Jump to content
SAU Community

Gtr Vs 911 Turbo Around A Track In Car Magazine


Recommended Posts

Guy I spoke to over here in Perth who is driving the GTR in targa west ,Steve, says it acutally 'feels' every bit as responsive as his smaller lighter evo that he used for last years event did but, actually better in terms of total control. It's like the tardis in reverse handling wise. Big luxo-barge weight / evo like response in handling. Tyre and brake killer I suspect though?

Alot of the reviewers seem to be amazed by the handling not only for it's weight but, just in general.

I mean a Mazda bongo van is very light but, when a strong breeze at 100km/h just about tips it over you wouldn't call that the be all criterior for a great handling car?

Top Gear and the Stig to see if how quick it is. Then Fifth Gear and Tiff as i agree 99 times out of 100 on what he says makes a good car. If he gets out of the heavy automatic beast and says its really fun to drive and doesnt drive like an EVO then i will maybe change my tune on the car. Not that it matters i will never own one :rofl: There is a 89 Carrera 4 dressed up in 72 RS body and colours for sale at the moment. I am itching to buy it :/

Oh they are smoking hot! Got pics?

The GTR is just a Datsun whose styling loses out to a Hyundai Tiburon :(

If you look at it that way, the 911 is just a trumped up 60's Volkswagen Beetle "facelifted" by the world's laziest styling department.

I don't think either car is attractive. On looks alone I prefer the Audi R8, even though its significantly slower than either.

It is my understanding that the rear engined car is generally more tail happy than the yellow beast in the video. It begs the question, Did the powers that be set the car up in the knowledge that journos with varying skill levels would be driving it,

The 996 and 997 have had a lot of the taily nature dialled out of them.

Porsche purists who stopped bleating about the 996 not being air cooled started to bleat that the "safe understeery nature" of the car takes away from one of its defining handling characteristics.

I don't think either car is attractive. On looks alone I prefer the Audi R8, even though its significantly slower than either.

I think that 997 Porsches are one of the best looking cars out there. A very unique and distinctive style that grows on you the more you look at it. The 997 models actually look a lot better in real life than on film or picture. The same can be said about the GTR. When it first appeared, i thought it was ugly. But the more i see it, the better it looks.

The R8 on the other hand is the exact opposite. It started from looking good to looking quite ugly. Somehow, it doesn't look proportional. Even Jeremy Clarkson agrees with me.

And for most other supercars? Well they just look like Ferrari ripoffs.

If you look at it that way, the 911 is just a trumped up 60's Volkswagen Beetle "facelifted" by the world's laziest styling department.

I don't think either car is attractive. On looks alone I prefer the Audi R8, even though its significantly slower than either.

Point is, to me the 997 is a great looking car. Even considering the car's history, the beetle never was/isnt...911s are good things to look at.

Agree re the R8...cant wait for the R10 :thumbsup:

There is a 89 Carrera 4 dressed up in 72 RS body and colours for sale at the moment. I am itching to buy it :thumbsup:

Owned one briefly (edit oops: a 964 Carrera 4) Roy.... just a Great car mate :happy:

Do it!

Edited by Marlin
If the badges were swapped, then i guess you and Roy will prefer the GTR?

One of my favourite cars is the Vf/VG Valiant Coupe.

IMGP0313.JPG

Do you think i care about badges and labels? I own a GTSt that is worth more then many GTRs. I also happen to love, i mean LOVE Mk 1 Escorts, BDA/LOTUS Escorts etc so dont think i care about badges. Nissan/Datsun build great cars...i just fear with the R35 they havent built a great drives car?!?!?!?>!?

FORD%20ESCORT%20MK1%20MEXICO%20ML1580%208X15.JPG

i just fear with the R35 they havent built a great drives car?!?!?!?>!?/quote]

Possibly. Guess you'll have to wait for the V-spec to come out then. The 911 turbo aint 'raw'. It is quite refined. The 911 GT2 or GT3 RS is what i would define as 'RAW'

Also any Porsche before the 996/997 era are IMO, are tail happy pieces of crap. I would never buy one even if it's super cheap. Cos the parts are super expensive!!

