Quote, originally posted by patrickvr6 »

I'm just happy that the GT2 put down the GT-R, C&D mentioned that this is the slowest GT-R to 60mph they have tested, it is becoming obvious that the pre-production cars Nissan allowed to be tested were ringers.

Good gawd...

Quote, originally posted by SickWrathTerror »

The Viper is such a beast. Everything else looks like a wuss car in comparison. Long live the Viper.

x 1,000

Indeed. I knew the 3.3 0-60 times and 11.5@124 quaters were crock buts its even better to see other cars spanking the GTR around a track!

Wow ...Do you write for C&D.

good point. this should be considered before everyone starts pointing fingers again.

The folks who think the first round of GT-Rs were ringers are the same people who go home and stroke their Porsche coffee table books at night, rock back and forth, tremble and, between whimpers, whisper assurances to their little slice of Stuttgart that it'll be alright... it'll be alright... don't cry...

As much as a GT3 RS is. It's like a NISMO 350z or a S2000 CR. It's edgier, but it's not like the Viper Competition Coupe. Those were so hardcore that they didn't even have VIN numbers.

Modified by PassSedanGLX at 10:13 PM 6-23-2008

Do you guys want to drive this thing everyday to work?

I don't need to stroke the books, I can just grab the keys, and when that air-cooled flat 6 comes to life I know that no Nissan will ever compare.

Truth? I wouldn't drive any of those everyday, but the days I'd drive it would be special!

Modified by NoMoreHonduh at 3:09 PM 6-23-2008

Modified by NoMoreHonduh at 3:10 PM 6-23-2008

Yes, apparently it is beyond you

Quote »

Then again, we all know C&D's motivations ($$$) and "gotta have it factor" "rear seat room" (in a contest where only one car has rear seats...is it really necessary?) cushion points for whoever pays them the most.

Do you have any evidence of this payoff that "we all know about"?

Did you stop to think that perhaps the GT-R deserves some points for also being more practical than the others?

Come on, the article is titled "Extremists" and two of the cars chosen (ACR, GT2) are not even meant to be practical in the first place, why ding them for doing what they were built to do? I am a huge Skyline R32-R34 fan, and was hyped about the R35 and still respect what it can do, but blind OMGZZZZZ R35 pwns all fanboys like yourself make me sick. The car was outperformed in pretty much every performance category, it should NOT have won first. Maybe if this was a "best everyday supercar contest" but this was not one.


Modified by NoMoreHonduh at 3:27 PM 6-23-2008

The ACR is a race car that happens to be street legal, and while I'm certainly not against that, it's just something to keep in mind to while looking at those lap times to keep them in context.

Things like that make my inner-Corvette fanboy wish that Chevy hadn't compromised on its tires so much, rather than just putting on some of the best rubber they could. Not saying that it would suddenly "decimate all", but it sure wouldn't hurt.

Xbox Live Gamertag: nickthaskater

Oh yeah, this outta be good!

(Feels like a set up!)

You are welcome to subtract the 5 points for the back seat, it won't change the results

And you are taking the title way too literally, if it was really about extreme cars, the only one that would qualify IMO is the Viper.
You want extreme, I'll take you out in my Caterham, it makes all those cars seem like luxury barges.

Quote »

The car was outperformed in pretty much every performance category, it should NOT have won first.

Maybe someday you will realize that when it comes to road cars, being the fastest does not always equal being the best.

Quote »

I am a huge Skyline R32-R34 fan, and was hyped about the R35 and still respect what it can do, but blind OMGZZZZZ R35 pwns all fanboys like yourself make me sick.

Fanboy like myself? Hardly, I suggest you look at some of my other posts regarding the GT-R, I find the GT-R a nice car but boring regardless of how fast it is. And yes, I have driven it.

Modified by MoPho at 3:44 PM 6-23-2008

Nose heaviest by far...
Longest in length...
Tallest in height...
Lengthiest by wheelbase...
Heaviest by 500lbs...
Slowest here 0-60mph...
Slowest 0-100mph by 2 full seconds...
Worst skid pad posted despite AWD...
Worst power to weight ratio...
Posted Next to last lap times...

Answer: DAH WINNAH!

Why bother getting uptight about yet another C+D comparision? I like the amount of tech data they offer, but the integrity falls to pieces with the lame-ass "gotta have it" nonsense.

Quote, originally posted by MoPho »

Fanboy like myself? Hardly, I suggest you look at some of my other posts regarding the GT-R, I find the GT-R a nice car but boring regardless of how fast it is. And yes, I have driven it.

I was gonna say -- MoPho and I disagree on many, many things, but the man is far from a GT-R fanboy.

Why? How much you lust after a car is probably the biggest factor in how we choose cars, otherwise we would all be driving the same car based on performance numbers

And again, you are welcome to subtract the points for "gotta have it"

Modified by MoPho at 4:11 PM 6-23-2008

My car buying experience can has soul?

To a point, yes. However, I can't imagine anyone basing their own personal purchase decision on that so-called metric. Do any other magazines use anything similar?

If you say so

Of course they do! Otherwise car manufacturers would make all their cars look the same. People lust after cars for different reasons

Quote »

Do any other magazines use anything similar?

Yes, maybe not in a "mathematical" way like C/D but there decisions are based on opinion and personal preference just the same.

Then maybe C+D should find a way to not make it look like a total cop-out.

It's arbitrary, sure, but it's their way of quantifying a completely subjective aspect of car buying and ownership. I don't always agree (to me, the Viper has 5,000x more "gotta have it" appeal than anything else in the test) but I can't fault them for at least trying.

Honestly, I think the motoring press has gotten so caught up in some idea of false objectivity that they've started endowing the cars with the emotion they're not allowed to demonstrate. I'm completely fine with reviewers having a preference or a bias as long as they just own it, and this is about as close as it gets in the mainstream mags.

lol just to let you know the car that Edmunds used to get the 3.3 0-60 was a production vehicle that was borrowed from one of the first owners in Japan. The one that R&T used to get the 3.2 0-60 was one of the first production left han drive models i believe.

I love the GT-R, but I think C&D is the most retarded mag out there. Just to be fair however, this GT-R was obviously experiencing some sort of problem, whether it be the temperature or some other issue, the numbers are way WAY off even to the other cars that C&D have already tested. This is why they make mention of it. IMO the finishing order is exactly where I would expect it to be, but I would have expected the GT-R to be alot faster. something was wrong.

"That's not a speed limiter..........just a Porsche factory driver at the wheel of the GT-R.".

Maybe you should stop trying to find reasons to crap on the magazine because their conclusions don't meet your "expert" opinion

And I am sure that not everyone in the group that tested it agreed on which has the most "gotta have it" appeal, that is why it is put to a vote and the numbers are averaged out (as is all the other numbers)