Is the GT-R the best car in the world right now for the money?

  • Thread starter Thread starter craste
  • 266 comments
  • 8,563 views
600bhp+ from factory, no factory tuned models ( like ZR-1 is) = hypercar. stop arguing just because it doesn't suit YOUR definition of supercar.
 
600bhp+ from factory, no factory tuned models ( like ZR-1 is) = hypercar.

I still don't see the point of hypercar the only car off the top of my head that i'd apply it to is the Veyron simply cuz that car was basically just to go really fast in a straight line and do it in comfort. I think supercar is sufficient.

And saying the GT-R is not a supercar is fine, but how can you compare it to any M car or AMG? None of those even come close, except maybe the Sl65 black, but i have a feeling that the GT-R would kill when it comes to anything but straight line top speed
 
Whichever way you turn this you aren't going to accidentally get me to say the GT-R is a supercar.
If you read my earlier posts, you'll discover that I'm not trying to convince you to say that. I'm just trying to make the point that you can not categorize supercar in terms as simple as "has two seats".
 
600bhp+ from factory, no factory tuned models ( like ZR-1 is) = hypercar. stop arguing just because it doesn't suit YOUR definition of supercar.

Who are you to tell me to stop argueing my case? I've been most polite in my responses and I'm simply stating what I believe. How f:censored: dare you.

I gave a perfectly legitimate reason why I classed the Enzo as a supercar, that it followed on from a long line of other Ferrari supercars. It's equally as legitimate as saying "anything over 600bhp" which seems rather weak given that many heavy goods vehicles have over 600bhp, if you want to be obtuse about it.

The case for the Enzo is irrelevant anyway, as this discussion and indeed the thread is about the GT-R.

Your responses are defensive in a way that makes me seem like I'm bashing the GT-R, when in fact the opposite is the case. I've said more times than I can count that I think the GT-R is a very impressive, very quick car.

But I really don't see how it's a supercar. Here was me thinking supercars are easy to define, fast, beautiful, exclusive, expensive, sleek etc. Apparently not. :grumpy:

I'm not doing this to be a pain in the arse.
 
If you read my earlier posts, you'll discover that I'm not trying to convince you to say that. I'm just trying to make the point that you can not categorize supercar in terms as simple as "has two seats".

Which is why I gave far more other categorisations
 
I gave a perfectly legitimate reason why I classed the Enzo as a supercar, that it followed on from a long line of other Ferrari supercars. It's equally as legitimate as saying "anything over 600bhp" which seems rather weak given that many heavy goods vehicles have over 600bhp, if you want to be obtuse about it.

which is why I excluded in-house tuners such as AMG.

Your responses are defensive in a way that makes me seem like I'm bashing the GT-R, when in fact the opposite is the case. I've said more times than I can count that I think the GT-R is a very impressive, very quick car.

You are just repeating that GT-R doesn't fit your definition of supercar. However it is fastest thing that has ever come out of Japan, hence why it IS a Japanese supercar, like it or not.

But I really don't see how it's a supercar. Here was me thinking supercars are easy to define, fast, beautiful, exclusive, expensive, sleek etc. Apparently not. :grumpy:

Definitions are opinions, and in this case, there's as many definitions for supercar as there are users on the forum. And opinions usually agree to disagree or vice versa. :D

I'm not doing this to be a pain in the arse.

Neither am I, but who could resist the charm of proper discussion?:sly:

Interceptor, it's probably too heavy and has too many electronic gadgets. then again, if memory serves, Enzo has adjustable suspension, adjustable traction control, adjustable power steering, adjustable front drive height..
 
Last edited:
It isn't particularly dramatic, it's unusually practical (hence why I'd call it a GT - you wouldn't really want to do long journeys in an Enzo), and it's nowhere near as exclusive. In my entire life I've seen one Enzo and it was in "captivity". Although Scagliettis aren't exactly all over the place, I've seen at least a dozen on the road. I've seen fewer Ford Racing Pumas on the road than that.

