• Image Credit: CarPix
  • Image Credit: CarPix
  • Image Credit: CarPix
  • Image Credit: CarPix
  • Image Credit: CarPix
  • Image Credit: CarPix
  • Image Credit: CarPix
  • Image Credit: CarPix
We've got some great new images of the Nissan GT-R Nismo circling everyone's favorite testing ground/racetrack, the Nürburgring. The GT-R seen here is camouflaged rather extensively to hide body details, but we can draw a few things from the eight photos our spies have been able to capture.

The front bumper has been tweaked for better airflow to the engine, while the rear bumper has also been revised. The six-spoke, forged RAYS wheels from the GT-R Track are probable production items, while the twin oval exhausts are either aesthetic or part of a new, freer-flowing exhaust system. All of that is kind of overshadowed by the GT-R Nismo's huge wing, though. That big appendage should help keep the Nissan glued to the ground at the seriously high speeds its tweaked engine can propel it to.

Under the hood sits a twin-turbocharged V6, and while we suspect the displacement is probably identical to the standard GT-R, at 3.8 liters, the power output will be elevated. Our contacts suggest the standard car's 545 horsepower is more likely to turn into around 600 ponies. There are no signs, however, that this is a hybrid. As has been the case, rumors continue to swirl that the GT-R Nismo will get to 62 miles per hour in just two seconds.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 115 Comments
      Car enthusiast
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is in response to Streetking First off, for the amount of time that the "GTR" has been in America, it has gained major popularity with people who do not even know the HISTORY of the vehicle. This car is the equivalent to Japan to what the Corvette is to America. It has already proven itself against the likes of Porsche and other top engineered sports cars. The 911 and the Vette have been in the US for 60 years. Of course they are going to be more popular. Hats off to the "GTR" team.
        Scooter
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Car enthusiast
        GTR trim or not, the base car Skyline was always in America, it was simply rebadged as the Infiniti G sedan.
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Scooter
          [blocked]
          Car enthusiast
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Scooter
          Yeah and everybody knows this.
      CadiVetteFerrari
      • 1 Year Ago
      I didn't take out my fancy 0-60 calculator like the rest of you, but all I can say is the top-tier Veyron can't do 2.0 seconds from north to 60 on street tires and this argument is similar to top speed. It takes more force to propel a car from 220-230 MPH than from 120-130 MPH. To move the needle from 4.0 to 3.0 seconds is hard enough. To move it now to 2.0 seconds with a modest increase in horsepower (545 to 600) makes zero sense, even with suspension tuning, shorter gears, racing slicks, or anything else you want to throw into the mix. I haven't looked at the mathematics of it like some of you but use some common sense.
        Joel Francisco
        • 1 Year Ago
        @CadiVetteFerrari
        Is says 2 seconds... that's anywhere from 2.0-2.9 keep that in mind
          Sickness
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joel Francisco
          So it could be slower than the 2014 then? They are implying 2 seconds flat as has been repeated multiple times by this ridiculous source.
        ThinkAboutIt
        • 1 Year Ago
        @CadiVetteFerrari
        The only problem with your logic is that a car with 545hp weighing over 3800lbs is not supposed to be able to do the 0-60 sprint in under 3.0 seconds BUT the GTR does. What the hell does "north to 60" mean ?
          Sickness
          • 1 Year Ago
          @ThinkAboutIt
          Who says the GTR isn't supposed to be able to do 0-60 in under 3 seconds? Please tell me you aren't basing this off a 0-60 calculator...
          iviegatron
          • 1 Year Ago
          @ThinkAboutIt
          Haha...I think he meant "Not to 60" (Not equals zero).
      Mike Pulsifer
      • 1 Year Ago
      2 Seconds? At some point, the g-forces are going to start limiting the driver's ability to lower these 0-60/62 times any further.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Mike Pulsifer
        [blocked]
        jonnybimmer
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Mike Pulsifer
        Well, take this into consideration: Top Fuel dragsters hit 60mph in 0.3 seconds and 100mph in 0.8 seconds, pulling 4G's. Not to say that any driver could hop right in and manage this and that kind of acceleration in a street car (if it were theoretically possible) openly available to the public would create many deadly accidents. Just saying in terms of how much force a driver can stand, a G or two is still in the ok zone.
        jamcar00
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Mike Pulsifer
        0-62 in 2 seconds is about 1.4 g.
      ksrcm
      • 1 Year Ago
      Next stop: Nissan GT-R Nismo Black Stealth Turbo MPX . 0-60 time in "can't say, passed out". Just put a rocket engine on its rear end and be done with it already.
      bK
      • 1 Year Ago
      I'd pay $20 per launch on the passenger seat...
