skyline_man

Yes, boot space, daily usability etc has nothing to do with performance. So why the hell did Motor BITCH about the back seats, harsh ride and "playstation dash" of the GTR when judging performance? You cannot have excellent performance without a harsh ride. FYI, the Veyron has an even harsher ride than the GTR, but I don't see anyone bitching about that. Also the "playstation dash" of the GTR contains very useful performance parameters and information, but what do you know - according to those journals, it's too gimmicky and doesn't help at anyway towards the performance of the car..

Porsche's ace driver Walter Rohl claims that the new turbo can do the 'ring' in 7:31. When asked about the GTR's ring time, Rohl laughed and dismissed the 7:26 set by Nissan as "impossible for a car with that power to weight ratio" Well, the GTR is faster than the new turbo in this test - even on a track that is smoother than the 'ring'. Despite the smoother track, you can see the turbo bouncing and moving about. On the 'ring', this new turbo would be all over the place. But if it can set a time of 7:31 like Rohl suggests, then I can see no reason why the more planted GTR cannot set a 7:26.

If I'm not mistaken, the comparison is called 'Performance car of the Year', NOT 'favourite car of the year' or 'most sexy car of the year' or 'most classy car of the year' or 'most pose worthy car of the year'. So why is it a tie, when all results shows that the GTR is the superior performance car? And that's not taking into consideration the price difference. If we factor in Price, daily useability, boot space and maintenance - the GTR is heads and shoulders above the R8. You say that a supercar shouldn't have back seats? Why, because back seats affect the performance of the car? It doesn't seem to affect the GTR's performance compared with the R8 now does it? It is still faster than the R8 with the back seats. So why are you using that against the GTR?

Are you for real? Even if you can afford both, why would you? The GTR can do everything that the 360 can and even more. So why would you fork out 160k odd for a second hand car that will spend more time in the workshop getting repaired than it does on the road? Why would you spend 160k for a "supercar" that can't even beat a new STi or Evo? I tell you why. It's because you're a POSER and you want the majority of people (who knows nothing about cars) to look at you and say...."ooohhhh, he's got a Ferrari"

But why does every other magazine in the world use LC and not MOTOR? What makes MOTOR so special? Well if they want to stick with the rules and follow procedures then the GTR should've won hands down in their 'performance car of 2009' test shouldn't it? Bias and double standards, that's what the test is.

F355, F360 are POS. Italian trash IMHO. If only Ferrari can make their road cars half reliable as their F1 cars, then I will respect them more. Like a one night stand with a hot blonde, the F355 and F360 are not the cars you want to keep long. Got friends who HAD owned them and they are more trouble than what they're worth, and believe me, they bring a new definition to the terms 'fragile', 'temperamental' and 'overpriced'. Apart from the 'pose' factor, I can't see why anyone with half a brain and half the logic of a normal person would ever want to choose a F360 over a new GTR.

And I bet if it was a Ferrari in that test - they wouldn't be whinging about the fixed paddles, 2 seats only, low ride or the temperamental nature of all Ferraris. Come to think of it, this is not the first time MOTOR magazine has said that the Aussie GTR does not have LC. They mention it in their comparo with the GT2 a while back and readers have bombarded them that the GTR does indeed have LC. I'm beginning to wonder whether they are just plain ignorant or that they know that LC is available but pretend that it doesn't exist so that the R8 can at least beat the GTR in 2 performance categories (0-100km/h and 0-400m), hence justifying why it should tie with the GTR overall. I can't wait to read 'Bang for you Buck 2009'. If the GTR doesn't win hands down, those Journals should be lined up and shot! Ok, maybe not, but they would definitely lose all credibility as motoring journalists.

