fungoolie

Well new pads and rotors at a 10,000 KM service is definitely not routine!!! In fact if that was required I'd be kicking and screaming if they didnt fix the obvious fault under warranty anyway. I measured 0.3 mm loss of brake disk at my 10,000KM service so assuming that wear rate continues my disks should last 70,000 KMS. We shall see but I don't see that as excessive.

Correct me if I'm wrong here Duncan but even with VDC off I'm pretty sure the ATTESA system in the GT-R still apportions power front/rear depending on how much slip the front tyres are experiencing in a straight line and also how much the car is yawing when cornering and the rear is stepping out of line so that the front can pull the car straight again. I've watched my power split gauge with VDC off and it still fluctates like mad when I step on it hard. Race mode VDC allows it to bring in the brakes at each corner to bring you back into line even more so and finally Normal or "nanny" mode kills engine power as well when you get out of shape. And before anyone goes on about this being a jap innovation giving the GT-R some "unfair" advantage, the 911 Turbo has exactly the same stuff going on. In fact it's 0% power to the front until it experiences slip compared with the GT-Rs 50%. It wouldn't be the "quality" of the electronics per se that makes these systems good or bad, it's the sorting/tuning of the software by the test drivers and engineers that does.

Servicing for 15,000 kms consists of an oil change of Mobil 1 at around $100 plus labour at 10,000 kms. I changed my air filters as well $50 from Courtesy Parts in the US $150 from Nissan here but I do drive in a dusty environment. All up you'd get change from a couple hundred bucks.... First trans oil change at 20K if driven hard, 30K if driven normally according to the service schedule. So yes it's adefinitely a daily driver for me

When you get guys with his credibility making dismissive comments like that then you really have to wonder how much credence you can place on Porsche's other assertations. If it was simply up to "power to weight" then clearly the Nissan's ability to stay with the 911T in a straight line would demonstrate that the cars have line ball power to weight ratios. That was confirmed by our dyno day where the Nissan actually came out in front on power to weight. As if Rohrl wouldn't know this stuff already. I would have thought a dissertation on suspension and brakes differences etc would have made much more sense especially given in a superior german accent! Was his laugh a Siegfried style arrogant laugh or more like a Col Klink nervous one? Oh and the GTR did a 7:26 in April this year in a revisit to the ring witnessed by Porsche. That's when they went all quiet as I recall.....

Well I'm not the only GT-R I've spotted on this forum with a baby seat in the back. Couple others from memory. That's why I started this thread in the first place. I was amazed that Motor magazine could bag the GT-R for having a SMALL back seat when the R8 had NONE! They weren't criticizing it for CHOOSING to have a back seat, just because it was on the tight side when it's competitor couldn't even attempt to seat anyone in the back. And yes I do have a family wagon for the kids but on the days I do have to take the kids it's so nice to be able to drive the car that I'd prefer to drive! Don't facetiously discount this market. Because, guess what, Nissan's not the only company that was "stupid" enough to consider putting four seats in a supercar. Lets see: Porsche Panamera 911 928 Mclaren F1 (OK it's really a three seater but still better than 2) Ferrari 166 Inter (1948) 212 Inter (1951) 250 GT 2+2 330 GT 2+2 (1964) 365 GT 2+2 (1967) 365 GT4 2+2 (1972) 412 (1985) 456 GT (1992) 456M GTA (1998) 612 Scaglietti (2004) And now to add insult to injury, a 2+2 version of the fastest car in the world, the Bugatti Royale.... Oh how could they!! Perhaps if other mass producers of cars had the balls to develop a practical super car like Nissan did, they would be cheaper for everyone and not just be toys the super rich to get to drive and for less well off people to have wet dreams over. I applaud Nissan for developing this car. I was NOT a Nissan fan until this car came along. It swayed and won me. Simple as that. I'm not biased by some blind loyalty to Nissan because I owned a 180B and then progressed to an R32 etc etc. I even have an XC Falcon hardtop in the garage which until recently had a 460 big block in it so I appreciate that there are different means of achieving different objectives. I give credit where it's due and for someone to use their resources in such a way as to deliver a value for money product to the market that achieves the goals it sets out to by whichever means possible including AWD and clutchless gearboxes then I will sit up and take notice. If you're happy to blow an extra US$30K on old tech that would have had a fraction of the R&D Nissan spent on developing the GT-R then good luck to you. I'm happy you're doing your bit to reduce that $70 Bill that the US Gov had to inject into GM and not me.

