The GTR is just as track ready as the FD (in fact more so), so how can you call the FD a sports car but not the GTR?

BTW, the Veyron super sport has 3.5 lb/hp, does that make it a better sports car than the M600? The FD is much much heavier than a early 90s Honda Civic, does that mean that the FD is a piggish car unworthy of the title "sports car"?

 

Anything over 3000 pounds is too heavy to be taken seriously as a track car in my book, it's never going to corner well when truly pushed hard (again, laws of physics), that includes the "godly" GT-R...in fact, 2800 pounds is still heavy, 2500 is respectable. As much "innovation" in science and technology as we've seen over the past 20 years, with the availability of light weight composite materials, space frames, etc it astounds me how "sports" cars have just gotten fatter and fatter - look at Porsche - perfect example of the wrong direction. Noble and Lotus have consistently pursued the high road, and they should be applauded.

The big five bike manufacturers (well, now seven, with BMW and Aprilia entering the superbike fray) have hovered in the low 400 lb/160 hp range for quite some time, achieved through use of light weight twin spar aluminum frames (Japanese) or space frames (Ducati), and very compact, high revving four cylinder or two cylinder engines. The auto manufacturers could learn something here - GM did with the Z06, but it still needs to be lighter and smaller. Unibody designs are heavy and generally have poor chassis rigidity: poor foundation for a sports car. They can do better, but with the new focus on economy (even though light weight improves gas mileage) and "green", don't expect it to happen anytime soon

 

Want mechanical? Grab a handful of throttle on a ZX-10R in first gear, and as the front wheel goes skyward you hit 60 mph in under three seconds. GT-R owners can't fit their fat asses on one, and I kinda like that

 

Which laws of physics exactly are you referring to? Newton's 4th law, stating that cornering ability = (mass)^-1? What are you basing your figure of 3000 pounds on? Years of track experience with countless different cars? In-depth mechanical analysis of the affect that weight has on handling, taking into consideration the many different force/normal load profiles available from different tires? Or do you just like to pick arbitrary numbers and base your arguments around them?

Companies like Ferrari, Porsche and Chevy are doing it right. Who makes the most capable STREET cars? They do. Who makes the most competitive race cars? They do. All 3 of those companies that are moving in the "wrong direction" will continue to make the most capable cars in their respective markets for years to come, because they are the ones that develop technologies like composite materials, compound turbocharging and electronically controlled differentials. They use race car technology to advance their street cars, and vice versa. End result? Amazing street cars for average joes, amazing track cars for the people who actually need them.

Companies like Noble are started by a couple of dudes who worked for a company like Ferrari (or Mclaren, in Noble's case) and decide to run off with the knowledge they've acquired and build a bare bones car that gets the spotlight for a couple months. A couple years later, when they have no motorsports division, no new technology, poor sales and insufficient funds to make another car that is no longer cutting edge, they go under. End result? Another footnote in automotive history.

As for Lotus: http://danmoldovan.blogspot.com/2010...ris-motor.html

2 out of 5 of those cars weigh well over 3000 pounds. Guess they've decided to do things wrong too.

 

You seem to be basing your opinion on sales numbers. Of course, the manufacturers need to be concerned with sales, but what the masses want never translates well to sports car performance. The masses want creature comforts and room for four. I never cared to go with the herd.

 

Also, Noble has been around alot longer than "a couple of years" - so much for that argument.

 

Nice dodge, but I wouldn't have expected anything else. This will be my last post in this thread until you can manage to put together a logical response and answer the questions from my previous post.

Noble has been around for 10 years and have put into production fewer than 5 models, all based off of the same chassis. They also have no motorsports division and use motors from other companies. Sounds like a pretty typical kit car setup to me.

In the same stretch of time, Porsche has developed the successful RS Spyder, the GT3R Hybrid, placed 13th overall in the 24hrs of Nurburgring with a standard GT3RS (excluding required safety modifications), and created a 700hp hybrid concept using an engine derived from the RS Spyder. Funny how the company that is doing everything wrong can be competitive in a 24 hour race with a street car, especially one that weighs over 3000lbs.

 

Ninesixtwo and fritz pretty much have it in the bag. Thanks guys for clearin things up.

Can't believe how some poeple really have no clue and refuse to get a clue lol

 

LOL

Apparently these fools failed at math and don't go to the track.

GTRs aren't used to pick up groceries and shuffle the kids to school. I see a lot of GTRs on track.

Guys this car is a VERY special car. Remember the R32/34 that's nick named Godzilla. This is Godzilla's daddy and pretty much owns most every production car on ANY and ALL tracks.

Out of the box the GTR is twice the track car the FD is. It kicks the C6 Z06s *** for christ sake.

Regarding the subject who gives a **** where a thread goes as long as it's interesting. I had to put up with that motor cycle nonsense hehe......... not a bike dude because I'd kill myself before I left the driveway but I certainly understand why they are so much fun.

