I hate to rain on some folks parade, but w/ ADM's that car will go over 100k in price.....
Just ask the people who have pursued the GT500!!!!

Rawr.

Pics of the Super GT (nee JGTC) GT-500 version.

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/nissa...ce-car/463738/

http://www.larrychendesign.com/tokyo/TMS07/day3/20.jpg
http://www.larrychendesign.com/tokyo/TMS07/day4/18.jpg
http://www.larrychendesign.com/tokyo/TMS07/day3/21.jpg

Wait, is the transfer case in the rear?

I think it's the tranny. Looks like there's an input drive shaft and an output for the front wheels. :eek:

Yep, it's like the Vette with a rear trans-axle. It's got a 1:1 drive-shaft off the motor to the rear trans-axle, then a second drive-shaft running forward to turn the front wheels. There's some power loss associated with this arrangement, but the excellent weight distribution more than makes up for it. (Not to mention the like 500hp the car has :lol: )

Plus, they were running out of ways to make it more expensive.

If it's really going to be available for $80K, I wouldn't consider that expensive, relatively speaking.

Yeah, I remember looking at that setup on my model of the RS200.

But, I figured that was only for crazy group b cars, not production cars. Shows what I know. :lol:

That GrB RS200 would be cheaper and slower than the GT-R if they built it today.

Yeah, and the Group B car might even get to keep its warranty!

Its starting at $69,850.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/14/l...ain-at-69-850/

I wish I had a spare $90k, so I could get one and flip it for $100k on eBay or something.

People with "a spare $90k" lying around don't bother with the hassle of trying to eBay a supercar to make $10k. :lol:

Yeah I think they are the ones buying it for $100k on ebay cause they have a spare $100k.:)

I would rather have an 08' Shelby GT500 stang.

(Shelby GT500KR)
http://www.wrxfanatics.com/index.php...=post&id=52614

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.au...gt500kr_05.jpg

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/30/n...f-the-road-re/

Nice collector car, but I'd rather buy a GTR in a year or two when they're available for MSRP and all the bugs are worked out.

That would be lame.

sooooo, next year you can spend 80k and get a gtr.

OR you could drop 80k on an R34 grey market.

OR you could drop 50k on an R33 grey market.

OR you could spend 25k on an R32.....

OR you could buy a nismo 400 for around 65k. Last i checked which was a while ago there were only 256 nismo 400's left.

i guess if you really wanted you could spend 100k on one of the Gt Z-tune GT34's.... they used to sell for 170k, last one sold for alot less. ;) i mean, they were the ALMOST gt35, or as close as anyone got to the real deal.

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/fe...ine/index.html

You can get an R34 in the states for around $60k if you don't care if it's street legal.

I went to LA Auto Show yesterday and they had the new GTR there. First it was hard to see it since there was a huge crowd around it the entire time. Second it looks really hot. I don't think anyone will be confusing it for a 350z in person. It's definitely a car I could myself buying at some point.

yeah thats why i said 80. there are only a few shops that can make it legal. and those bastards charge quite a bit.

personally i have ALWAYS wanted the sledgehammer. fuck the scalpel. i tried to import one right around the time i bought my Sti. had an R33 imported by motorex, right around the time they went belly up. they tried for 4 weeks to make it smog and never could cause it was already modified. they were going to import another one for me a stock one, but they went up in smoke.

se la vi

Still trying to figure out how Ford managed to screw up 605hp. Read the article in Road and Track about the Mustang GT500 Super Snake; it should be a lot faster than it is with that much HP. 0-60 4.4 seconds... my Evo would come in 100th under that stock. 1/4 mile in 12.5... pretty good, but with 605 hp? Should be in the 11's... so maybe they geared it for speed... no... 150mph (elec. limited)
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...helbyGT500.pdf

And all for $80,000 + GT-R looks a little better eh?

Atomic you sound a little bitter man... just because you can't afford one doesn't mean it's a steaming pile of poop. Have you ever driven anything exotic? Your idea of a perfect sports car is of the strictest since of the term; you think it means that priority needs to be put on making the car as light as possible with as much HP and Torque available as possible. The Evo and the STi fall into this category somewhat well. Are they refined? Are they quite at speed? Are they nice? Are they exclusive? No... STi's are rattle traps, accoding to the dealer that is normal, they are also loud at speed and you hear ever sound like you would in a race car, the doors seals leak water, the paint sucks, the suspension is lazy but yet still bumpy and not supple on city streets; but... the car will haul the mail, it's fast and quick at the sake of refinement. If all your concerned with is strictly performance then they are perfect for you. I went through that faze.. it was fun. But then I would go for a ride in an exotic car and they had the best of both worlds. Great performace, along with comfort, refinement, quiteness. It was nice... not so harsh an environment to be in.

