Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Porsche make alot more profit from selling a 911 than Nissan do a GTR - they have to, as it is their mainstay vehicle. The GTR on the otherhand is a flagship Nissan, more a marketing exercise than a vehicle designed to yield profits for a family car manufacturer with a sporty visage to their lineup. Even if they didn't break even on the vehicle, it is a success for the manufacturer as a marketing tool. It's a "look what our engineering can do car", and it works, because it runs up against the best of the supercars in terms of performance and the public think that "Nissan can do what Porsche can't do for 1/3 the price". Porsche could sell a 911 for the same price...but they won't. Why would you when you still sell plenty at the current price? They have Porsche capital to pay for, and they therefore have Porsche profit to make out of the vehicle...plus they're not going to destroy decades of company image as a supercar manufacturer. There are people who buy the Porsche because the badge represents a super expensive car, and has done so for decades, regardless of what it can actually do. The reality is, if Proton wanted to build a supercar to run up against the R35 they could...it's not in their interests to do that, that isn't their market.

yep pretty much when the reasons are incorrect

enjoy

Incorrect? So you can turn off VDC and your warranty won't be voided? Really?

the r32 GTR was a $100,000 road car when it raced, up against $50,000 or less cars, so just the platform that they were basing the cars off was at least twice the price, so of course it would be a better car when it was done. it's like making a race car out of a skyline and putting it against a race car made out of a festiva.

Just to put that in perspective, the actual race running costs of the R32 GTR were close to $750,000 PA (with engines replacements being the major expense). Comparatively the average V8 sedan at the time was a $200,000 PA affair. So it extends beyond the base vehicle costs too.

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

you are saying you don't like the 911 when others do, and i'm simply saying i don't like the GTR while others do. but thank you for taking the time out of your day to come on here and defend your car against some unknown person who's opinion differs to yours. i hope you feel better after having done so.

thanks for your 3 posts justifying your pov and the god like image you've painted for my grandfather's vn vacationer

now shhhhh dont ruin this for me, this is the car ive always wanted for 7 months

It must be really easy to make a car go as hard as 911 for 1/3 of the price. I'd like to see your VN commo do that.

But of course soul and passion are better than performance. Have you even driven a GTR?

Cars need passion. I need a car with passion and raw emotion. Who cares about performance.http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

Piece of piss, with 90k you could make a VN Commodore easily smash a 911 in a straight line. Also even around a track depending on driver skill a 997 Carrera S and a Walkinshaw Clubby are comparable, around the Top gear Australia test track the difference is only .31 of a second. And a Walkinshaw Clubby can be had for around 90k vs a 997 Carrera S 253k.

Incorrect? So you can turn off VDC and your warranty won't be voided? Really?

why do i need to turn vdc off on the street to use the car as nissan intended?

i can use LC with VDC on to impress my mates, and full sick 4 wheel donuts dont work as well as they do on need for speed undergound bro

Edited by domino_z

It's irrelevant, there are parts on the R35 that void it's warranty. You said Marc was incorrect as a non-driver/owner of an R35. I say you're incorrect as an owner of an R35 ;)

The new Mustangs just really don't do anything for me.

If I was going to get a new american muscle car it would be a 2010 Camaro.

ZR1 for me ;)

Camaro to me is just a HSV with a different body.

The reality is, if Proton wanted to build a supercar to run up against the R35 they could...it's not in their interests to do that, that isn't their market.

So does that mean if Great Wall wanted to, they could make a super car as well instead of releasing those awsome SUVs that takes 20 seconds to get from 0 to 100km/h... (an official figure)

EDIT: if they could, I would sign up & buy a Great Wall super car... all hail to Communism and Chairman Mao!

