Saw a GTR today.

I have to say it looks better in pictures. It didn't do anything for me. Then this up tight prick looking guy opened the door to it and slammed it into the Dodge pos next to it.

Motor sounded sweet. To bad they will never be cheap. It would push my RX-7 quite nicely.

I dunno I kinda like em in person...but I still like the R-34's better, and the R-32's even better than that.

They handle smaller than they look, fantastic on a cone course with room to open it up. Loud to just drive around town in though, but really, who cares?

Lesley wrote: They handle smaller than they look, fantastic on a cone course with room to open it up. Loud to just drive around town in though, but really, who cares?

They are great around a course but holy tar do they burn through consumables at a astonishing rate.

That's my big Nit with "sports cars" these days. Who cares if it weighs 4000 lbs wet, just put super sticky (and expensive tires) on it to make it handle and stick the owner with replacement costs...

It is at the opposite end of our grassroots spectrum after all...

I still remember my first time seing one on the road. It passed me out of know where, and withing a mile it was pulled over

It was GREAT

Still not a fan of it's looks (front grill has Mitsu Evo all over it), I gotta admit it is pretty impressive performancewise. There's usually 3-4 at the Dallas Cars and Coffee, so they're becoming uncommonly common.

Yeah, I prefer the 370z, it has the look, but watered down. Not quite so catfish.

I am always surprised by how large GT-R's are...the styling is bleh to me, the performance numbers I won't argue with, but look at one sitting at a traffic light - they are huge cars. They are wider longer and taller than they seem...almost SUV sized.

They are a car I have no emotional attachment to, no desire for, but can respect the performance of all the same. It's not just sour grapes because there are other cars that cost more than I could afford that I would love to have.

Here is an example of the hugness....granted a an NSX is not an average car, but it shows my point.

Next to an R34

I'd sell body parts for an NSX...

good lord is it HUGE! I have seen an R34 (in GTS trim) once in person... it is not a small car.

personally, I have an issue with any car that uses it's brains to make even a less than average driver into what appears to be a top notch one

I have seen a few here in SoFla. But I see a lot more Lambos and Ferraris.

I knew they weren't small, but wow....I'd rather have an R32 myself as well.

mad_machine wrote: personally, I have an issue with any car that uses it's brains to make even a less than average driver into what appears to be a top notch one

I've read that the GTR's technology makes some driving techniques that used to be very important skills (e.g. heel-and-toe) unnecessary. Some people are very put off by that, but the lap times for the car are hard to argue with.

I think that this was the point of debate in this thread we had about Ferrari ending the use of manual transmissions. It looked like there were two basic schools of thought on the subject.

• School #1) "Driving is an experience. I enjoy pushing a car towards its limits, and developing the skills to do it. Technology is not bad, but it should not isolate me from the process of driving. If it does, it is a BAD THING. In this context, driver aids are 'FAIL'."

• 2) "Fast is good. It is what wins races. The technology to win is the technology we should use. It doesn't matter if a) that technology is expensive, b) that technology makes what used to be useful driving skills irrelevant. In general, driver aids are 'WIN' because they make you faster".

My opinion on this matter is largely irrelevant because I'll never have a Ferrari or a GTR, but of the two schools of thought I tend to fall into the first camp. For me, the experience is very important, but that's probably an artifact of my situation; I don't have the money or time to buy a fast car and get lots of seat time. I know this, but I still enjoy trying to push my car - and thus, myself - so that I can learn new things.

I will grumble about the encroachment of driver aids into our lives, but the honest truth is that I still have so much to learn[1] that it doesn't REALLY affect me. The situation will be different for very experienced drivers, but I suspect that the ones who truly want to win[2] will use any technology or aid that makes them faster.

[1] - In an automatic, I'll work on left foot braking. In a stick shift I should concentrate on learning to use heel and toe. Even if I do neither of those, I still have lots to practice and learn. At our MSCC driving school I found out that I need to alter the timing of my braking, amount of steering input I use, and degree of throttle I apply.

[2] - the exception to this, of course, is when the rules dictate otherwise. I'm sure that NASCAR would not be the realm of push rods and carburetors if the France family didn't force the teams to use older technology.

TJ wrote: Next to an R34

Does anyone else enjoy seeing American performance cars overseas?

yeah, I was rather unimpressed when i saw the pair (!) of GTR's sitting in a local Nissan dealership's showroom a few months ago. unsurprisingly, they are still there. who goes to a Nissan dealership to spend more than the cost of most new Infiniti's on a car that will absolutely rape them on insurance? I definitely understand and appreciate the attention to detail Nissan put into the GTR, and as such I can appreciate just HOW they can charge $80K+ for one, but still, it's a pretty massive, unnecessarily heavy car that seems to take styling cues from Super GT cars but bloats them up a LOT.

I saw a couple last time I was in Portland, I was much more excited to see the Mercedes 190E-16 down the street. Also the first time I saw a 2010 Camaro I was much more excited and actually thought it looked better than the GTR.

TJ wrote: Here is an example of the hugness....granted a an NSX is not an average car, but it shows my point.

Holy crap. I thought the GTR was supposed to be a sports / exotic. This looks like it sells against the Suburban.

A coworker has a R32 GTR. I'll have to get some pictures of it. It's definitely on a different scale than the new car, probably fairly close in size to the E39 M5.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

TJ wrote: Here is an example of the hugness....granted a an NSX is not an average car, but it shows my point.

Holy crap. I thought the GTR was supposed to be a sports / exotic. This looks like it sells against the Suburban.

It certainly looks like that in the flesh, too. I got overtaken by a black one this morning as I was picking up my Elise from its inspection. I had the distinct impression that my head was in the vicinity of the exhaust pipes on the GTR - OK, so an Elise is low but still. Anyway, from the perspective of an Elise it was a mountain of a car that went past.

NSX, well...

My wife really likes the Elise, I pointed out to her that we can get a newer Elise in the US, officially, like, but then also pointed out that the same money would buy an NSX. When I showed her some pictures of NSXs she really liked those, too...

Trouble is that I don't really fancy finding out how bad the insurance on an NSX is going to be...

Toyman01 wrote: To bad they will never be cheap. It would push my RX-7 quite nicely.

I'm not sure sure about the never be cheap part. The novelty will wear off, the price of repairs on them won't.

MitchellC wrote: Does anyone else enjoy seeing American performance cars overseas?

Yes...