If you ever get the chance, drive a Modena or a 430. It's an absolutely mind blowing experience. And not just because it's a Ferrari. They are the best of both worlds. They have stock, with no mods, what a maxed out tuner car can only hope to have as far as performance. Yet, they feel very well made; they're solid, they're quite at speed, and the suspension setup is almost too good to be true. You can drive one around on crappy bumpy roads and it eats up the roughness like a Cadilac, but yet has no body roll, and perfect dampening at high speeds too. It's just a higher quality product that also happens to have a gorgeous form..and sound! Granted, it's out of the cost range of a lot of people, but that doesn't mean that they're useless. It just sucks for the true auto enthusiast that would truely enjoy it. Instead, like happens often unfortunetly, some guy buys one just because of what it is, and has no idea what it was designed and or capable of doing. Hence why you always see older 55+ men putting around in Z06's and Porsches.

My neighbor's dad bought a Z06 and brought it over, he went inside and I was talking to my neighbor about what a shame it is that the car would never even get to stretch it's legs and that it was destined to live it's life at 85 mph with the ever so occasional run up to maybe 120mph. We went inside and I asked his dad, "Tom, what's the fastest you've gotten that thing up to?" ... " I got'er up to around 120 before I let off, but she was going strong" I just looked at my neighbor and said "See what I mean?" he laughed...

Does the new mustang sill have a solid rear axle?

I know that the Cobras had independant rear suspension, far back as '99, maybe further, (not sure when they started the newer body cobra...) but not the GT. Not sure about the new ones, but it would make sense...

I think you missed the part where AtomicLabMonkey designed race cars.

To him anything more than this:

http://www.motorauthority.com/wp-con.../l_P__0941.jpg

Is just unnecessary weight. And he's got a point. Sure that Ferrari "with no mods, [has] what a maxed out tuner car can only hope to have as far as performance". But so what? If you're coming even close to that car's ability on the street, you're an idiot that doesn't deserve a car like that. If you're taking it to the track, you're still slower than real race cars.

So, like ALM says, supercars like the GT-R are in fact overkill and useless vehicles. They are the exact same thing as a Hummer on 24" wheels. They are simply show-off cars. No doubt they're nice... I'd love to own a Ferrari, but I can go just as fast at the race track in a purpose built racer, and drive around in a new Lexus that's nicer, all for 1/10th the cost of a Modena. The Ferrari, the GTR, even the Z06... they're all excessive. Not steaming piles... but definitely wastes of money, unless you've got truckloads of disposable income (or an idiot that wants to look like they do).

Which one is JC? :P

Personally, I like the idea of buying a car that comes ready to hit the track. It's under warranty if anything goes wrong and you never have a problem getting up to speed on an on-ramp. :) If it has AWD to boot, it makes it even more functional.

Also, when you drive your daily driver at the track/autoX, it makes you a more capable driver on the street. It shows you the limits of the very car you may have to handle in an emergency tomorrow due to soccer moms trying to kill you on the freeway.

Does a warranty get voided if you break your car at the track? If they find out that is.

Subaru apparently voids warranties for "abuse". They can compare your 5 speed to a picture of an "abused" 5 speed and void your warranty based on what they believe. They also take tire wear into consideration to determine if you abused the car or not. These are the kind of things you should research before you buy a car. Is your local Nissan dealer mod/race-friendly or are they always looking for a way out of fixing cars under warranty like some Subaru dealers.

Haha, to me it's just a hobby. There are people with tens of thousands of dollars of baseball cards, stamps, coins, home theater, clothes, whatever. It's the same thing to me. I could really give a damn what other people think of it. It'll probably just sit in my garage 98% of the time anyway and only come out for weekend jaunts or shows/promotions. Not every purchase has to be logical.

No doubt. But you recognize the car for what it is... a toy. There's no real usefulness that car provides that's not covered by having a Toyota Camry and a Spec Miata.

Form...function...yah, it's in there.