Edited by Mayuri Krab
why is that some sort of achievment though?

the way i look at the GTR compared to it's rivals is this:

all other supercars are like a really hot chick that goes off in the sack. the GTR is like a sex doll that gets you off a bit faster but without all the passion. in my opinion it just doesn't have the raw emotion that other supercars, and even some non-supercars have. the mustang appeals to me much more than the GTR. hell even a v8 commodore or falcon does too.

i disagree. i find modern day super cars have lost all the passion from the past. most have move to luxury fast cars and no longer the raw racing supercar feel.

if i was ever to buy a true super car it was be a F40.

mustang is heavy, boring and dirt cheap. waste of money IMO. for many other cars i'd rather own. yet as they say, each to their own. which is good, less demand means cheaper cars for people who actually want them.

VN Commo & VE Walky Clubsport not even close to being the same car.

VN Commo that can go around corners like a GTR would not resemble a street car in the slightest.

Piece of piss, with 90k you could make a VN Commodore easily smash a 911 in a straight line. Also even around a track depending on driver skill a 997 Carrera S and a Walkinshaw Clubby are comparable, around the Top gear Australia test track the difference is only .31 of a second. And a Walkinshaw Clubby can be had for around 90k vs a 997 Carrera S 253k.

You don't need to drive one when it clearly doesn't have the same amount of soul & passion as a VN Commo. How much soul & passion do you need to have a good car? 10 or 12 units of passion?

Yeah...I was respecting the opinion until this point mate. Getting pretty sick of the "you must not have driven or owned one" rhetoric from R35 owners. Believe it or not there are some people who legitimately don't like the R35, and yes, have test driven the thing. It's always the first "comeback" or "assumption" to be made whenever someone criticises the vehicle, that the "hater" must be a non-owner...well no shit Sherlock...you're not going to buy the vehicle if you don't like it, are you? So does this render their opinion worthless? I'd value it over someone potentially living in post-purchase dissonance.
It's irrelevant, there are parts on the R35 that void it's warranty. You said Marc was incorrect as a non-driver/owner of an R35. I say you're incorrect as an owner of an R35 :down:

yeaaahhhh ahhh but you still havent answered my question

its actually very relevant

the comment was made that you cant use the car as "nissan intended" without turning off VDC and voiding the warranty

so i ask, if the only thing i cant do is awesome 4 wheel burnouts with vdc on, how is having the vdc on/race not using the car as nissan intended?

its cool though, good discussion ;)

Edited by domino_z

Guys really who cares, this is the great thing about cars, the fact every one loves something different so we all drive something different. Fair enough it's good to compare certain models against one another when they are in the same class, but comparing cars totally in different worlds is just silly and pointless.

Also it really amazes me how much hatred there is for the R35 on these forums ;)

Fair enough I can understand certain points of view, but as a whole it just really amazes me how many of SAUers say so many bad things about them.

I mean people saying they could make a VN commodore handle and perform like a R35 using the same amount of coin, I mean come on, are you f**king seriously saying shit like that?

It reminds me of the Top Gear episode where Clarkson talks about people coming up to him at petrol stations when he is driving his Lambo (think it was a Lambo) and saying how their "tuned" car can beat his car.

It just aint the f**king same thing! You can have your 8 second VL or 9 second R32 GTR, I'll take a 12 second Reventon/F430/DBS any day of the week!

Edited by PM-R33
comparing cars totally in different worlds is just silly and pointless.

Im reading through a lot of comments saying it pointless and everything to compare these two cars because they're not even in the same league.

I simply posted this up so I could put an end to the discussions among my friends about this topic,simple as that ;)

VN Commo & VE Walky Clubsport not even close to being the same car.

VN Commo that can go around corners like a GTR would not resemble a street car in the slightest.

I'm aware of that the VN Commodore and the VE Walkinshaw Clubby are nothing alike (old as 5 Litre V8 with Live axle VS 6.2L Supercharged V8 with IRS). I was just saying for a technical exercise you could make a VN Commodore that could beat even a 911 GT2 in a straight line for miles under 90k and that a 90k Walkinshaw Clubsport is comprable to a 911 Carrera S around a despite having seating for 5 and gets around a track a whisker away from being as fast as a Carrera S.

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

    • 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...