Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I know this is not directly related to the R35 GT-R but since Renault owns Nissan, they can build a supercar based on the R35 GT-R.

They have in the past built some legendary cars. Renault 5 Turbo and Espace F1 comes to mind. They are also heavily involved in motorsport in F1 and who could forget the Renault Laguna in BTCC.

I think costs will be minimal. All the have to do is design a body shell to fit over the existing R35 GT-R platform, maybe a slightly higher tune (use V spec maybe). They can sell it for around $200K and target competitors like Aston Martin V8 Vantage and Jaguar XKR.

Some purist will probably see it as a bad idea pinching GT-Rs platform and being a Nissan forum, I'll probably get flamed but I think Renault is missing out on an oppurtunity here...

Edited by gel
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/216934-renault-gt-r/
Share on other sites

^ :down: how f*cking quick would that be!!! if they could keep it on the ground, and get it to go around corners... would be a rally monster

they couldn't price it at $200k because in all likely hood, that would under-cut the V-Spec. And if the V-Spec is going to be as pricey as reported (relative to the price premium's of the V-Spec 32/33/34's) then you'd have to be in the $300K bracket if you wanted to release some "typically" looking exotic with all the luxury fruit. Why have a Renault competing directly with the V-Spec at the same price? The Renault point of difference would surely have to be exotic level luxury, so you'll have to be more than the V-Spec.

i guess there is no reason why they couldn't use the all the GTR running gear.... but there are probably plenty of emotional reasons why they shouldn't :D

Is the Stagea still kicking around in Japan and is Autech still in business? :D

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/216934-renault-gt-r/#findComment-3830365
Share on other sites

They can sell it for around $200K and target competitors like Aston Martin V8 Vantage and Jaguar XKR.

I don't think Renault's brand cachet is any better than Nissan/Infiniti's.

If you're talking about brand snobbery, someone in the market for an Aston Martin / Jaguar, Audi R8 or BMW M6 is going to turn their nose up at the idea of a French-coachworked Japanese car.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/216934-renault-gt-r/#findComment-3831016
Share on other sites

no one seems to be complaining about the Audi R8 which is a Gallardo in new clothes

The Audi brand is actually considered desirable, unlike Nissan and Renault.

And its not a Gallardo in new clothes. Originally the R8 was meant to use the Gallardo chassis and its own setup, but the engineers found that it didn't meet the practicality requirements for the R8 and so a bigger chassis was eventually made for it.

There is some parts sharing, but not to the extent of the eleventy billion vehicles that VAG makes off the Golf's platform.

Edited by scathing
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/216934-renault-gt-r/#findComment-3831312
Share on other sites

In all likelyhood any future Niss-ault would come from the next-gen silvia, not the GTR.

Renault's main competition seem to be in the vein of Citroen/Peugeot/Skoda, none of which market anything even like the GTR, so it wouldn't make sense to try and jump from small/mid sized cars to the Super GT's of Aston and Jag.

But a small, rear drive, hi-po coupe definately sounds like something they could use as a halo car to push them ahead of their class rivals.

I like the idea, so long as they don't bastardise it with their *cough* unorthodox styling.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/216934-renault-gt-r/#findComment-3831320
Share on other sites

nissan should take over the duties in F1 from renault now that hte GTR is out

yeah, why not- i mean, the same engine designers can just stick 'Nismo' badges on the V8 rocker covers before sending 'em out the door, and the car won't require that much change to the signage :D

as long as Renault continues to pick up the bill :rofl:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/216934-renault-gt-r/#findComment-3831355
Share on other sites

I don't see why Renault couldn't share some GT-R components to spruce it's upper-echelon range a little more. Yes a Clio i guess, sticking with the sports car theme, but it doesn't have to be the VR38 that gets donked in. Even sharing brakes, or the dual clutch gearbox, or suspension components.

Keeping it 'in the family' will definitely make Niss-ault more appealing to buyers not in the market for a GT-R but wanting something a little less awesome with a price to match.

Anyone thinking a mid-mounted VR25DET AWD Clio? VW Golf R32 beware!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/216934-renault-gt-r/#findComment-3832354
Share on other sites

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


  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...