Oh so tempting but prob quite a bit extra to get it to Adelaide?

Unbelievable times guys. Well done! Where are you sourcing your 2nd hand slicks from?

ZR-1 Failings: OK lets start with: JUST pips the GT-R at the Nurburgring in the hands of of expert drivers but needs an extra 130KW to do so. I'd say I'd be faster in the GTR no ifs or buts. And lets not even start to imagine driving it quickly in the wet. Two seat design. American build quality. Low rent interior including bad seats and terrible steering wheel. And all this for JUST twice the price of the GT-R in Aus and 40% more in its country of origin. You would need to have your head read to choose this over the GT-R IF you apply any sort of value for money philosophy to your purchase. Just as I chose not to buy a 10 year old Ferrari with the same money as my GT-R cost I saw the GT-R as the best value for money option for ME. And I've also described the failings for ME. The 2 seat design being a show stopper, (read failing), for my circumstances. Lets just see how many ZR-1s are sold in Oz for $300K plus compared with the number of GT-Rs. Then we'll see if the general supercar buying populace agrees with me or not. And as the guys at Willall are demonstrating, some cheap and simple mods get these cars lapping SIGNIFICANTLY faster around our home grown tracks. I'm not sure where you'd go on the Vette to make it lap faster. Maybe 1000HP? My point is that it doesn't require much in the way of innovation to make a car fast on a power circuit by strapping a rocket motor under the bonnet. And I prefer an elegant solution to one of brute force. I prefer European sports car finesse over American muscle car philosophy unless I'm drag racing of course. Horses for courses. I'm just not into the "get a bigger hammer" approach on these types of cars. You can start dissecting my hammer metaphor with your axe or scalpel or whatever you choose as your weapon of choice I can only imagine what the GT-R would do with the Vette's 650 HP.... And I'm bowing out of this thread in case it starts getting personal as I've observed from some other posts. All Max_ST-R did was agree with me. I can't judge as there may be bad blood there but I'd rather get out before it gets to that stage as it so easily can. Who needs the agro when all your in it for is some open discussion...

I can't remember exact numbers except for mine but my stocker GT-R was 293 KW. The 911T was high 250's and one with tune and Willall midpipe was 340 something. The one belonging to Seb was over 400 as described already in a few other threads on this forum. Geez can't we even be modest without getting bagged?

Nah we're just not the bragging types

Third time lucky.

Try again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hJLKm

Love that circuit! Another one. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Martin, Thank you for putting this day on and sorry I couldn't hang around till after the work was done and you and the boys could relax. Nice day for it at least. The results were enlightening to say the least Fair's fair though, maybe the setup didn't suit certian engine configrations... And to all those R35 owners that didn't show. You missed a great afternoon's entertainment!

