|
Good choice John :cool:
Has that cat scratched your wing with it's claws :mad: |
No, she doesn't dig in with her claws, not seen any paint damage on any of the cars, just the odd paw mark.
|
I had a good walk around a black GTR outside the gym today ( v uncool I know ).
It is BIG and has a presence that photos just do not convey. Also looks as though it is exceeding the speed limit whilst parked up, all good points by the way. Tyres looked well scrubbed so it had obviously been used hard. Question to you John is how you are managing to enjoy it in anything but a "sucking a sweet with the wrapper still on" way without putting your license at extreme risk. Have to say I'm now even more impressed by your choice :thumb: |
I had three points in 2005 when I accelerated slightly to 87 in a 70 to make room for someone coming off a slip road where a police car was watching from, but other than that I've been driving some pretty fast cars for years without issue, only pulled once in a 406 V6 for "going around a corner too fast" and just told to take it easy ;) The GTR really does take the biscuit though, and the refinement/aerodynamics and power do not assist the license. Cruise control and common sense try to prevail.
|
John - trouble is you are up to the legal limit in probably a whisker over 4 seconds!!
|
More like 3 :D
|
willy waving is every blokes god given right
nice bunch of willy's btw |
John Banks - very nice car. Looks great in the Gunmetal colour.
Have you run it in yet? Any more updates on how it drives? |
Drives very nicely apart from in standing water on these Dunlops - in the rain it feels like an M3. Ride is a little firm, refinement acceptable, brakes and dry traction superb. Quite playful for a big car, feels more Evo than Scooby in terms of its rear bias.
Acceleration at a similar power to an Evo or Scooby seems at least as good despite the weight difference because of the torque, gearbox, aerodynamics. |
Originally Posted by john banks
(Post 8906594)
Drives very nicely apart from in standing water on these Dunlops - in the rain it feels like an M3. Ride is a little firm, refinement acceptable, brakes and dry traction superb. Quite playful for a big car, feels more Evo than Scooby in terms of its rear bias.
Acceleration at a similar power to an Evo or Scooby seems at least as good despite the weight difference because of the torque, gearbox, aerodynamics. |
What scoob rear bias are you comparing John? Your old UK turbo I assume? Rather than 65R 35F DCCD type.
|
Originally Posted by Cyberevo
(Post 8907616)
So more Nuteral rather than rear bias? Is it as boring as an EVO or actually fun to drive? I have heard mixed review, some people find it a little sterile and dare I say it, boring after the initial power pow factor.
|
98% goes to the rear, but it pushes up to 50% to the front under acceleration or slip.
I'm comparing to the most rearward UK STI (around 2005), Evo and GTR feel far more rear biased than this even though the Evo has 50/50 torque distribution (S-AYC has a huge effect in torque transfer across the rear axle). Yes it is a bit "dull" apart from in the wet. It bludgeons roads into submission and exerts huge g-forces in acceleration, braking, cornering. I like that. If you want something tactile and talkative it needs to weigh a lot less and have much less tyre. The steering is not as talkative as an Evo IX, but is accurate and quick. It doesn't feel its mass or size. But it isn't a Lotus either even if it is quicker in virtually any situation. |
awsome cars,but not seen one in the flesh yet
|
Originally Posted by GlesgaKiss
(Post 8908032)
I would say JB means that the Nissan is more rear biased. Scoobies tend to be really neutral cars to drive. You'd have difficulty drifting a standard one all the way through a corner for e.g., whereas an evo can be a bit more fun. Although going by your name I'm confused. Are you saying from experience you found an evo more neutral than a Scooby?
|
Originally Posted by john banks
(Post 8908945)
98% goes to the rear, but it pushes up to 50% to the front under acceleration or slip.
I'm comparing to the most rearward UK STI (around 2005), Evo and GTR feel far more rear biased than this even though the Evo has 50/50 torque distribution (S-AYC has a huge effect in torque transfer across the rear axle). Yes it is a bit "dull" apart from in the wet. It bludgeons roads into submission and exerts huge g-forces in acceleration, braking, cornering. I like that. If you want something tactile and talkative it needs to weigh a lot less and have much less tyre. The steering is not as talkative as an Evo IX, but is accurate and quick. It doesn't feel its mass or size. But it isn't a Lotus either even if it is quicker in virtually any situation. |
It does the fast thing better than expectation and combines it well with reasonable manners and looks. Having returned from a Passat TDI DSG holiday rental (DSG was an interesting comparison to the GTR), I think it will be a bit of a shock :D
|
Originally Posted by john banks
(Post 8911232)
Having returned from a Passat TDI DSG holiday rental (DSG was an interesting comparison to the GTR), I think it will be a bit of a shock :D
|
BTTT For Jaceyboy who seems to have been on another planet for the last 6 months. ;)
|
John, you did test drive a 997 turbo correct? How would you compare the two? Which feels more tactile, chuckable, gives more feedback etc?
