nissan fan-boy. i am simply disagreeing and attempting to convey my opinion about the matter.

Anyway, I've got one issue with what you're saying though. It's my understanding that the GTR will be more luxurious than a ZO6. It will be competitive performance wise. AND..... it will PACKED with leading edge technology. All this for less than a ZO6. For 70-75k I'd figure this car would have to give up one of those benefits. It would either be less luxurious, not be a 475-500hp Godzilla, or not be the technological wonder that I've heard it will be. I could be wrong but all this packed in a 75k car sounds alittle too good to be true.



i really dont think it is going to be all that luxurious. probably climate control, a few gadgets, leather seats, etc. the best comparison i can do is tell you that, from my understanding...it will be much like a BMW M3, except turned up a couple notches.

plus remember...Nissan has a statement to make with this car. they do not have heritage and a name brand to fall back on if they offer a bomb. it isnt like Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, etc...where they can produce something mediocre and still have it sell because of name brand.

this will be Nissan's 2nd attempt if not 1st attempt in some aspects at a high end performance, sports car...the 300zx being the first in some aspects but failed as a big seller. hopefully and i think they have, nissan will know what to do to get this car to sell. in general this would mean to offer something Huge for a rather small price tag. we will have to wait and see, as i, like all of you, have no idea what the GTR will behold.

Let just wait till october, when the GT-R make its made to the public in Tokyo motor show, then we can battle the hell out of each other....

Oh by the way.....as for the the up comming GT-R having no race experience? IF it is using the VQ32DETT, then it has proven itself. it smashed the V8 supra for 2 years in a role. even though they produce only 465~475 on the race track, that is because they were limited by the rules of the JGTC GT500.

And as for the e-4wd...non of u guys own a car with this system...i do, so i have the right to say this....my family own this car for half a year now...no problem what so ever...this thing travel at least 100km every working day Mon~Sat, and at least 60km on sunday...it show no sign or problem, and i can tell u this...this motor is magical...a 2100+KG car can out run a mercedes E class.... with only 2.4litre engine and the e-4wd system..so don't say bad thing about the system when u never seen it in action before.

First of all, the GTR weight advantage discussed in this thread is something I can only find a source for within this thread. The GT500 will weigh in at about 3,800lbs acording to Ford making the car about 300lbs heavier than the typical 05 Mustang GT. The Infiniti G35 coupe weighs in at barely north of 3,500lbs in 6m, rwd trim.

The transition this platform is making to get to "GTR" status seems unlikely to shed any weight, and the addition of turbos and awd necessary to make that transition would seem likely to make that figure edge northward at least a bit even if weight saving changes are made elsewhere. My bet,whatever "lightweight" rumours might or might not be the GTR will weigh at least what the GT500 does when rubber actually meets the road.

Alright, first of all you can dream about carbon fiber and hybrid awd somehow magically turning a 3,800lb car into a 3,300lb one if you wish, but simple logic tells us otherwise. A standard 350Z with manual transmissions weighs in at over 3,300 lbs when the truth is told. They can weigh a good bit more than that when you add amenities and larger wheels, and carbon fibre or not in the latest Import Racer Mag article regarding The GTR (titled something ridiculous like "Holy Hell:, 400hp") Nissan mentioned that this car would be more luxurious than former GTR's. In other words, all those amenities that add heft to the G35 you mentioned are going right into this car. When you consider that this car is larger than the 350Z as well......3300lbs is just not happening.

True, the Skyline 350GT/Infiniti G35 Coupe weighs around 3500lbs. However, unlike previous GT-Rs, the next generation will not be based directly on the present car. Not only will there be a new V36 Skyline out by then, but it will be based on a newly revised(again) FM platform. This time, the platform could be lighter due to the inclusion of some aluminum in the construction.

There is another reason the GT-R will weigh less than the current G35 Coupe. According to 7tune.com, it will not be the same size. With dimensions of 4500mm for length, a 2700mm wheelbase, and a 1900-2000mm width, the GT-R will be quite different. These measurements make the GT-R out to be slightly longer than the 350Z, shorter than the G35s, and a good bit wider than either of them. With such a short length, the car may not even have rear seats. Another weight savings. You can see a lot of those measurements reflected in the test mule that has been running around on the Nurburgring. http://www.7tune.com/gtr001.html

More about that test mule…
Supercar builders Nissan and Lexus have been battling it out on the track, even though their models won't go on sale until next year. Our sources report that competition between the Japanese giants is so intense, test drivers came close to crashing into one another.

