C&D tests GT-R, runs 11.5-second quarter
by Dan Roth on Mar 24th 2008 at 9:57AM 
Click above for a high-res gallery of the Nissan GT-R.
Scorching fast. That's the word from Car & Driver on a Nissan GT-R they were allowed to instrument up and abuse for a few hours. 11.5 in the quarter mile and a 3.3 second run to 60 mph are incredible numbers from any car, but this one only costs $70,000. That price tag would be preposterous for a Sentra, but it's a bargain for the ability to annihilate virtually anything short of a Hayabusa. There's been some debate about the three little words "engineering test mule," but scuttlebutt has it that the only thing Nissan was testing on the car were tires and suspension calibrations. From the report, it sounds like they got the ride dialed in, too - in comfort mode, you can reportedly thwack across expansion joints without bouncing your coiffe off the headliner. The biggest complaints? Weight (though apparently the car doesn't feel as ponderous from behind the wheel), and the interior design. The materials are said to be good, but haphazard is the order of the day for the dash layout. Oh darn, it won't come with the gorgeous cabin of a Ferrari 599 -- we suppose they need something to feel superior about as they watch the chunky arse of the GT-R rocket toward the horizon. A $70,000 supercar? We'll take it.
[Source: nagtroc.org]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Paul H. 10:09AM (3/24/2008)
I like the side view of the GT-R, the blacked out A pillar gives it a Koenigsegg look, almost. Still can't get over some of the other fussy details, though, especially in lighter colors.
Reply
Red 10:51AM (3/24/2008)
I thought the same thing, until I one day I was looking at the profile. If you look closely, you'll notice the rear kink in the C-pillar and the front fender vent line are parallel to one another. The A-pillar runs perpendicular (90 degree angle) to both the front fender vent line and C-pillar kink (if both lines were to continue on infinitely). The sloping roof line and the 3 dimensional crease at the bottom of the door are also parallel to one another. I'm not an automotive design major by any stretch of the word, but it looks fussy upon first glance. However, when you really take a look at it, it's actually put together with some thought. Function over form though, most certainly.
steve 10:09AM (3/24/2008)
damn that's faster than my motorcycle...too bad you can't actually buy these things without doubling msrp or whatever
Reply
Xcountryflyer 11:11AM (3/24/2008)
My thoughts exactly, but great car regardless.
Jerk Face 10:09AM (3/24/2008)
I actually saw one in person for the first time the other day and a little part of me died inside. So. Damned. Awesome.
Reply
Chris 10:14AM (3/24/2008)
and I used to think Vettes were awesome deals but this just stomps those. Amazing at any price
Reply
davido 10:22AM (3/24/2008)
I love the value/performance equation that this car and the Z06 have established; supercar performance at substantially less than six figure prices combined with real world usability.
This really is the golden age of the high performance car.
Reply
PAT 10:21AM (3/24/2008)
I am not a fan of the GT-R, but with these numbers, you have to give the respect it deserves, but I will hold final judgment for another year or so. I am curious to see how well Nissan built this thing, since this is their first attempt at a production car with this much technology and speed.
Reply
SenSpeed 12:00PM (3/24/2008)
What are you talking about? Nissan has been making GT-Rs for years!!!!
R 12:17PM (3/24/2008)
Yeah, sorry PAT, the GT-R line has been around since the 70's.
why not the LS2/LS7? 12:50PM (3/24/2008)
He does have a point. I don't recall the Skyline turning sub-4 0-60s or 11 seconds 1/4 mile times before. They haven't delivered this level of performance before.
RJ 11:21PM (3/24/2008)
"Nissan has been making GT-Rs for years!!!! "
What did those GT-Rs have ANYTHING to do with this new one? 4 wheels? steering wheel?
This car is built on a completely new platform, with completely different powertrain components. Hell, they don't even share the "Skyline" name anymore.
So, just because Chevy has been building a car called the Camaro for 30+ years, you think this new one will be flawless in terms of reliability?
Trent 11:35AM (3/24/2008)
man I can't wait for the r35 vs ZR-1 comparo... Going to be awesome....
Reply
m 10:30AM (3/24/2008)
Virtually nothing but a Hayabusa has better times? There are plenty of other bikes that will still burn the GT-R on acceleration. Of course as soon as you want to turn the downforce available in the car is going to be quite handy.
Reply
Mike 10:42AM (3/24/2008)
Any capable rider would easily out corner this car with any current sport bike of 1000cc or less. They're just all about 10 seconds in the quarter too.
Geoff 12:14PM (3/24/2008)
@Mike... um no.
Car cornering speed > Bike cornering speed
A bike could be faster around the track, but its going to be due to its late braking ability and exit acceleration.
Franz 1:44PM (3/24/2008)
@ Mike:
You obviously haven't been on a motorcycle. There isn't a bike that can corner as well as a good street car. I own a GSX-R 600, and as quick as it is in a straight line, try to keep up with a good car in a turn and they'd be scraping my bits up off the street.
steve 2:27PM (3/24/2008)
no mike ,cars corner way faster
Seoultrain 4:17PM (3/24/2008)
Geoff, do bikes brake better than cars? I thought a bike's smaller contact patch made braking distances longer
m 4:52PM (3/24/2008)
It has nothing to do with contact patch. Cars can accelerate, brake, and turn harder because they have bodywork for downforce. Even without downforce, they can accelerate and brake harder because a bike has such a high CG and therefore a tendency to flip over. The only reason bikes out-accelerate most cars is because they have better power to weight. A car with the same power to weight should smoke them.
Contact patch isn't really an issue in braking, because most bikes have enough grip to flip over under braking on a good surface.