Unless you count picking up women or impressing ricers as usefulness. Is a Babe Ruth card more useful than a Joe Baseball Player one? It's all just relative value to the owner. The GTR definitely has a more artful feel to it than either a Camry or Miata. It's a car you can stare at and enjoy, something you can't do with your two car scenario. I used to park my RS outside my office window at school and every once in a while I'd glance down at it and be taken back even after 7 years of ownership. There is something to be said for the emotional satisfaction of ownership that a car like a GTR can provide that no DD/Race Car combo can.

What's the "real usefulness" of aesthetics? I'm not disagreeing that there's something to be said for "nice things"... but I'm also not willing to agree that the GTR is "better" than less pleasing-to-the-senses ways of getting the same job done. It's only "better" if you subscribe to the belief that looks are functionally important.

Like I said, I would totally love a supercar... but I could only justify it if I had the cash just lying around.

The point is that for the average person a car is a tool to "get the job done." It's not a sound purchase for them. But for someone who is an enthusiast it can be more. Performance figures alone don't make a supercar. It's the emotion that it evokes when you drive it or even see it. You aren't paying for the performance, you are paying for the experience.

I think we're on the same page here.

My point is simply, don't claim a supercar is "better" in some tangible way than any other car. Recognize that you're paying an assload more money for aesthetics and for "the experience". I'm not denying that those are valid reasons for some people (aka "enthusiasts").

What I am saying is that enthusiasts look silly trying to talk up a supercar based on fit and finish and performance since you can get everything a supercar can do for far cheaper if you don't have some need to be a baller or an emotional attachment to owning beautiful cars. From a purely utilitarian stand point, a supercar is never the "right tool for the job", unless the job is "look pretty, go fast, and cost a shit-ton of money".

I agree but I'd also like to point out that a GTR is "only" $70k. That's something that is affordable for a reasonable number for Americans. It's not like a Ferrari that's $250k and has retardly high maintainence costs to boot. A GTR is reasonable to be used as an everyday car whereas your typical supercar isn't. So a GTR is more like "look pretty, go fast, and cost a lot of money." I don't think it's an obscene amount of money for a car, unlike a Ferrari or Lambo.

The GTR is barely a supercar, at least in terms of price. It's actually quite the deal... considering price-wise it's in Z06 land, but performance-wise it's in 911 Turbo land.

I'd buy a GTR long before buying a Vette, way long before buying a newer Ferrari, but it's a tough decision between $80k for a new GTR, or $65k for a used 911 turbo. I think the Porsche is still the better track car.

It's Nissan's halo car, but I agree it's not really a supercar. I'd buy the GTR over a used 911 I think. But the 911 is just so sexy plus you can get it with a true manual. Hmm. haha I think you should sell the "wrx" for a 911.

If I could get that much for my car, I probably would. But my WRX is actually faster than a 911 turbo around a race track... so while it's a step forward in "nice", it's a step backwards in "go".

Racecar and nice (in the typical manner) don't really fit together.

It's about using the right tool for the job.

I had this argument on NASIOC w/ someone (actually from Reno) about their $40,000 Jeep SRT-8. For $40,000 you could have a diesel truck that can tow/haul more than the Jeep, plus a Miata that's faster at the track, plus a Mustang that's faster at the strip, plus a Honda Civic that gets twice the fuel mileage... sure you'd have 4 cars, but you're spending less money and getting more performance than the Jeep in all quantifiable performance categories.

Argument on Nasioc? Odd.

You forget that a world exists outside of the US; countries where there are highways with no speedlimits, "public" roads where a Ferrari or a Porsche will spend more time at it's top speed than it ever will on a track. A world where the pavement isn't perfectly smooth like most track surfaces. Countries where you can pay 20 bucks and you can go out on a closed circuit for a quickie (Nordschleife). I don't know what tracks you frequent but I'd lay money that you only max out your "track" cars cornering performance and brakes and not it's speed performance, unless you visit Daytona often. So by your rationale, sports cars are only ment for the track and they are pointless for everyday driving; just bling for the sake of bling. So why don't you guys just drive karts? They're the epitome of a track only car and will leave any Sti miles behind on the track for a lot less money.
I for one buy certain cars for more reasons than just logic and practicality; I have to have an emotional attachment too or I'm just bored with it. I enjoy driving, if I did not, then I'd own a white box with four wheels and that would be that.
I enjoy fast cars on the street; and I think it's because of the time I spent overseas. I've had more fun driving sports cars through swiss mounatin passes (Grimselpass) and German highways and through some phenomenal Southern France gorges, than I've ever had at a track. But... for the most part (outside of England) the Europeans see driving in a whole different light than most Americans. In Italy some guy flying down a scarily skinny street in a Ferrari gets waves and cheers, here you would get the finger and a call into the Highway Patrol. We see it as careless and reckless, they see it as someone enjoying what it was built for. But then again, 95% of the drivers in this country can't even drive our obnoxiously slow highway speed limit safely. And we hand out drivers licenses like Pez. Ask a German how much they have to spend to get a drivers license.