The duo had apparently been dicing over track space at the Nürburgring in Germany, where the two coupés are currently being developed. According to our eyewitness, both the Lexus LF-A and Nissan GT-R are extremely quick, and in the hands of the experienced engineers have been setting ever faster laps. As the pair headed for a corner, neither driver would settle for second place, and they nearly made contact. Both machines are tipped to appear at the Tokyo Motor Show in October.
Now the Lexus LF-A is supposed to have a 500hp V10, yet the GT-R had no problem keeping up. While Nissan hasn’t given a final power rating, the test mule's performance says a lot. By the way, both mules are said to be outperforming Porsche's 997 Turbo test car. How do you think the GT500 is going to compare to the 997 Turbo?

Actually, my understanding is that Nissan is calling this "new" chassis FR-L. I know that the current V35 chassis is often referred to as FM and it is a front-midship design, but the chassis code for the GTR will indeed be FR-L. However, a heavily modified version of what underpins the Skyline is still a heavily modified version of what underpins the Skyline no matter how you say it. So, who is it that knows again?
The ‘FR-L’ is already out and about. It’s a stiffened, stretched FM variant. The chassis designation means ‘Front-engine, Rear-drive, Large.’ The Nissan Fuga/Infiniti M35/45 uses it, and in top spec(M45 Sport), it weighs over 4000lbs. Now ask yourself: why would the GT-R be that big? Simple. It wouldn’t be.

er.... one thing i've noticed is that some fo you guys are giving figures that seem to be mixing units
i.e 333hp for the bmw M3; it is 333 BHP, not the same as 333HP.

is 333BHP more or less then 333HP?

google tells that it stands for break HP, but i cant find a good explanation of how it compares to "normal" HP.


EDIT: and ofcourse right after i say that i find its the same as the HP at the wheels... which with the "RWD loses 25%" rule, its 444HP. correct?

is 333BHP more or less then 333HP?

google tells that it stands for break HP, but i cant find a good explanation of how it compares to "normal" HP.


EDIT: and ofcourse right after i say that i find its the same as the HP at the wheels... which with the "RWD loses 25%" rule, its 444HP. correct?

Not all hp ratings systems are created equal, as we have seen even on our shores. The Europeans all use a different system of hp measurement than we Continentals do, and typically the majority of European cars are rated a little bit on the high side by American (SAE) standards. As an fyi not even all European manufacturers utilize the same standard.

As for bhp and hp, they are different and they aren't different. First of all, there are several different types of brakes that can be used to measure hp all of which will change the final number you see in your hand. Second, a car rated in terms of simple hp, and not bhp, can actually have easily been rated by utilizing a brake of one sort or another as confusing as this sounds.

As an fyi the second method for rating hp is to convert the engine's mechanical energy into electrical energy instead of using a brake of one sort or another. This is generally the method assumed to be in use when you see the simple term hp instead of bhp. As indicated above though this assumption is hardly fullproof.

To make a long story short, when you take into account things like parasitic driveline loss, which is different for every vehicle, under-rating or over-rating in spite of the system used, etc...the small differences between most countries systems really don't make much difference at all. Germany has one of the most "different" standards for hp relative to the US, and a German car rated at 400hp could safely be assumed to be making about 390hp by American standards. As you can see by this, there really isn't much difference.

As for rwd hp, everyone has a different opinion as to what a good, generic parasitic loss number may be but 25% driveline loss is way too high by just about anyone's standards. That number might be fine if you were calculating parasitic loss for an awd car, (note that every awd system will be different, so this is just an educated guess) but even then a Porsche shop I used to hang around typically estimated between 20-25% for an awd car, so you can see that number is way high for rwd.

Around 12-15% is a good number for a modern rwd car, although some cars would certainly have less or more, again this is just a generic number. And remember also that a manual tranny typically causes a bit less parasitic drag than an auto, so there is more to it than rwd, fwd, or awd.......but this too can vary.

Here is a link to a good, basic page on hp.

http://www.spiretech.com/~pk-lk/pat/what_is_hp.htm

True, the Skyline 350GT/Infiniti G35 Coupe weighs around 3500lbs. However, unlike previous GT-Rs, the next generation will not be based directly on the present car. Not only will there be a new V36 Skyline out by then, but it will be based on a newly revised(again) FM platform. This time, the platform could be lighter due to the inclusion of some aluminum in the construction.

There is another reason the GT-R will weigh less than the current G35 Coupe. According to 7tune.com, it will not be the same size. With dimensions of 4500mm for length, a 2700mm wheelbase, and a 1900-2000mm width, the GT-R will be quite different. These measurements make the GT-R out to be slightly longer than the 350Z, shorter than the G35s, and a good bit wider than either of them. With such a short length, the car may not even have rear seats. Another weight savings. You can see a lot of those measurements reflected in the test mule that has been running around on the Nurburgring. http://www.7tune.com/gtr001.html

More about that test mule…

Now the Lexus LF-A is supposed to have a 500hp V10, yet the GT-R had no problem keeping up. While Nissan hasn’t given a final power rating, the test mule's performance says a lot. By the way, both mules are said to be outperforming Porsche's 997 Turbo test car. How do you think the GT500 is going to compare to the 997 Turbo?

The ‘FR-L’ is already out and about. It’s a stiffened, stretched FM variant. The chassis designation means ‘Front-engine, Rear-drive, Large.’ The Nissan Fuga/Infiniti M35/45 uses it, and in top spec(M45 Sport), it weighs over 4000lbs. Now ask yourself: why would the GT-R be that big? Simple. It wouldn’t be.

I appreciate the info regarding the M35/M45 platform, and while I certainly don't expect the GTR to be that heavy or that large, I do expect it to be heavier and larger than a lot of folks here apparently do. Test mules using G35 bodies with GTR componentry are apparently running around with at least slightly longer overhangs than a standard G35 utilizes, and the mules demonstrate that the car is going to be at least slightly larger to accomodate larger wheels, etc.

Some folks have pointed toward the Z for a size reference, but I seriously doubt this as the Z is pretty small inside and would be hard pressed to fit the bill even if Nissan were making this car a 2-seater. And, if this were the case you would have to ask yourself why Nissan wouldn't be using the more appropriately sized 350Z body as a basis for the mule. The reason is simple, this car will continue as a GT car just as the concept showed. Again, it wont be as large as an M45, but everything legit that we have seen thus far indicates that it will hardly be small.

Extensive use of aluminum or not, hybrid awd or not, a Z06 weighs about 3,200lbs in what is essentially a very tidy package and that car went on a major crash diet with things like a magnesium frame! No way, no how is the GTR going to weigh less than 3500lbs minimum and I will say now what I have said before...look for more like 3,800lbs with all the gadgetry this car is using. This becomes even more apparent when you consider that, despite what others have said in this thread, the only thing coming from Nissan's mouth regarding the interior is that they believe it has to be a premium interior competitive with other cars in it's price range. (See; "Holy Hell: 400hp" in Import Racer) This means more weight, pure and simple.

About the 997 Turbo getting outrun by anything resmbling production spec GTR's or Lexus' new sports car. In all honesty, my first reaction to that was the thought that Japanese hi-po cars seemingly have more hyperbole surrounding their development and debut than any other auto makers. We always hear stories about their super-human abilities and how they can outrun anything on the planet, but it never materializes in production trim. In short, I don't think any honest Nissan or Lexus mule would get anywhere near the 997 Turbo and I am inclined to believe the story has far more basis in fiction than fact.

The last generation was able to close in on 996 Turbo in corner, corner entry and corner exist, before the power difference kick in and the 996 pull away. this was shown in Best motoring...i am sorry but i highly doutb that, with no handycap Nissan will still make a Skyline GT-R slower then porsche 997Turbo

syr72, thanks for that bit of info about horsepower. and i've got to agree with you about the way the gt-r seems to be seen as the "ultimate" car. but for the price tag that it will be asking, it had better be knocking on porsche's door.

I appreciate the info regarding the M35/M45 platform, and while I certainly don't expect the GTR to be that heavy or that large, I do expect it to be heavier and larger than a lot of folks here apparently do. Test mules using G35 bodies with GTR componentry are apparently running around with at least slightly longer overhangs than a standard G35 utilizes, and the mules demonstrate that the car is going to be at least slightly larger to accomodate larger wheels, etc.[quote]

I'll give you that, but while the mule is wider to accommodate the larger wheels and simulate a wider track, there isn't any concrete data on how long the car will be. The longer rear overhang seems to be there for the sake of aerodynamics.

[QUOTE]Some folks have pointed toward the Z for a size reference, but I seriously doubt this as the Z is pretty small inside and would be hard pressed to fit the bill even if Nissan were making this car a 2-seater. And, if this were the case you would have to ask yourself why Nissan wouldn't be using the more appropriately sized 350Z body as a basis for the mule. The reason is simple, this car will continue as a GT car just as the concept showed. Again, it wont be as large as an M45, but everything legit that we have seen thus far indicates that it will hardly be small.
Why not use a 350Z as the basis for a test mule? That's probably because, at least according to the measurements I posted, the GT-R will probably be closer to the V35s in length than the 350Z. I imagine the reason is that the longer wheelsbase offers more stable handling. However, keeping the car shorter than the V35s can cut weight weight, so Nissan is probably going with something in between.

Extensive use of aluminum or not, hybrid awd or not, a Z06 weighs about 3,200lbs in what is essentially a very tidy package and that car went on a major crash diet with things like a magnesium frame! No way, no how is the GTR going to weigh less than 3500lbs minimum and I will say now what I have said before...look for more like 3,800lbs with all the gadgetry this car is using.
To get the weight you're talking about, it sounds like you're just adding weight because of the additional equipment.
A G35 Coupe weighs 3435lbs, according to Carfolio.com. The ATTESA-ETS system adds about 308lbs, according to Automobile. That gives you a total of 3743lbs.