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
      ramairjer
      • 1 Year Ago
      It may be fat and ugly but it moves. Gotta hand it to Nissan.
      Street King
      • 1 Year Ago
      Spot the sales flop July 2013 Sales: Corvette - 671 Porsche 911 - 794 GTR - 129
        AnimeMecha
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Street King
        Where did you find the sales numbers? - would love to take a peek. I would guess the difference is probably in the number of base Carrera and Corvette models sold vs. say their Z06/Carrera 4S which are closer to the GTR in price - did your source break them down that far or was it just lumped together?
          lewazzinaroillus
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AnimeMecha
          you can easily go to "www.gtrlife.com",..and see the gtr's sales numbers per month,[basically,..100 a month nationwide]..and "google" sales numbers for the Porsche 911,..and corvette,...and?,..guess what?,..the folks on here basically sayin' the gtr is a sales flop,..ARE RIGHT?!,..it sells a little over 1000 a year in the u.s,..versus almost 10,000 911's,..and well over 16,000 vettes,..so?,..the gtr HASN'T been the success Nissan hoped it would be?,..it's still an incredible car,..and accomplishment for Nissan,..the problem for this car, has ALWAYS been!,..and continues to be?,.."what if they built a supercar,..and nobody came"?,...the young ones who LOVE the gtr,..basically can't afford it,..and us "seasoned folks",..basically aren't buying it,..who have the money for it?,..various reasons?,.."too automated",.."too robotic",.."it's a 100,000 dollar Nissan",..it's a car that drives itself",.."tranny-issues in the first models",.."it's ugly",.."it's a Nissan",..this and that,..ALL add up to something of a sales flop!,..no way around the math!,..Porsche sells 10,000 911's a year now!,..and it's a weaker, slower,...basically just as "automated" a car as the gtr nowadays,..and just as expensive,..yet!,..the folks with the bucks!,..are buying it in droves,.OVER the gtr!,..I know gtr fan-boys don't like to hear the math,.but thems the facts,..not ta say the gtr ain't awesome,.cause it is!,.BUT!,..as stated,..it IS something of a sales dud,..sorry to say..
        bK
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Street King
        Do they even compete in the same level? Maybe the GT3, not the carerra which everyone has...
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Street King
        [blocked]
          lewazzinaroillus
          • 1 Year Ago
          THIS is the aurgument the gtr lovers use,..to justify the very dismal sales numbers, of the gtr....fact is,..they pitched the gtr DIRECTLY at porsches 911,...they were hoping to sell,..i read somewhere's in the neighborhood, of 20,000 gtr's worldwide? upon introduction,..and steal massive amounts of Porsche trophy" buyers away from Porsche,..didn't pan out so well for Nissan,..the economic meltdown didn't help matters much,..but,..the thing that really hurt Nissan,.is,..the initial "tranny-melt down" issues in the early editions of the gtr?,..the fact that a majority of wealthy car buyers just hate the thing,..consider it ugly,..over-built computer nannied video game car,...it's a 100k "Nissan",..[yes,..unfortunately for Nissan,..folks ARE "badge snobs" at that price point!]...Nissan has since ratcheded down it's sales production,..but,...that's ONLY 'cause they realized they had a pretty massive sales flop on their hands,..[after all?,..WHAT car company WOULDN'T produce MORE cars?,..if they had the buyers?,..which this car clearly didn't?]...the amazing thing to me?,.is that the gtr is EVEN still being produced?,..i actually give kudos to Nissan,..for still making the thing,..when it is clearly a "loss-leader' for them!,..THAT'S the amazing thing about the gtr!,..any OTHER car company,..probably would have killed the thing off,..a log time ago!,..give em credit for STILL makin' the thing!..
        jtav2002
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Street King
        They certainly sell less. There's also a lot more variations of those other cars, especially the 911. I'd also think the GTR is much more of a niche car and reaches a lesser demographic. How many old people do you see driving GTR's instead of Corvette's?
          Street King
          • 1 Year Ago
          @jtav2002
          So the Corvette and 911 aren't niche cars? I notice 2002 in your name - That's the year you were born, am right?
          • 1 Year Ago
          @jtav2002
          [blocked]
          bK
          • 1 Year Ago
          @jtav2002
          True, 911 carerra 4S are very common in my area that it doesnt look special anymore..
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Street King
        [blocked]
        graphikzking
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Street King
        Sales are terrible but performance is still the best. I'd personally own a 911 Turbo, Then a Corvette Z06 or ZR1 THEN choose a GTR. I think Corvette and Porsche sales are high because they have 50+ years of heritage. People with money to buy them grew up LOVING those cars, aspiring to own a 'Vette or a 911. They also have convertible and hard top versions. Porsche has awd, turbo, non turbo etc. Both cars also start about 30% less than the GTR does. (Crazy to think the GTR was a bargain but now is the most expensive base car by A LOT).
          lewazzinaroillus
          • 1 Year Ago
          @graphikzking
          actually,..now,..the base 911 Carrera's ARE nudging up into 100k territory now,...and they are slower,...just not nearly as fast,..as any gtr,..BUT,..you're onto the real reasons why the gtr DOESN'T sell well?,..it's because,..basically,..the folks, that, YES!,..really can afford the car,..HATE IT!!!,..did you know?,.that Ferrari sells MORE 300,000 dollar cars a year?, in the u.s.?,..then Nissan sells gtr's?...that's gotta hurt?,..when the gtr is actually FASTER than almost any Ferrari,..and at a much cheaper price?,...fact is,..wealthy folks just haven't taken a liking to the gtr,..and likely,..never will?,..IT'S STILL AN AWESOME CAR?,.just something of a sales dud is all...
        Mbukukanyau
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Street King
        For Corvette and 911, I would like to see Variant breakdowns.
          lewazzinaroillus
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Mbukukanyau
          Porsche sells about as many turbos,..[a little over 1000 a year nationwide?] as Nissan sells gtr's,..the thing that hurts the gtr,..IS the fact,.that regular 911's,..are noew pushing 100k,..the price of the gtr,..and EASILY outsell it,..by a 10 to 1 margin now,...the 911 is slower,..less computerized,..just NOT the techno-wunder car that the gtr is,..but!,..wealthy car buyers would RATHER have it?,..by a HUGE margin,..over the gtr,..THAT'S what gotta hurt?,..when you have a "better' performance car,..basically,..at the same price point?,..AND folks STILL?,..by a whopping margin?,..prefer the "weaker" car?,..they sell almost 800 911's a month in the u.s.,..versus a little over 100 gtr's,..so,..the numbers DON'T lie!
      AcidTonic
      • 1 Year Ago
      If it makes more horsepower per liter than your engine, call it high strung. If it handles better than your car, just tell people you can beat it in a drag race. If it goes slow in a straight line, just tell people your car handles better. If it drag races and corners better, call it ugly. If it drag races and corners better while looking better, call it too expensive. If it does all that while being better than cars which are more expensive, just tell people the car is boring to drive. All the ugly/boring to drive comments confirm that people in fact are quite impressed and have nothing else to say besides how much they want one. Haters always gotta hate.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AcidTonic
        [blocked]
      BipDBo
      • 1 Year Ago
      0-62 in 2.0 seconds: No. Not on DOT rubber, at least. Will not happen. Might be possible on warm drag slicks, but even with AWD and electronic nannies galore, still unlikely with neighborhood of 600 hp and 3800 lbs. Mathematically speaking, with a 150# driver, to get to 62 mph in 2.0 seconds, the average power over those 2 seconds, at the wheel would need to be 462 hp, with no slip, no time loss for shifting. This is average power over the power curve, delivered at the wheels, not peak power at the crankshaft. This is a perfect run with perfect grip. The limit to this mathematical model is the torque that can be applied between the rubber and the road. To demonstrate, assuming a "constant power" mathematical model where wheel power is a constant 462 hp form 0-62, at startup, with 0 mph speed, to deliver 462 hp wheel torque would need to be infinite, which is obviously impossible. Therefore, the power delivered between 1.0-2.0 seconds of acceleration must be much greater than the power delivered during the first second. A "constant acceleration" model would be closer to reality. 0-62 in 2.0 is 13.855 m/s/s (or 1.41 g). Like I said, warm drag slicks. With the constant acceleration model, the force between rubber and road is also constant and power at the wheels is linear, rising proportionately with both time and velocity. IN this model, by the time the car hits 62 mph, the power delivered at the wheels would need to be 924 hp. Realistically, the perfect run for a car is somewhere between the constant acceleration and constant power model. Since the limit, however is the static friction coefficient between rubber and road, it would need to deliver closer to the constant acceleration model. 600hp at the crank, however, is a far cry from 924 hp at the wheels. Without a significant, Hennessey level gain in power, well above 600, and/or an equally dramatic loss in mass, we can therefore claim this 2.0 second rumor physically and mathematically debunked.
        AcidTonic
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BipDBo
        How did Group N cars accelerate from 0-60mph in 2.0 seconds on GRAVEL then? Well known and recorded. No lying there. Audi's Quattro race car back in the 80/90's was verified to do 0-62mph in 2.0 seconds on gravel.
          action3500
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          I think you mean Group B cars, which were very light and had around 800-1000HP turbo-charged engines. Horse power figures were never confirmed for those cars.
          BipDBo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          1000+ hp sounds more like it, much more than 600. They also weighed a lot less than 3800 lbs. Even with such higher power to weight ratio, the claim of doing it on gravel still sounds unbelievable. 1.41g is a pretty hefty friction coefficient to expect between rubber and gravel. Perhaps sand and paddle tires? Reference your claim and you make a believer of me.
          BipDBo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          @action3000 The car weighed 1962 lb, about half the weight of the GT-R. It had 580hp, but was once boosted to 1,000 hp which was probably the time this claim was reached. 0-60 in 2.0 on gravel is still hard to believe even with this power to weight ratio. I say this simply because gravel doesn't grip to well, regardless of available power. Wikipedia claim of 2.0 seconds may not be factual. Quick google search shows many other sources with similar same claim, but at 2.3 seconds. http://rallylegendreplicas.com/Lancia_Delta_S4.html http://www.chromjuwelen.com/de/network/320-hooniversecom/157847-for-sale-1986-lancia-delta-s4-group-b-rally-car.html http://www.livingstonautoparts.co.uk/default.aspx?page=UD!LANCIADELTA
          k_m94
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          Well, they weighed almost half as much as a GTR, produced roughly the same if not more power, and their gearing was so short they'd top out at like 110 or so. Also, gravel would be a horrible surface to try and put power down, because even if your tires were covered in spikes or freaking scoops, you'd spend too much of your torque simply flinging such an unsmooth, loose "surface" out behind the car. Come to think of it, how accurate do you think GPS based data loggers were back in the 80s? Obviously anything based on wheelspeed would not really count if all 4 were unlikely to have too much traction.
          action3500
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          The Lancia Delta S4 is a Group B rally car that competed in the World Rally Championship in 1985 and 1986, until Group B cars were banned from competition by the FIA. The car replaced and was an evolution of the Lancia 037. The S4 took full advantage of the Group B regulations, and featured a midship-mounted engine and all-wheel drive for superior traction on loose surfaces. The twincharged engine was capable of propelling the S4 from 0–100 km/h in 2.0 on gravel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancia_Delta_S4 It is hard to find actual "hard" references, since group B did not exist for that long and cars competing in that category were beyond fast to take any meaningful measurements at the time.
          AcidTonic
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          Yes meant B not N.... Hell even the new dodge dart rally car was bragging about 2.0 seconds to 60 as well.. Can't remember if it was gravel or not.
          BipDBo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          Tom, I'm jealous. Very few people can say that. The RS200 was legendary, one of the best cars of automotive history. Today, though, it wouldn't stand out so much. It held the 0-62 Guinness world record for 12 years. The time was 3.07 seconds.
        prettypnoyboi69
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BipDBo
        Hey BipDBo, what if I told you that we live in the real world where theoretical calculations may not be representative of real world results? Way to oversimplify buddy.
          BipDBo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @prettypnoyboi69
          I'm not talking about theoretical calculators. I'm taking about real physics, which yes, does exist in this real world. It is an oversimplification, yes, but any real world factors would only act as inefficiencies to reduce real world performance, not increase it.
        BipDBo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BipDBo
        Keep in mind that I'm not saying it's impossible. It is possible but it would need: * Warm drag slicks (not DOT tires) AND... * A lot more power and/or a lot less mass
      bouljf
      • 1 Year Ago
      A Nissan GT-R with 600 hp and a 2 second 0-60 would be mighty impressive but I’d rather see a “baby” model with the original 485 hp and most importantly the original $70K price tag. That car was plenty fast and still priced low enough to make it a spectacular bargain against a 911 Carrera.
        ThinkAboutIt
        • 1 Year Ago
        @bouljf
        The current base GTR is still a bargin over the new 911,($90,690.00us). EVERYTHING is a option on the 911 and the performance is no where near the GTR.
      Victor Hoyles
      • 1 Year Ago
      Why is it that I have no emotions for this car or the Corvette? Neither do anything for me. I respect the speed, but that's it.
        Rayvan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Victor Hoyles
        I don\'t know, because you\'re a eurosnob?
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Victor Hoyles
        [blocked]
          Victor Hoyles
          • 1 Year Ago
          I have not driven the C7 or GT-R. I have driven C6's and C5's however. There has to be more to a car than just speed and, unfortunately for me, neither of these cars offer any emotion. The Vette is ugly on the inside and lacks any forward thinking in terms of technology. The GT-R offers more tech but is butt ugly on the outside and does not say 'exotic' to match it's performance. Oh well!
    • Load More Comments