It will be interesting to see how the guys racing the R35 go with parts and reliability. Fancy gearbox, clutches, electrics etc...in a few eyars it will be all the norm....but in the meantime hats off to the Aus folk who are talking on racing them. My biggest concern is clutches and gearbowes and diffs etc, temperature and failures in racing. Im sure Nissan have done their homework

.i just fear with the R35 they havent built a great drives car?!?!?!?>!?

There is therapy and medication for you irrational fears Roy :(

The people who have driven the R35 seem to have a hard time wiping the smile off thier faces, good sign we don't need to be afraid.

How cool would it be to drive something as heavy as an old dodge charger lapping the ring as fast as this thing? :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I have engineer in my job title One of or motto's though is "we make and we break"
    • This is actually 2 whole different trains of thought that need to be addressed separately. No, as Matt says above, "Engineer" is not a directly protected title. A lot of guys who just do mechanical design via CAD, with or without even some sort of associate diploma in engineering, often have the job title of "Design Engineer". A train driver can probably still describe themselves as an engineer. But, to usefully get employment with anyone as a proper engineer, you're going to have to have at least the necessary and relevant degree qualification. You're not going to get a job as an electrical engineer if you have a chem eng degree, unless you can demonstrate x number of years of working in that capacity, sufficient knowledge, etc. Having the degree is at least in indication that you've seen the relevant text books, even if you haven't read them (like pretty much the last 10 years of graduates!). To be a self employed engineer.....you could get away with quite a lot pretending that you're suitably qualified, without actually being a proper engineer. But, you will find yourself unable to work for a large section of the client space because a lot demand CVs and capability statements when considering contracting for any engineering work these days. Insurances too. If you're not a proper engineer, it will be much harder to obtain proper PI insurance. Insurance companies have gotten hip to that. The "Professional Engineer" thing is a thing in Australia. If you have the right qualifications and experience you can apply to the relevant engineering top level body (mostly Engineers Australia, the less said about whom, the better), to be assessed and approved as a Chartered Professional Engineer, CPE. There are high bars to get over and a requirement for CPD to maintain it. The RPEQ thing is similar-ish, in that you have to demonstrate and maintain, but the bars are a little lower. It is required to be RPEQ in order to sign off as an engineer on any engineering design in Queensland. The other states haven't fully followed suit yet. There's "engineering" and there's "engineering". Being an engineer that signs off on timber (or even steel) frames for housing projects, council creek crossing bridges, etc, is a flavour of civil engineering that barely warrants the name, description and degree. That would be soul crushing work anyway. Being an automotive engineer working in the space where you have to sign off on modifications to cars and trucks would also be similarly soul crushing. At least partly because of the level of clientelle, their expecations, depths of bank balance, etc. And that brings us to your second question. No, we do not have professional engineers "do vehicle inspections". Well, not the regular roadworthies, etc etc. That's done by mechanics. There might be some vehicle standards engineers at the various state govco inspection stations where cars go to get defects cleared and so on, but that's because they (the cars) are there specifically for defect inspection and clearance and so the stakes are a little higher than on an annual lights and brakes working check. But, if you modify a vehicle in Australia, you have to get it engineered. A suitably qualified (and effectively licensed, which I will get back to) automotive engineer will have to go over the application, advise on what would be required to make the mods legal, supervise some parts of the work, inspect and test the results, and sign off. The "licensed" aspect comes from there being a list of approved engineers to do these things in each state. They have to jump through hoops set up by the govco vehicle standards divisions that mean only the suitably qualified can offer to and approve such mods.
    • It's got a problem Prank... It looks like both washer spray caps have fallen off this car... 😛
    • Meh, it's only got to last another 10 years or so until you'll be forbidden to drive it. Keep it dry and forget about it.
    • The title of Engineer is not protected. However different states have different rules about what an Engineer requires to operate. Engineering for a motor vehicle modification is very different to engineering for a bridge, electronics, etc, including what that engineer needs as certifications.   In Canberra, "Engineer" is the loosest category with basically nothing stopping you calling yourself and engineer and designing a bridge or building. From what I've reviewed, QLD has the strictest requirements through RPEIQ.
×
×
  • Create New...