Cheers |
I didn't actually drive the 997 turbo, just went in it as a passenger. I didn't see any from dealers nearby that I would have considered buying, but this used one I would have probably bought if it was more refined than the GTR. Other than that it more the lived up to expectation in ride quality (which was better than the GTR) and the acceleration was amusing (sports chrono, tiptronic, the spec I wanted). At the end of the day I would summarise:
Pros of 997 Turbo: Less servicing Controls it fluid temperatures better in very hard use Better ride comfort Lower tech gearbox with slower changes but with no worries about the gearbox fluid changes, reliability Pros of GTR: Lower purchase price More luggage space Better for tuning (more readily available tuning parts which are better priced and arguably more mature already) Faster around most tracks Main surprises since buying GTR: How much g-force it does in all directions in the dry (and how chuckable/tactile it is) and how bad it is in the wet in comparison. Just down to tyres, tempted to remove the Dunlops carefully, and replace with Pirelli non-RFT. Trouble is the second hand market for used Dunlops may be poor since Nissan don't recommend remounting them once removed, and it is £2k of tyres. |
"and how bad it is in the wet in comparison."
I wonder about your thought on the tires? Maybe new non-Run-flat tires will not sort the wet road handling? Wonder if the car is to big to slide around in the wet? And/or if the electronics are a bit too active acting before the driver does? Indeed I think it would be a very interesting comparison to bring together a preferred GT-R with right settings/tires and a nicely fettled Impreza (really of any vintage) for a comparison of wet road ability and /or driver skill necessary to keep them runnning straight and on the road--- far different stuff than the magazines tell you about. Although I did read with interest in Evo how the GT-R demolished the new Evora on its home development roads of Scotland in the wet. j |
Originally Posted by john banks
(Post 8923558)
I didn't actually drive the 997 turbo, just went in it as a passenger. I didn't see any from dealers nearby that I would have considered buying, but this used one I would have probably bought if it was more refined than the GTR. Other than that it more the lived up to expectation in ride quality (which was better than the GTR) and the acceleration was amusing (sports chrono, tiptronic, the spec I wanted). At the end of the day I would summarise:
Pros of 997 Turbo: Less servicing Controls it fluid temperatures better in very hard use Better ride comfort Lower tech gearbox with slower changes but with no worries about the gearbox fluid changes, reliability Pros of GTR: Lower purchase price More luggage space Better for tuning (more readily available tuning parts which are better priced and arguably more mature already) Faster around most tracks Main surprises since buying GTR: How much g-force it does in all directions in the dry (and how chuckable/tactile it is) and how bad it is in the wet in comparison. Just down to tyres, tempted to remove the Dunlops carefully, and replace with Pirelli non-RFT. Trouble is the second hand market for used Dunlops may be poor since Nissan don't recommend remounting them once removed, and it is £2k of tyres. Thanks. I suppose since you didn't drive the 997t you can't comment on which is the more fun to drive as opposed to just which is fastest? Your comments on which is 'easiest' to tune are interesting. To some extent I feel its the 997t. If you want mega power ie 600 BHP+ then yes its the GTR, but that seems to fry the transmission and nullifies the warranty. From what I've read on the GTR forum Nissan are being very vigilant on this and have already refused a number of blown engine claims. If you just want an extra real 50 BHP or so, £2k buys you a DMS (or others) remap. This takes you to 530 BHP in a car that weighs about ?1550 kgs, should be enough for most! Also dms insist this is undetectable, and to be honest, I don't think porsche dealers really give a damn about 'minor' tweaks as they know these are unlikely to be the cause of an engine failure. Most will turn a blind eye to aftermarket exhausts if you are one of their regular customers. Anyway, the purchase price is a real issue. The prices started to plummet with the recession but have now really firmed. Can't see one still within warranty for less than £68k which is about £15k more than a new GTR. That £15k would buy a family estate, which would be essential with either car. I've not driven the GTR, but it almost seems too big and heavy to be fun to drive, it weighs almost as much as my M5 doesn't it? Cheers |
i saw one in Hitchin the other day -- it looked very like the new Mustang tbh
and one word came to mind BIG are they marketed for the US market? |
I do think less agressive tread on non RFT will dramatically improve the standing water performance and ride comfort.