As is expected from Motor magazine. Those journalists are pretty biased towards anything Euro. Wtf is it with them saying that launch control was removed from the Aussie version R35? Ignorant fools. If they had used the LC on the R35, it would've whipped the R8 in almost every single performance category and hence take the title. But oh no, these incompetent journals couldn't hack seeing a cheap Jap car decimate the competition. They had to make up rather stupid excuses to downplay the R35 such as "useless rear seats," "playstation console," "harsh ride" etc etc. Like wtf, this is a 'performance car of the year' not 'luxury car of the year' competition! Why didn't they mention that the R8 doesn't even have back seats? And the complaint about the fixed paddles is just lame. Anyone who knows anything about track driving would rather prefer the fixed shifters. Even the new Ferrari Italia has fixed shifters. Finally, the R8 looks like a friggin girls car. I saw one parked next to a GTR and the GTR made it look like a toy car. Even my gf said that the R8 suited a female driver more than it would suit a male driver. Audi should market the R8 as 'supercar for the ladies'

There are 4 seasons to a year, the earth revolves around the sun, humans are mammals, rotaries: revolve 3000rpm, pump out 3.9litres and are 2 stroke. These are all facts. Accept it. There is nothing magical about a rotary. It does not use any state of the art alien technology. It's combustion technique is unique but by no means state of the art. The fuel it uses is just normal fuel, not any special nuclear fuels. So why in the hell can it produce that much power and use that much fuel if it only pumps 1.3litres? How can it spin a massive T01000000 turbo charger with just 1.3 litres? Use your common sense and logical reasoning people!!!

We'll, I've got news for you Rotary huggers. I've spoken to a friend of mine in Japan and he so happens to know an engineer working for Mazda. I asked him to ask his engineer friend about the 3 points that Gary brought up regarding the 13B rotary engine. Here's what the engineer said: 1) The 13B does indeed use 3.9 liters in one complete cycle. But 2.6liters is the normally accepted figure. 2) Piston engines 'revolve' a lot faster than rotaries. The rotary engine itself only spins 3000rpm. The eccentric shaft speed is irrelevant. The engineer went on to say that 90% of people are misguided into thinking that the engine spins 9000rpm when it's not. Mazda doesn't mind though. 3) The rotary is pretty much a 2 stroke. If it sounds like a 2 stroke, smells like a 2 stroke, uses oil like a 2 stroke, fouls the plugs like a 2 stroke, cycles like a 2 stroke - then it must be a......... (No prizes for getting the answer right). Mind you, these are the exact words that the engineer said, translated of course. So I guess Gary is pretty much dead on right. Next topic. You rotary huggers want to argue that 1+1 is NOT equal to 2?

How much for the exhaust manifold? Does it have any cracks?

I stumbled onto this thread accidentally and after reading through the first 26 pages, I have come up with the conclusion that Gary is THE MAN. He is spot on with his logic and reasoning. His arguments are factual and contains no bias. It makes me laugh when I read the response and counter argument from the anti-Gary brigade trying to defend their beloved rotary. All i can see is DENIAL. Just like the denial from Porsche fanbois when the R35 GTR came along and whipped the turbo's ass left right and center. In one corner you have Gary arguing his point like a passionate engineer, and in the other corner, you have rotary fanbois arguing their point like politicians. As sad as it seems, it's very very hard to 'unwash' someone who has been subjected to 40 years of brainwashing in just a few pages. But if there's anyone out there who can do, then that anyone is Gary.

Hi, my R33 gtst series 2 turbo is gone. Took it apart the other day and I am now looking for a place in Adelaide that will recondition or high flow it. I'm intending to sell the car so i am looking at the cheapest route. Does anyone know of a good place in Adelaide that will recondition or high flow the turbo?

Hi, my R33 gtst series 2 turbo is gone. Took it apart the other day and I am now looking for a place in Adelaide that will recondition or high flow it. I'm intending to sell the car so i am looking at the cheapest route. Does anyone know of a good place in Adelaide that will recondition or high flow the turbo?

Okay, I've spoken to a Nissan tech and here's what he said regarding offset on the M35. It is okay to change the mags so that the width of the tires increase or decrease - so long as the offset remains the same. But once you change the offset (especially positive offset), without changing the width of the tire to compensate - the ATTESA system will not work properly. The thing to watch out for is that changing the offset a lot, without changing the width of the wheel to compensate, means that the tire sits at a different location on the ground with regard to the suspension system. The specific term is "scrub radius" Visualize a line drawn through the suspension to the ground. When that point on the ground is at a very different location than before, the tire motion (up and down) in normal use is altered into a different curve. This puts stress on the suspension in ways that it was simply not designed for. The rule of thumb is; if you're going to change to new wheels with different offset to the original wheels, then you should also change the width of the wheels to compensate for the altered scrub radius.