PS That's right the GTR isn't a sports car it's just a supercar so lets just leave it at that

 

I already laid out the logic in the previous post, I guess you missed it smart guy. The benchmark is F1 cars and their lap times on various tracks, not just 'Ring times and the latest article in Motor Trend. A GT-R isn't even the same time zone in terms of power to weight - or track time.

This is the typical rebuke of small companies, that they produce "kit cars" because they borrow engines and/or other powertrain components from the major manufacturers. To be honest, who cares? If the car performs well, I could really care less if it's a Factory Five "kit car" or whetever. This is another elitist type bs argument.

 

Whatever....it's the current flavor of the week for the sub $100k market. Something for ex MKIV Supra owners to plop their big asses into and mindlessly mash the throttle.

I believe the ZR1 is considerably faster around everyon'e beloved 'Ring

 

whats the name of this thread again?....

 

You are so fun and I mean that in a good way.

Now we're comparing the the GTR to an F1 because sport bikes have the same power to weight. Absolutely priceless stuff.

Yep the ZR1 kicks it's *** by 7 seconds. Pretty cool car though that weighs around 3300 to 3400 pounds and makes 630 HP but what's really awesome his how that fat *** GTR gets through those corners because with just a 7 second difference the only place that vette is winning is on the straights Once again the GTR just proves what a great car it is with such an inferior power to weight ratio but makes up for it with cornering ability. Apparently the fat bastard is light on it's feet.

BTW.... HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL

 

No, that's not what I said. Read the post again, I used a ratio of F1 to street.

"Just" 7 seconds?

 

que el f#ck as long as the rice man is posting I'm in and besides it's his thread. I love it

 

"I already laid out the logic in the previous post, I guess you missed it smart guy. The benchmark is F1 cars and their lap times on various tracks, not just 'Ring times and the latest article in Motor Trend. A GT-R isn't even the same time zone in terms of power to weight - or track time."

that's what you said and it's classic

I think you're right the F1 pretty much kicks the GTRs ***, who would of thought, wow those things are fast

 

If you are gonna compare Nissan's top of the line 100k car at least put it against Chevy's top of the line 100k car. The ZR1 ran the ring is 7:22 which beats the GT-R times, I wonder if they ever got a definite answer of the GT-R ring car being tuned and different tires to run their times.

 

for clarification, this was the original post:

"The definition of a sports car has been greatly distorted these days to include all manner of heavy street cars. Since I grew up with bikes, I consider them a good benchmark. A MotoGP bike weighs about 330 pounds and produces around 220 hp (1.5 lb/hp). The BMW S1000RR, which you can buy right off the showroom floor for about $13k, weighs about 430 pounds and produces around 180 hp (2.4 lb/hp). An F1 car weighs around 1500 pounds and produces about 800 hp (1.87 lb/hp). Using the same ratio of F1 to street as the bikes, track ready sports cars should be in the 3 lb/hp range. The Noble M600 is a respectful 4.4 lb/hp, while the ponderous GT-R isn't even in the same time zone: almost 7 lb/hp.

Sure all the gadgetry allows an average joe to hustle fat cars around the track at a decent pace, but a serious racer is going to find their weaknesses quickly and put them to absolute shame in a lighter car. Fancy gadgets don't supercede the laws of physics."

 

I like most cars for what they are, the GT-R is a great car as are some Porsche, Corvette, Lamborghini, etc. My biggest thing and one of the reasons I like the FD(besides the feeling of actually driving) so much is I don't see them everywhere! I cannot take a 5 minute drive without seeing 2 Ferrari and a GT-R, having only seen 2 FD in the last 2 years. But then again I do live in Miami at Coral Gables, one of the richer parts of Miami where all the super car dealerships are. Another reasons I wouldn't choose one of the newer cars is the separation between driver and car, I have driven many different models of every top of the line car and you feel like you are floating with the exception of a couple. To me that is no fun, but it doesn't change what they are built for, it just opens the market of them up to others who demand that.

Cars are an evolving machine, much like BMW, since their creation they were intended for strictly driving. Europeans had never dreamed of putting cup holders into their cars, they weren't needed. What changed it was Americans, we demanded that comfort and so they evolved to fit that need. Much like everything else, you can get all of the creature comforts in a $20k car so why would you buy one of these $150k car and not get it? Only true purists will overlook the comforts for power, the majority of the market will not, and that would be why sports cars have evolved into what they are today, not to mention all of the government interfering.

 

I'd pick the new Z06 Carbon before the pudgy/ugly GT-R

 

What so you're saying 7 seconds is a horrible and disgraceful defeat?

That is less than 1 second per minute of track time. Just so you can understand what that means, it is within about 1.5% of running the same lap time.

7/60 * 100 = 12%

7/450 * 100 = 1.6%

Makes a big difference.

 

This is another classic post

Seriously no reason for me to comment on this at all it's a perfect example of your knowledge and logic which are both very entertaining.

 

Good stuff

I will admit though that I have a cup holder in my daily FD so I can set my morning mocha in it

 

The ZR1 is a quite simply the best bang for the buck super car ever developed and to be compared to it is quite a compliment especially when you're 20k cheaper and have four seats.

 

me too but I'd take the GT3 over most anything at this time.