It isn't too big to slide in the wet - I have done it at standard power, but with standing water or tuning along with Dunlops it can be a different matter. In normal mode the traction control fells like it really kills the power in straight line acceleration in standing water, but you still accelerate quite well. For yaw in bends, it seems far less keen to intervene and will give a decent amount of movement for road use. An Accessport for about £800 gets you 530-540 BHP on the GTR, other parts options are already far more plentiful, you can remove two of the cats for £400 fitted midpipe. Porsche have refused to warranty an engine because of a non-standard battery, so their warranty offers little more reassurance to a modifier. Additionally, custom mapping is far more reasonable on the GTR, and I would say the ECU is already better understood (I am employed to understand it, but it is fair to say that Bosch ECUs are a nightmare of over-complexity for the tuner compared to Japanese ECUs). The 100kg or so weight difference to the turbo isn't really noticed in times or the feel of acceleration on the road, probably because of the GTR's gearbox and possibly aerodynamics although that is dispute, but the GTR has a larger frontal area but claimed lower Cd. However, I would take the 997 tiptronic in preference because of its mechanical simplicity, although I doubt that a Porsche gearbox replacement would be any cheaper than Nissan, and there are already lots of gearbox upgrade parts for sale and being tested at 700+ BHP for the Nissan. The GTR is about 100kg lighter than the M5 saloon. I would say the main differences are that the M5 is considerably more comfortable, goes faster than it feels but the torque deficit is considerable, the feel of it and where the torque is delivered are greater than the paper difference I reckon too. Track times do seem to back up the difference in repeated braking performance, traction out of corners, and on a bumpy dry road I think the M5 would really struggle. Maybe I underestimate the GTR's ability on wet roads and underestimate the torque now I'm used to it, but I didn't try the M5 in the wet. However, the GTR with some tuning on Dunlops in the wet feels as wayward as an E46 M3 in the wet. I'm used to being mainly limited by visibility in the wet driving the Evo, not by traction. Now I'm limited by traction and think with different tyres I could safely use more of the now considerable torque. It is interesting to think about the Evo X, about 90% of the weight of the GTR. Few complain about the effect of its weight on its ability to change direction, one rubbish slalom test showed it better than the GTR, but other tests show the reverse. With more engine the Evo X would be as heavy as a GTR, but on the GTR they have tucked the engine behind the front wheels and the gearbox in front of the rear wheels. The weight of even an aluminium 3.8, 20" wheels/RFT and massive brakes does add up. I don't have data for the comparative weights of the 997 Turbo shell compared to the GTR, but I expect the GTR could easily be carrying 50 kg more just from its wheels/tyres/brakes compared to the 997 Turbo. Overall I love the GTR apart from the costs and the wet weather on these tyres. I had the option of a 997 Turbo used that I would also have been very happy indeed with, but it needed some serious cash spending soon too (tyres, brakes, big service, warranty renewal etc). Also on reliability, I'm not Porsche bashing (I love them), but I only have two friends... with Porsches, and surprisingly around the time I was buying the GTR and expressing reliability concerns, both of them had engine failures (requiring replacement or rebuild), neither turbos, one Cayman S, another 996 C4. Doing all this again, I would still buy a 335ix if it was available in the UK as it would be the perfect balance between stealth, tunability and performance with sensible costs. The GTR is oddly its nearest cousin in terms of value in my eyes, new S4 and TT-RS are a bit close on price with options to a GTR. |
Originally Posted by john banks
(Post 8924427)
The GTR is oddly its nearest cousin in terms of value in my eyes, new S4 and TT-RS are a bit close on price with options to a GTR.
|
I was thinking it is only £10k difference in list price not including options and tuning on the S4, but your deal sounds rather better. I'd say they are in a similar market though, people may consider GTR/S4 just as I considered a year old 335i, a 3 year old 997 Turbo, a few year old M5/M6 or a new GTR. I'd be happy with any of them I think. Perhaps I don't fit into marketeer's ideas of budget, number of seats/doors, luxury/sports though, I'm happy to cross segments and just choose what I like the drive/package of, and have no brand loyalties either.
I'd say then if doing it again now and S4 was quickly available and able to test I'd give it serious consideration. Some things it will do better than the GTR no doubt - running costs, comfort, economy whilst still being a lot of fun stock or modified. |
I did get a good deal, most forums are reporting about 4% discount. Obviously the base car manual is only 34 but you have to have the toys especially the diffs!!
Quickly available, nope, ordered end of May and build week is Oct 12th. Supply of Stronic i understand, I'd have had a manual by now. |
John B,
A few comments. First I think indeed you may be underestimated your GT-R in the wet. Two of the best driver jounralist around (founding evo eds) Barker and Meaden have both commented rather extensively about the GT-R as being a very progressive and predicable slider in the wet. (yes standing water has been noted as a problem) But again even against the highly friendly on limit Evora at its wet launch in Scotland evo spoke of the GT-R reeling in the Evora like it was playtime. I think what might be the main issue with the GT-R is simply that it will never quite have the manuverability and adjusability of a nice small 4wd like an older STi for example on narrow roads where there is simple no room to collect the car if its slipping?? Unless in exchange for the slight size/weight disadvantage the GT-R simply winds up clinging to most all roads much better than an Impreza ever could. Indeed I'll say it again I think a fascinating comparison would be a nicely modded P1 or similar, a litchfeld type 20, a chipped new Audi S4 and your GT-R with best tires/spring rates- I think there would be differences found in many areas quite frankly. About the 325/330ix well my father owned one for three years and I tell you it was not as good as the S4. Its got a primitive Haldex unit in it and it sometimes shuffled power between wheels rather unpredictability. Indeed BMW have recently updated their 4WD tech using similar tech as Saab do which is the Honda like torque vectoring, taking power from left rear to right rear as needed, on the X6 but no 3-series yet. The Evo X is also known as a rather unpredictable drive in the wet with so much electronic intervention that I felt it was hard to read what it would do next- the now defunct Drivers republic had an article on this as well, saying as much.. J |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:29 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands