Nah, , my left foots gonna fall asleep from boredom haha

No they don't.

The GT-R is like a baseball player on steroids who gets the home run championship. The ZR1 (and others) are like baseball players who do it on their own, without any "assistance". The steroid using player might have the trophy, but he knows he doesn't really deserve it.

GT-R is probably one of the most technological advanced and best bang for buck vehicles out there. This car is refined in every way and they still continue to improve it.

Therefore, mad respect for the GT-R!! Love it for what it is.

Now only If only I had a $100k.... :)

No, that just means GM can't/haven't developed advanced electronical devices to make their cars go fast...traction/brake control, engine/fuel management, whatever.

basically what you're saying is NASCAR is better than F1 just because F1 is equipped with full of latest technology just like GT-R. Like it or not, the technology is GT-R's strength. Just like some other cars have other strength such as good aerodynamics, low centre of gravity, powerful engine, etc...

^ Complete and utter bullshit. The reason some cars have electronic aids and some don't is because of the choices of the manufacturer. GM has the same advanced technology Nissan does. They chose to make a real sports car instead of a robot.
Posted via RS Mobile

I don't think GM has the SAME technology. They have chosen to develop certain tech (e.g. small block V8s) far more than Nissan.

I'm glad that they did - otherwise, it would be boring to see all the sports cars having the same layout.

What it comes down to is apples vs oranges. +/- 0.1 seconds on a very long track is nothing.

lol, thats 1 VERY small factor in a car for a REAL enthusiast. Theres more to cars then just how fast it can go.
Character
Fun factor
Looks
are just 3 that something the GT-R doesn't have IMO.
I can say its a good car but thats about as far as it goes for me.

The GTR accomplishes the most with the least amount of skill. I'm glad someone built a car like this because it's gonna push the tech envelope for everyone else.

not surprised

I just think the GTR is ugly. I have no problem with the technology!

"Electronical"?... oh ffs...

oh shit...

OWNED

Companies develop lots of technology in house. They also buy technology from other suppliers, whether it be electronics like engine computers or assemblies like transmissions or AWD system. Companies also work with suppliers to co-develop products if they want a customized version of something for one of their own vehicles or if they want to share to costs on a new component.

Other manufacturers could do what the GT-R does. The latest Porsche 911 Turbo S could easily match the GT-R in being easy to drive and turning in a record 'ring time. The hardware in the car is already there and the control systems (computers) would only need to be re-programmed to change the characteristics of the car.

So why doesn't Porsche do this? Because they know their customers and they have to build cars to meet their expectations. What would happen if the Turbo ran a record time at the 'ring and beat the GT-R, and then magazine reviewers tested the car and found it "boring and easy" to drive? Do you think Porsche would suddenly sell more of their cars (because people want a car with the 'ring record) or would their fans (and buyers) shy away and look for their excitement somewhere else?

Car enthusiasts know the answer to this.

Porsche doesn't build a GT-R beater with their 911...because they can't. Faster maybe, but not as stable, or user friendly.

I'm confident that Porsche could build a GT-R beater, just not with the 911 rear engine layout. Look at all the supercars that Porsche has built - 959, Carerra GT - why are they not rear engined?

The market has dictated that the 911 layout needs to stay the same and LOOK relatively the same - otherwise they just won't sell. Just look at what happened to the Porsche in the 80's with the 968, 911, and 944. They tried to position the 968 above the 911, with no success. The market wouldn't accept it, regardless of those of us who love cars and are looking for a change.

^ Porsche could easily do it with the existing car. They choose not to because the car would lose all its character.

It has nothing to do with "can't". That's pure fanboism BS so they can somehow claim Nissan has superior engineering, which they don't. It all comes down to choice, not expertise/ability.

The 959 is rear-engine engined.

what about 911 GT1?

http://gts26tz06.up.seesaa.net/image/porsche911GT1.jpg

The 911 GT1 had very little in common with the 911 Carreras. For one thing its engine is mid mounted.

I am also very curious as to the future of 911 evolution. The current Flat-6 is already being taken to 3.8L or the rumor 4.0L for the GT3RS. I know turbocharging can always boost the HP to remain competitive but what happen to the Naturally Aspirated variant. Its not like you can fit a V8 in the rear. I don't know how big you can bore a 6-cylinder but I remember BMW was adamant about 500cc per cylinder being their ideal set up and there must be reasons to it. Otherwise you'd see 4.0L Inline 6 engine in the new M3 rather than a 4.0L V8

Lastly, as many are saying, the best Porsches were mostly mid-engine (GT1,Carrera GT, 918) Not to mention the brilliant Cayman R.

you can't fit a V8 in 911?

Some people buy a car because it either inspires them or because they want it for a specific reason (ie: childhood dream car). Other people buy these cars because they want something flashy. Then lastly there's people who will buy a sport/super car because it's the fastest thing out there. Now while on RS this may be incorrect, the vast majority of people who will buy an F430, 911, GTR, etc., will not take their car out for any major racing events. They bought it because it's advertised as being "faster than XXX in a drag race," or "runs the 'Ring quicker than YYY car." They'll never be able to take their car to even 50% of it's potential; rather, it's the bragging rights that their car is capable of doing it that they like.

Personally, I'd never buy a GTR. I know I've talked about this before on here, but it truly is a boring car to drive. Yes, it's quick... very quick. I found myself hitting 120km/hr through Langley city before I realized just how quick I was going... and unfortunately there's no real sense of speed in that car. But unfortunately sheer speed and capability doesn't necessarily make for a fun car. Paddle shifting may be the way of the future, but it just doesn't feel "right." I may be in the minority here but I prefer less mechanical aids in my cars (no TC, no variable steering, no electronically controlled throttle, etc). Not only does it make it harder and more expensive to work on a car, it also gives the driver a false sense of superiority while driving. Take that driver out of a GTR and into a base 240 or MK1/2 GTI, and I'll guarantee that they will start driving like crap. Or, hell... take that driver out of a fully loaded GTR and throw them into another one that's been stripped of all the electronic aids. Bring a camera to film with because the results will likely be comical.

^ yea I agree on this one actually...I think people would buy it for bragging rights