VIDEO: Nissan GT-R Gran Turismo-inspired video display in action
click above image to view video of the Nissan GT-R's display in action
Our friends from Fast Lane Daily had the opportunity to get intimate with Nissan's US-spec GT-R at the 2007 LA Auto Show, and although we've gone over every nugget of info about Godzilla's engine, transmission and all-wheel-drive system, we haven't had the chance to check out all of the techy goodness that awaits the driver and his awe-struck passengers.
As reported before, Mr. Yamauchi and his team of crack UI geeks at Polyphony Digital designed the computer system that keeps track of nearly every facet of the GT-R's performance and internal systems. Four user-customizable presents display twelve different parameters on the dash-mounted screen, including everything from acceleration, braking and lateral g's, to oil temperatures, boost levels, torque split, and throttle and brake position. The list goes on, but we'll let the FLD crew take it from here. Make the jump for the full video and you'll find an overview of GT-R's display screen about 2 minutes in.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
seoultrain 5:34PM (11/17/2007)
I hope you can record stats to view later, otherwise that acceleration g meter is kinda dangerous.
Reply
Bling Boy 5:52PM (11/17/2007)
That's big Pimpin but I'll be just as happy with my Z car...All of those gadgets are fine if you're on the race track but I don't see a practical use for them on city streets.
(but then again, there's nothing practical about a true sports car anyway..lol)
Oh BTW, this is the first time I've seen this car without that gotdamn license plate on the front bumper...Sweet!
Reply
paul34 10:58PM (11/17/2007)
Well, there's not much use for anything over 200 HP on the streets...
R 3:05PM (11/19/2007)
@paul34
Good point.
why not the LS2/LS7? 7:01PM (11/17/2007)
The display is nice. The "R" switches are still silly.
But look at the engine. I've seen SUVs where the engine sits lower. The top of the engine is higher than the bottom of the windshield!
Reply
Farris 9:25PM (11/17/2007)
The height of the engine actually makes sense when you think about it.
The body of the car is supposed be all "low slung," and the engine can only go so low. However, in an SUV, the engine almost has to be a lot lower to keep the transmission and driveshaft out of the passenger compartment.
naggs 11:41PM (11/17/2007)
what do you expect, its a dual cam v6 with nissans huge oilpans
you cant expect them to develope a dry sump for a $70k car, oh wait...
nissanfreak87 12:19AM (11/18/2007)
@Naggs, you would think Chevy could put a modern suspension on their $70K sports car too, it's just a matter of where you want your money.
why not the LS2/LS7? 12:40AM (11/18/2007)
No Farris, a Corvette is a lot more "low slung" than this car and the top of the engine on that car is below the bottom of the windshield and the top of the fenders!
The problem I would suspect is a huge DOHC motor above a ton of drivetrain. When you have a diff and axles down there, the engine has to get out of the way a bit. Subaru engines ride high too, although since they are horizontally opposed, it minimizes the hood rise.
nissanfreak87:
You are ridiculously ill-informed. The Vette has a very advanced suspension, it has a single transverse fiberglass leaf spring at each axle. This spring performs better and is lighter than coils. Corvettes all have the mounts for coils already, if coils were better, they'd come preinstalled.
ambientFLIER 1:11AM (11/18/2007)
If single transverse fiberglass leaf springs were the way to go, then every high performance car would have them. However, as far as I know, only the corvette has them. Also the corvette is said to be dangerous at the limit...hmm, what do you know? And naggs, you're a moron. Shut up.
why not the LS2/LS7? 1:51AM (11/18/2007)
Every car is dangerous at the limit. The Corvette isn't as dangerous at the limit as the 911's, which are notorious for going ass-first off the track. And the 911 doesn't have composite leaf springs.
Other cars have used composite leaf springs, I don't know why other performance cars don't use them. Perhaps they don't want to sport the cost for developing and making them? They are not easily adjustable, that's for sure.
I ask again, since the Corvette has hardpoints for coils, why is it you think the Corvette still ships with transverse leaf springs? Do you think it's because they're cheaper? They're not. If coils really worked better, don't you think GM would start strapping them on, saving money and increasing performance?
I don't care if this engine is wet sumped. If the lubrication system works, what's to complain about?
John R 8:20AM (11/18/2007)
Jesus God. Why must you two (ls2 and naggs) continuously troll the GT-R articles?
Give it a rest, you've made your "points".
why not the LS2/LS7? 11:59AM (11/18/2007)
I'm not trolling, I made valid points observed by watching the video in the article. The person who decided to call another car ancient technology deserves your wrath, not mine.
I sure wish I didn't have this user name. I used to change it every time I commented, but then one day Weblogs, Inc. decided to make them stick and this was the last one I used at that point.
naggs 6:41PM (11/18/2007)
traverse leafspring rear suspension is more expensive and better (lower weight, lower center of gravity, less sprung weight, more efficient spring) than coil springs.
please continue the ignorant flaming so i cant continue to shoot you down
R 3:12PM (11/19/2007)
Naggs has a point. As far as I know, the downside with leaf springs tends to be adjustability, and with racing/track, you want adjustability. But 1. most people don't track their car even when they have a track worthy car, and 2. probably only a portion of people that do track their car mess with their suspension, and the ones that do might swap the whole stock suspension out anyway.
Franz 9:29PM (11/17/2007)
Well, even if the engine placement is high, the weight distribution is near 50/50. And judging by the preliminary performance numbers, it pulls near 1g in corners so it all works according to plan I guess. That and the fact that it only costs $70 grand makes this the performance bargain of the century. Porsche 911 Turbo performance for about half the price? I know where my money would go.
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 12:46AM (11/18/2007)
50/50 is only relative to the axle placement. It doesn't mean the car doesn't have a ton of mass in the nose, it just means they pushed the front axle even farther forward to equalize the weight. Additionally, I don't know how you start talking about weight distribution (fore/back), CG height isn't related to forward/back weight distribution.
Pulling 1g in corners doesn't mean the car is at all nimble. Skidpad numbers are funny that way.
Chances are it significantly outperforms the 911 Turbo. A regular LS2-powered Corvette ($50K) noticeably outperforms the 911 Turbo. From what I've seen so far, this isn't the performance value of the century, even though it is a good value.
In a way, a lot of this just shows how much the 911 Turbo has slipped lately. Numbers-wise it just isn't measuring up, even to Porsche's other offerings. However, it does still deliver that rear-engine style of handling that the GTR (or any front-engine car) can't even approximate.
Nick 2:49AM (11/18/2007)
"A regular LS2-powered Corvette ($50K) noticeably outperforms the 911 Turbo."
It sure as hell doesn't, and this is coming from a die-hard Corvette aficionado. The Z06 is the only modern Corvette that can run stock-for-stock with a 997 Turbo, and even then it comes down to splitting hairs.
chris 5:11AM (11/18/2007)
Nick, the likes of naggs and this 'why not' guy have been using a single test and it's incredibly strange results to "prove" how slow the Turbo is and how fast the Z06 is for months now. There was something like 4 seconds or so between the Turbo and Z06 on some random track, a result that is quite simply insane when 99% of tests of the cars show how very close they are in performance.
why not the LS2/LS7? 12:15PM (11/18/2007)
You need to look at 911 Turbo performance over the years. The turbo used to greatly outperform the regular 911. Now, even by Porsche's own admittance, it doesn't.
Maybe it isn't a failing of the turbo, maybe it's because the regular 911 got so much better. But either way, it puts the 911 turbo in a strange spot. It still takes a ton more money to purchase (more than a GT3) but it doesn't perform commensurately better.
And it isn't just on this one track:
Car and Driver September 2006:
'Around our road course, [the Z06] was an easy victor, 1.7 seconds quicker than the Porsche on a near-76-second lap.'
The test you speak of (which I can't find right now) is significant because the regular Corvette beat the 911 Turbo, not just the Z06. Is this common? I dunno, but it's again an indication of how the 911 turbo's performance just isn't up in the "rare air" it used to be in.