I very much doubt the GT-R will weight that much, let alone more. First off, the e4wd system is supposed to be used in the GT-R. This first generation of the system weighs less than half as much as ATTESA-ETS. Now e4wd has been around since 2002, so it wouldn't be surprising if Nissan is able to release an even lighter version by the time the GT-R is launched.

The GT-R will undoubtedly have some weight saving measures applied to it. The previous models did, and it really sounds like the next one will go further. Not only aluminum but also carbon fiber(the R34 used some) should find its way into the GT-R. It could be pretty light, depending on how much is used.

The next V36 Skyline could be more sport oriented. It should be lower and wider, and possibly even have a V8 for the US model(supposedly requested by Nissan North America).

See; "Holy Hell: 400hp" in Import Racer
Well I can't see it, so I guess I'll have to take your word on that.

About the 997 Turbo getting outrun by anything resmbling production spec GTR's or Lexus' new sports car...In short, I don't think any honest Nissan or Lexus mule would get anywhere near the 997 Turbo and I am inclined to believe the story has far more basis in fiction than fact.
Well all of the cars involved in this supposed incident were mules, so it's not like the 997 was exactly production spec either.

First off, the e4wd system is supposed to be used in the GT-R. This first generation of the system weighs less than half as much as ATTESA-ETS. Now e4wd has been around since 2002, so it wouldn't be surprising if Nissan is able to release an even lighter version by the time the GT-R is launched.

What beats me though is not the weight of the electric motors but the weight of a possible battery. Does this AWD system need an auxiliary battery?
Its just considering that these electric motors are going to be used for secondary propulsion they will need to have an output similar to the main engine (for AWD starts) and from this it seems likely that they would have a higher current draw then a standard alternator could supply. Therefore (like an electric vehicles) they might have a large axillary battery or set of batteries, which charge up from the alternator purely for use by the electric motors.

In any case I am no electrician so I could be going about this the wrong way. :2cents:

What beats me though is not the weight of the electric motors but the weight of a possible battery. Does this AWD system need an auxiliary battery?
Its just considering that these electric motors are going to be used for secondary propulsion they will need to have an output similar to the main engine (for AWD starts) and from this it seems likely that they would have a higher current draw then a standard alternator could supply. Therefore (like an electric vehicles) they might have a large axillary battery or set of batteries, which charge up from the alternator purely for use by the electric motors.

In any case I am no electrician so I could be going about this the wrong way. :2cents:
The Cube is a front-driver, but with the optional e-4WD system, when wheelspin is detected, the rears are temporarily turned by an electric motor that derives its juice from the alternator.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=6858&page_number=6


The Nissan Cube uses a detuned form of the E-AWD system that the GTR...atleast that is what i have gathered from what officials have said. So, I am sure that the motors are either very efficient or the Cube uses very small motors. Reguardless, the Cubes system will be no where near the capabilities of the GTR's system so who knows how Nissan will work it. I am sure it would have a bigger alternator than most cars...we will have to see.

Some of you seem quick to downplay the car and say it is going to be heavy and this and that but you really have no idea. Like Vquick and I keep saying...it should contain many Carbon Fiber parts...why do you think they would use CF on the R34 but then not use it on the more expensive GTR. i think it will have alot more weight saving options than you may think.

If you think logically...Nissan/Infiniti managed to keep the current G35 around 3500lbs at a price tag of $35k. They are giving themselves an extra $35k+ for improvements and better materials. Just seems irrational of Nissan to just add weight to the car and not even consider other options to lighten it back up.

I expect it to weigh well under 3500lbs.

The Nissan Cube uses a detuned form of the E-AWD system that the GTR...atleast that is what i have gathered from what officials have said. So, I am sure that the motors are either very efficient or the Cube uses very small motors. Reguardless, the Cubes system will be no where near the capabilities of the GTR's system so who knows how Nissan will work it. I am sure it would have a bigger alternator than most cars...we will have to see.

The thing about the Cube, Micra, etc that use e4wd is that they are the first vehicles to have it. The system has been around since 2002. I'm sure that by 2007 or 2008 that Nissan will have an even better version of the system available. It could be lighter, more powerful, and even faster reacting. The e4wd system already weighs less than half as much as ATTESA-ETS, reacts faster, and cuts down on drivetrain losses.

A GT-R fitted with e4wd would probably be more like an FR layout car most of the time. When wheelspin is detected, e4wd would start to power the front wheels to pick up the slack and get you out of trouble.

i think it will have alot more weight saving options than you may think.
I'm sure one of those weight saving measures will be a smaller overall size, compared to the R34. With a smaller car, you use less materials, period.

7Tune.com is also saying that the revised FM platform may be designed primarily for the GT-R, then changed around for the V36 Skylines and Z34. If this is the case, it could be very good news, as there will be fewer compromises.