Well all scalpel/axe analogies aside. I embrace technology and innovation. Maybe it's the engineer in me that sees the novelty in new ideas and better way of doing things. Perhaps thats why I'd have an Ipod over a walkman. Yes I was one of those that changed to CD when it came out and didn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming 10 years later when they stopped selling LPs. And if you can deliver me this new technology at a lower price, better than half the price as in the case of the vette and R8 in Oz, I see the decision as a no brainer. We clearly differ on our philosophies and so be it. However the only area I do take major issue with is the idea that formula one doesnt innovate and only evolves! It's only because of the rules they have comply with that we dont see cars with plasma thrusters and antigravity devices fitted in formula one! These guys came up with the majority of the clever innovations we see on cars today and in many cases had them banned because the rule makers couldn't see them coming and had to shut them down after the clever innovaters in the F1 teams stuck them on the cars. The evolution you see is not a matter of choice but simply because they have to work within the tight confines of rules. Oh actually there is another area I do take issue with. The notion that a supercar is MEANT to be hard to drive..... Ask Jamie Whincup what he'll prefer on the racetrack...... And if it inspires overconfidence in me when when I'm in my GT-R I would only need 10 seconds in the ZR-1 to change my attitude completely to treat the beast with utter respect because it will kill me at the slightest touch of the throttle. I don't wan't my car to leave me in a lather of sweat every time I take it for a blast up the Gorge Road....Again different philosphies.

My speedo reads about 6 kph fast at 100 so assuming you were just looking at your speedo it could have just been speedo error. I can imagine it could easily be 10-12 kph out at 240 clicks! Also the text in that article is at odds with the VBox data. They claimed he was going through turn 1 at 195 in the article, same as a V8 supercar...Lot of insoncistensies in that article, not just the result

This is exactly my point. ZR-1 can only JUST eclipse GT-R with way more of everything, power, torque, tyres, less weight etc etc. GT-R is a better engineered package which simply does more with less. It's just a smarter more elegant way of doing things. Nissan uses a scalpel instead of an axe to achieve the same result. And lets put two AVERAGE drivers in these cars instead of these professionals and I'll bet anything that the result would be reversed. I can virtually guarantee that I would be faster in my GT-R than a ZR-1 around Mallalla for example. Nissan invented the radical "premium midship" drivetrain and the only disadvantage I can see from it is that it sacrifices a little rear seat legroom. This would not have even been an issue if they took the easy way out and opted out of making it a 4 seater but thank god they didn't. I wouldn't be able to justify owning one today if they chose to go 2 seater. My mind still boggles at how the car does what it does based on the face value of it's specifications. This GT-R is revolutionary rather than just a refinement of an age old platform and costs $25K less than the Vette. We should be applauding Nissan for finally bringing all these other manufacturers to task on ripping us off with overpriced products by providing a competitor at a significantly lower price. Until 2007 I for one could not even have entertained the idea of owning a "supercar" until Nissan came up with the GT-R. Thanks to them I now can. $200K more for the Audi??? I wouldn't be able to justify owning the GT-R if it was $30K more let alone $200K more. Porsches, Audis, Ferraris, Corvettes...It's a completely moot point whether or not theyre better/worse or equal to the GT-R. I could never afford one so thanks, I'll take the cheaper alternative and still be able to enjoy it every day because of all the practical qualities it exhibits.

No the ZR1 is more expensive than the GT-R even in the states. US$106K from memory with GT-R high $70s. Don't even think about it landed here. I'd go the PDK 911T for that amount of cash. 485 KW forgives a lot of failures in other areas of the car's design...

Hope its not too late but Munro just told me about this. Please add me.

I find it amazing that the GT-R seemed to cop the flak for not being a "road friendly" car because of a harsh ride (granted), playstation dash (what the?? how does this detract?), paddles that don't turn with the wheel (more a track problem I've found) and a small rear seat (better than none). What's ironic about this statement for me is that as far as everyday motoring goes, I could not actually use the R8 as my everyday driver as I do my GT-R. Yes the ride is harsh but I can actually live with that, it's not a show stopper. But I take my two kids to daycare and school several days a week and drive to work and take lots of items along with me in the quite substantial boot. So yes my kids are squeezed in there but they survive! The alternative would be for me to keep the R8 at home and buy another car to drive to work and take my kids to school, clearly very "practical" and wheres the fun in leaving my R8 at home most days????

Agree wholeheartedly. I sold the first of the 2003 "non bug eye" STis for barely $3000 less than what I paid for it after 12 months simply because stuff all were for sale 2nd hand and if u wanted one and didn't want to pay for a new one you didn't have much choice. This totally changed 4 years later when there were heaps for sale 2nd hand.