And opinions usually agree to disagree or vice versa. :D

Which is what I think we'll have to do because I really can't see any of us really going anywhere with this... :sly:
 
Well what about a Mercedes-Benz SLR Mclaren, I wouldn't call it exclusive but it's fast, beautiful, sleek, and expensive
 
We can't control what we see. I see Porsches, Bentleys and Aston Martins daily, and there are a number of Ferraris and even a couple of Lamborghinis in the area, but none of them are what I'd define as the supercars. No Enzos, no Zondas, Carrera GTs, McLaren F1s, Murcielagos, Koenigseggs etc.

Well what about a Mercedes-Benz SLR Mclaren, I wouldn't call it exclusive but it's fast, beautiful, sleek, and expensive

Well beautiful is debatable with that one, personally I think it's awful, but it's more of a supercar than the GT-R is. But even then it's more of a blur between a supercar and GT (the front-engine thing comes into it on that one, like it does with the 612) 👍 It's also easily exclusive enough, only seen one of those on the road so far.

You can throw different cars at me all night but it's irrelevant to me, as has been discussed at length, in my opinion the GT-R is not a supercar. It doesn't come close to some of the names I've mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
About the seating question: what about the Ferrari 612 Scaglietti?
Still ugly.

Leonidae
Enzo is a HYPERCAR, just like GT. get it right.
Oh come off it. Hypercar isn't even a word.
I can't believe you decided to start this "GT-R is a supercar" crap again. Supercars are vehicles of excess designed to be desirable (and usable only if it can be shoved into the development budget), with badge, appearance and speed allowing people to overlook its faults and price tag. The GT-R was not designed this way, instead trying to take the best of both worlds (performance and livability) approach that Porsche and Chevrolet have always followed. Taken by more traditional criteria for supercars (desirability, performance, price, exclusitivity, impracticality, etc), the NSX is still far more of a supercar than the GT-R is. Cars with supercar-beating performance still aren't necessarily supercars:
250px-RedZ32.JPG
250px-Tr1.JPG
250px-92gmc17059-A.jpg
250px-Ruf.jpg

and supercars don't always need supercar performance relative of their price because performance is a very small part of what makes a supercar a supercar.


Based on the opinion of people whose opinion actually matters in this area (read: Rich people), the GT-R will never be a supercar. A fast GT? Sure. Awesome 911 Turbo competitor? You bet. Supercar? No. No rich guy is ever going to say "You know, the GT-R is faster than this Murcielago, so I'll get it instead."
 
Last edited:
Enzo is a HYPERCAR, just like GT. get it right.
Hypercar never came into play until the Veyron was introduced, but even then, I still consider that a supercar in its own right.

In what category does the 612 fail to be a supercar then, other than it has more than two seats?
In a nicer way than Tor. said, it's not exactly an eye-grabbing Ferrari next to its F430 & 599 sisters. Look at what it took for the 599 to become really noticeable, even though it had mixed opinions.
You are just repeating that GT-R doesn't fit your definition of supercar. However it is fastest thing that has ever come out of Japan, hence why it IS a Japanese supercar, like it or not.
But it's still not a supercar anywhere else.

As I've said in the past, a supercar to me must be a car containing many things, not just performance. A supercar needs looks. It has to really grab your attention from anything else. Look at the S7, Enzo, or Carrera GT. They look absolutley nothing like any other car on the road, thus they stand out.
Supercars also usually put out abnormally high amounts of horsepower, horsepower that could be called excessive. Today's supercars push, 640, 660, 800, or even 1,000Hp from the factory.
They also don't need to be the fastest thing on the track. A supercar's performance is not judged by its lap time, but how bat-**** insane it feels to be behind the wheel. A GT-R can lap whatevere track in 2:04. An Enzo could lap in 2:06. What makes the Enzo the supercar though (when you're still mixing in the other elements of a supercar) is how it feels. GT-Rs have been repeatedly referred to as soul-less sports cars. The Enzo hasn't. Supercars will deliver their performance in a rush-driven experience. There's just something about them hauling around the track that makes the experience so much more...on the edge? It's like they have the ability to make their passengers cry for mercy. You have to do it yourself, but after running in a Gallardo & a LP640 at MSR, you know the difference. The LP640 is just so much more alive, so much more dangerous.
The last major component is typically how it's build. Hand-built is coincidentally a shared trait among supercars today. However, it takes more than that. The car has to have interior quality you'd never expect in a traditional car. The interiors of supercars just stand out. Today though, that's becoming a bit tricky to see considering many companies are now slightly re-redesigning interiors & and adding them to the next car. The quality of supercars is just there, though.
Lastly, supercars are generally the halo cars of a company. However, it still needs to retain everything else from above.

And when you finally roll it all up, you get the last key trait of supercars. Price. Look at any car often recalled as a supercar in the last 7 years. What have they all held in common? A more-than-your-house-foo price. $300,000 seems to be the minimal these days, going up to your $440K Carrera GT, $600,000 S7 & Aero to your $800K CCX, & finally, your $1 million Veyron.

That's generally how I define it, though, and many seem to have a very similar opinion. But again, you can't have just 1 of these traits. You can't have just insane performance in a GT-R, incredible build quality like a Turbo, or just be a good halo car like the ZR1 for a brand. You gotta have it all. All of the traits combined is what makes a supercar usually called a supercar. And on the subject of the GT-R, it falls short. The design isn't eye grabbing in traffic like a Veyron might be. The interior quality, while good, is still considered sub-par by some. And the performance, while fast still has been noted by reporters as lacking soul, no excitement. When you see Clarkson's expression as he pushes a LP640 or a Carrera GT, that's the crazy, insane feeling a supercar delivers.

But, before you start calling any badge snobbery, it has nothing to do with that. Any badge can build a supercar. It's how they execute the design, the adrenaline-feeling during a simple push of the accelerator, the quality, the craftsmanship of the car.

In the end, though, plain & simple. The GT-R simply isn't a supercar.
 
Last edited:
thank you for sharing your opinion.
Maybe so, but my opinion at least, gives out a point and gives reasons why based on past cars.

What has been your reason for your opinion? Nothing but performance, of which said performance is also not supercar level in general.
 
thank you for sharing your opinion.
Your opinion is based entirely around performance, so it is safe to say that GMC made two supercars in the 1990s, and Caterham has made the best supercar ever since 1973.

Oh, and something else of note:

Leonidae
Performance alone guarantees that. Price, badge and exclusivity matter only for people who don't know anything about cars.
Spoken like someone who truly doesn't understand why people buy supercars and how fickle those people are. Do some reading up on the two supercars Jaguar made in the early 1990s. One had dozens of pre-orders sue for their money back because they replaced the V12 with a more powerful V6. Meanwhile, the far more expensive and exclusive XJR-15 sold out despite being slower.
Look at when Ferrari nearly was sued when they began going crazy with how many F40s they wanted to build and the rich people got mad that their exclusive car had three times as many produced as promised.
Hell, look at the literally dozens of cottage car makers who have folded up after their admittedly fast cars floundered on the market like a dying haddock. Just because a car is fast doesn't mean people will instantly go flying towards them. There are far more variables at play than how fast a car goes. Supercars are about making a statement of how much better you are than everyone else. The GT-R does not make that statement.

The problem everyone is having with your continued insistence that the GT-R is a supercar is that the facts go against your performance-first reasoning.
 
Your opinion is based entirely around performance, so it is safe to say that GMC made two supercars in the 1990s, and Caterham has made the best supercar ever since 1973.

Oh, and something else of note:


Spoken like someone who truly doesn't understand why people buy supercars and how fickle those people are. Do some reading up on the two supercars Jaguar made in the early 1990s. One had dozens of pre-orders sue for their money back because they replaced the V12 with a more powerful V6. Meanwhile, the far more expensive and exclusive XJR-15 sold out despite being slower.
Look at when Ferrari nearly was sued when they began going crazy with how many F40s they wanted to build and the rich people got mad that their exclusive car had three times as many produced as promised.
Hell, look at the literally dozens of cottage car makers who have folded up after their admittedly fast cars floundered on the market like a dying haddock. Just because a car is fast doesn't mean people will instantly go flying towards them. There are far more variables at play than how fast a car goes. Supercars are about making a statement of how much better you are than everyone else. The GT-R does not make that statement.

The problem everyone is having with your continued insistence that the GT-R is a supercar is that the facts go against your performance-first reasoning.

First off, yes GMC and Caterham made supercars in the past and second, saying that a supercar makes you better than everybody else is just not right, that's a selfish statement
 
Is it a sign of how bad it is when even I don't want to become a part of the arguement?

...back on track...

So, outside of the Corvette, what car is really the closest competitor to the GT-R on price and performance? The Porsche 911 Carrera S? BMW M3? eh?
 
Your opinion is based entirely around performance, so it is safe to say that GMC made two supercars in the 1990s, and Caterham has made the best supercar ever since 1973.

Oh, and something else of note:


Spoken like someone who truly doesn't understand why people buy supercars and how fickle those people are. Do some reading up on the two supercars Jaguar made in the early 1990s. One had dozens of pre-orders sue for their money back because they replaced the V12 with a more powerful V6. Meanwhile, the far more expensive and exclusive XJR-15 sold out despite being slower.

Well the XJ220 wasnt even released until 2 years later, suffered from turbo lag and had a 0-60 more than .5 seconds slower. Yes it had the top end and the looks, but plenty of manufacturers can build a 6 cylinder engine and add a huge turbo. Plus remember most of the original buyers of the XJ220 were just speculators who wanted to flip the car, so of course they were pissed when the engine was smaller and the price higher.
 
Is it a sign of how bad it is when even I don't want to become a part of the arguement?

...back on track...

So, outside of the Corvette, what car is really the closest competitor to the GT-R on price and performance? The Porsche 911 Carrera S? BMW M3? eh?

Lancer Evo/S2000 if we're about performance per dollar
 
Yes.

While I'm of the mind that the only defining trait of a supercar is what homeforsummer mentioned... passion... Toronado brought up a good point...

The failure of the XJ220 after the release of the McLaren brought up the defining trait of a supercar... one that made it a supercar in the eyes of the buyers before the Macca... and made it an epic fail after the Macca came out... it has to be the best there is at what it does.

Doesn't matter how many driven wheels... how many seats (the Macca seats three... fer gosh'sakes) or where the engine is... what matters is whether people are willing to pay the exorbitant price tag asked for these cars... For that reason, one UK auto-journalist listed the Rolls Royce Camargue as a supercar in his book. It was very exclusive... very expensive... and while it was powerful... it wasn't supercar fast... but it was a supercar... supercar pricing and supercar exclusivity.

The word supercar in journalistic terms was first used for the Miura in one place... and the GTO (which is front-engined) in another... it's very vague, and there's no cut-and-dried rules about its usage... just generally agreed upon conventions. The only thing that holds the GT-R back from traditional supercar-dom is the fact that Nissan is making about a thousand a month... but as a performance car... the GT-R gets marks as being one of the fastest on the planet. Not by dint of straight-line speed... but from the accessibility of its performance.

And how would we know what price the GT-R could command? If Nissan or GM priced the GT-R or Corvette over 100k... then could we consider them supercars? The Ferrari F430 should already be considered a supercar in the traditional sense, by dint of its extraordinary price. But at the price point... the GT-R and Corvette can already be considered supercars... amazing performance for the price... check... high price (which is relative)... check... bombastic numbers... check. Eye-catching looks... Z06... check... GT-R.... errrh...

Oh well... the whole "supercar" argument is beside the point. The question is if the GT-R is the best car in the world right now for the money... the monicker "supercar" has always been and will always be subjective...

To analyze the question... what can you buy for this much money? Aside from the Corvette... the only thing close would be the Viper ACR... and it's being
priced higher...

Everything else is either much cheaper or a kit car / track car (road legal maybe, but track biased)... nothing has the comprehensive all-around ability of the GT-R... unless Porsche produces a Cayenne with 800 horsepower... (then the Cayenne would beat the GT-R, because the Cayenne can actually climb curbs)... it's an interesting question.

----

BTW... Dan Neil's scale works best when you have absolutes to anchor it... keeps you honest about things that are measurable... for example... just because a 911 has four seats... doesn't make it a 10 compared to a Pagani Zonda... Cargo space should be measured as absolute... 1 being an Atom... 2 being a Miata... 5 being a Corolla... 10 being a Ford Excursion or something. It's interesting... and by using it... you can actually express why you dislike something... in numbers.
 
Last edited:
Still ugly.
Yes, I don't like the looks of the 612 Scaglietti particularly either. And I agree with you guys that it sure is the softest ferrari around. But despite that, I still think it's a supercar. The fact that you, homeforsummer, have seen it more often than other cars doesn't mean it's not exclusive. Like you said, we can't control what we see. Then, it's still has passion and it can be outrageous when it's driven the right way. Every supercar becomes boring when driven normally. I once spotted a Diablo in my rear view mirror on the Autobahn. I immediately passed to the right and turned by window down a bit to hear what's coming. But he just creeped along me at 5 mph more - not exciting whatsoever, but still a Diablo. I understand that people don't buy the Scaglietti to use it outrageously, but it still can be. And a supercar doesn't need to be beautiful. Case in point: the Zonda.
 
Hey... I think the Zonda is beautiful! :lol:

Hmmm... interesting idea... the GT-R isn't classically pretty... but the design sure is striking... :lol:
 
I give up.

I don't blame you.

BTW... Dan Neil's scale works best when you have absolutes to anchor it... keeps you honest about things that are measurable... for example... just because a 911 has four seats... doesn't make it a 10 compared to a Pagani Zonda... Cargo space should be measured as absolute... 1 being an Atom... 2 being a Miata... 5 being a Corolla... 10 being a Ford Excursion or something. It's interesting... and by using it... you can actually express why you dislike something... in numbers.

Very good point indeed, I was thinking about this myself when people were scoring the cars back there. Theoretically if a car has twice the luggage space but only half the seating capacity they should score the same. A McLaren F1 should be one point higher than say, a Zonda, because it's luggage capacity is rubbish like the Zonda but it still has one extra seat.

And obviously the scale works with factors like performance and economy too, really none of the cars people have been scaling so far should have received over a 4 or 5 for Economy considering a 10 would be a VW Polo Bluemotion, or something.

But despite that, I still think it's a supercar.

We shall agree to disagree then.

The fact that you, homeforsummer, have seen it more often than other cars doesn't mean it's not exclusive.

Well, it's obviously more exclusive than a Ford Mondeo, but then if you can find figures for how many have been produced it's likely a whole lot less exclusive than true supercars, which are often produced in no more than double-figure amounts and certainly not often more than 3-figure amounts.

The F40 was positively mass-produced as far as supercars go but still at only a few hundred it makes it a whole lot more exclusive than the thousands of Ferrari 430s they build. I've seen two F40s in my life, one in a car museum in the South of France, and another at the London Motor Show this year. I can see a F430 or a 612 pretty much anywhere, within reason.

Then, it's still has passion and it can be outrageous when it's driven the right way

True supercars don't have to be "driven the right way" to be outrageous. A Zonda causes a stir at a standstill. Park one up and you'd have a crowd around it in seconds. Most Ferraris (excluding things like the Enzo or F40) do a reasonable job of blending into the scenery, relative to genuine supercars.

Hey... I think the Zonda is beautiful! :lol:

+1 :sly:
 
Is it a sign of how bad it is when even I don't want to become a part of the arguement?

...back on track...

So, outside of the Corvette, what car is really the closest competitor to the GT-R on price and performance? The Porsche 911 Carrera S? BMW M3? eh?
Those 2 are probably the best choices. The M3 isn't really that far off from a GT-R.
 
Back