Ever ask yourself why the Italians make so many performance oriented cars? Because that's their culture, they love racing, they love driving fast, and they do it on public roads and always have. Before they had tracks they would race on the public streets. So their cars are meant for that purpose not just the track. Why do the German cars handle so well at high speeds? Because they drive on the Autobahn where the avg. speed in the middle lane is 120mph (in the no limit areas). So those cars do get utilized to their potential; just not here because we're a bunch of tight-wads.

Big, heavy & (relatively) slow. Sounds like a Furd to me.

:lol: My bitter cynicism extends to life in general too, not just the auto industry. You should also realize that pretty much anything I say on this board is strictly my own opinion, which is worth just as much as yours. I personally appreciate innovation and optimization in all aspects of vehicle performance. And by innovation I don't mean finding how many heated leather bluetooth-enabled radar-equipped heat-seeking cupholders you can squeeze into a given interior, and then charge eleventy-billion thousand more dollars for the "added value".

My status as a lowly engineering monkey doesn't afford me the opportunity to drive vehicles that carry prancing horse badges on the street. The closest I've come is driving real racecars on closed courses.

Yes. It's the best solid axle design the car has ever been equipped with, but still a solid axle. Ford built a couple of IRS prototypes they were thinking about putting in the current Cobra/Shelby/whateverthefucks, but shitcanned that idea due to their genius executives who micromanage the details of every car that rolls off the factory floor.

I also heard some guy at some aftermarket company designed a sweet scratch-built IRS prototype for the 05+ Mustangs a couple of years ago, but the company decided to drag its feet on the project and it still isn't available for sale.

I guess I'm missing the point where you're showing me how a Ferrari is better than a Camry for getting from point A to B. Even on the Autobahn, you're not using the potential of the Ferrari... the difference between topping out at 140mph vs. 180mph isn't all that much in terms of average speed, i.e. the Ferrari is not going to reduce your overall trip time by much. Additionally, the Camry is probably much safer, even at autobahn speeds. So, with the exception of much nicer aesthetics, what's better about a Ferrari?

And as far as the race track goes... a Ferrari isn't any faster than any other modded car of similar power/weight ratio that can be had for 1/3 the price. So again, I'm not seeing how it's any "better" outside of being "nicer".


You're right about sports cars, from a utilitarian standpoint, they are less useful than most cars except when your goal is to go quickly at the track. But there's a reason not to drive a kart, namely crashing one at 150mph is a whole lot less fun than crashing a race car with a roll cage at 150. And I'm not so sure a kart is faster than "any STi"... especially at a track like RFR where it's so bumpy, they'd have to slow down just to keep some semblance of traction. Remember, I'm talking about using the right tool for the job. Karts are great for karting tracks.

I'm right there with you, but I'm not going to argue that a supercar is quantifiably "better" than any other car that's just as capable because it's more expensive. Sure people pay for aesthetics, and sure it's not a big deal, but it should be about personal preference alone. From a utility standpoint, any dollar spent on "nice" is a wasted dollar.

I remember.

Again, none of this explains why a well built supercar is better than something like a Saab 9000 with some work done to it. The Saab's going to be way cheaper, probably more reliable, just as quick from point A to B on average, and just as fun in the twisties. The only thing it's missing is the prestige and bling factor of owning a $250,000 Ferrari. I understand the attraction to a top of the line Italian sports car, but I also understand that if you have a goal like hauling ass around a race track, that Ferrari is *not* the efficient way of doing it. Cars like the 575, the Veyron, and to a lesser extent the GTR, are excessive and pointless, unless your point is to show off.

Ya well despite what any of you say, I bet if I get a GTR anyone in this thread would jump at the chance to drive it.

No shit.;)

Of course. But you'd have a hard time getting volunteers to take over lease payments.

Even if you just get a Vespa scooter I'd jump at the chance to drive it. Maybe it's just the time I spent in Europe, but those things r rad.

I'm not knocking the car. I'm knocking the idea that it's worth the price just from a purely utilitarian standpoint.

If I could afford a(nother) $80,000 car, I'd buy one.