This is not an exact science. I was only trying to illustrate the point of the devaluation process with respect to its relation the model cycle.

I'm not sure where these notions of the relative depreciation of all these cars is coming from. I wish we all had these wonderful crystal balls because I would be using these prophetic powers to assess investment asset prices instead of used car prices! From my experiences it depends totally on what the successors of the particular model are and how much of an improvement they are over the predecessors. And since we really don't know what the manufacturers have in store for us, we really are just guessing as to what resale values will be in the future. Cases I've observed include: 1. Porsche 911 Turbo's have generally lost about $10-$15 K per annum until the new model is released. Then they incur a $60K hit overnight once the newer improved model becomes available. 2. 1999 VT Clubsports were up around the $55K mark when the VTII with the Gen III was released. Suddenly the $45K SS was faster than the previous week's Clubsport. Owners of the old model wore a $15K loss literally within weeks simply because you wouldn't have the old slower Clubbie when the newer SS was faster and a better overall package. Australian consumers have kicked up a big stink complaining that the Aussie manufactureres have treated them unfairly by "secretly" releasing huge improvements in their model line up without any warning thus burning the uninformed existing owners. 3. Euro companies such as BMW and Mercedes tend to maintain a body shape for a lot longer than say Japanese or Australian manufacturers. Again as per the case of the 911T above, they tend to hold their value better than their counterparts until the new shape is released. Then you better hope you're not holding the baby at that point in time. So the depreciation curve tends to be more disjointed but in the long term you will always end up in the same place. The 360 not being significantly different looking to the 430, does not yet look dated. However when the 458 is released, I believe it will. And as sure as night follows the day, watch the prices fall significantly. Just as the 355 looks dated next to the 360, the 430/360 will also start to become less desirable next to the new Ferrari. And I'm only talking about styling here, there's a bunch of extra dimensions to consider such as performance, reliability, warranty, parts availability and cost and wear and tear factors that play a role in a vehicles depreciation as well. As far as the R35 GT-R is concerned, again it totally depends upon what Nissan and anyone else that competes with them has in the pipeline. If the car model is run for 6 years with no successor as Nissan has alluded to, then that will help maintain the 2nd hand prices. (Take a look at what a 2002 Nissan 200SX fetches and you'll see how a car can hold it's value when theres nothing better/newer to replace it). If in 6 years time there is no developmental successor to the R35 and no other manufacturer has caught up with an equivalent competitor for less than $160K I'd hazard that the used values should hold up reasonably well relative to equivalent vehicles. Generally speaking again, if you can own a vehicle that suffers between 12% and 17% depreciation per annum in the first 5 years of its life you're doing exceptionally well. Most Aussie cars suffer the dreaded 20% pa or halving in value after 3 years. I wouldn't imagine either a new Ferrari or the GT-R would fall into the latter category.

FWIW Tony Quinn and Steve Jones were running the Dunlops in the classic adelaide. Only one GT-R was running the 888's and it was the least competitive of the three.... Not saying that the tyres were the reason it was slower but that the most experienced and fastest runners chose the Dunlops over the Toyos which must say something.

I thought he said he was an MD of a multinational? Mark is most likely is also an avid investor but he is actually a salaried employee albeit at the top rung of the organisation and no doubt on a 7 figure salary....The vast majority of wealthy individuals are indeed investors of some sort of another but there are also a small minority that do earn enough money to purchase items of such value such from their own exertion. And I do challenge the assertion that the share market is more risky AND less profitable in short and long run. Over history the share market has delivered stronger returns than the general real estate market at the expense of higher volatility (short term risk). Usually the appearance is of lower returns from the share market because investors are not able to gear as highly as in the real estate market due to the better loan to valuation ratios achievable with real estate than with shares where the equities are the form of security for the loan.