GT-R Swingers, more on deck for 2013
10-03-2011, 09:37 PM
#31
Sorta makes you wonder about that whole profitability thing huh? I mean, take honda and toyota, who make the most of all the asian brands, and yet you see mazda making the rx and miatas, you see hyundai with the gens and turbo this/that, and you see nisssan with Zs and constantly updated gtrs. I mean dont get me wrong, perhaps toyota and honda dont need to stir up attention to get people in the showroom, but it also just emphasizes the point that both makes really cant make a cost effective performance car.
Oh well, back on topic, more great news for those who can afford 80k+ sportscars, awesome. Did nissan ever fix that brake and transmission problem with the 370Z?
10-04-2011, 02:31 AM
#32
i never said they don't exist. Good for you if thats your ideal car under $100k. 911 Turbo isn't near $100k, try atleast $150k, so it's not a factor for you anyway. I know a good amount of people with high end 911s and none of them considered the GT-R. THrow performance out of the window. Go drive a 911 and tell me you don't love driving every second of it. And IMHO almost any of these cars are DDable. Only women need AWD to survive the winter. Ive never been in a situation, besides a blizzard where only trucks can get through, that a rwd car with winter tires couldn't handle.
It's not only snow, but AWD is awesome in the rain as well. Only a fool would say AWD doesn't help in wet condition. I live here, and know fully well how 2WD and AWD react in those conditions, because I own both. In the wet and snow conditions, my AWD truck climbed hills when all 2WD vehicles were stuck. When all of my 2WD vehicles could not climb the hill in my neighborhood, I took out my AWD truck and reigned supreme! Without my AWD truck, I would've been stuck at home on those days.
Btw, have you driven nearly as many cars as Jeremy Clarkson? He praised the GT-R like nothing else and put it on a pedestal. He loved how it drove and handled as well, but did not like its looks.
10-04-2011, 04:28 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i never said they don't exist. Good for you if thats your ideal car under $100k. 911 Turbo isn't near $100k, try atleast $150k, so it's not a factor for you anyway. I know a good amount of people with high end 911s and none of them considered the GT-R. THrow performance out of the window. Go drive a 911 and tell me you don't love driving every second of it. And IMHO almost any of these cars are DDable. Only women need AWD to survive the winter. Ive never been in a situation, besides a blizzard where only trucks can get through, that a rwd car with winter tires couldn't handle.
It's not only snow, but AWD is awesome in the rain as well. Only a fool would say AWD doesn't help in wet condition. I live here, and know fully well how 2WD and AWD react in those conditions, because I own both. In the wet and snow conditions, my AWD truck climbed hills when all 2WD vehicles were stuck. When all of my 2WD vehicles could not climb the hill in my neighborhood, I took out my AWD truck and reigned supreme! Without my AWD truck, I would've been stuck at home on those days.
Btw, have you driven nearly as many cars as Jeremy Clarkson? He praised the GT-R like nothing else and put it on a pedestal. He loved how it drove and handled as well, but did not like its looks.
10-04-2011, 08:10 AM
#34
Originally Posted by Steponme' timestamp='1317724271' post='21037315
i never said they don't exist. Good for you if thats your ideal car under $100k. 911 Turbo isn't near $100k, try atleast $150k, so it's not a factor for you anyway. I know a good amount of people with high end 911s and none of them considered the GT-R. THrow performance out of the window. Go drive a 911 and tell me you don't love driving every second of it. And IMHO almost any of these cars are DDable. Only women need AWD to survive the winter. Ive never been in a situation, besides a blizzard where only trucks can get through, that a rwd car with winter tires couldn't handle.
It's not only snow, but AWD is awesome in the rain as well. Only a fool would say AWD doesn't help in wet condition. I live here, and know fully well how 2WD and AWD react in those conditions, because I own both. In the wet and snow conditions, my AWD truck climbed hills when all 2WD vehicles were stuck. When all of my 2WD vehicles could not climb the hill in my neighborhood, I took out my AWD truck and reigned supreme! Without my AWD truck, I would've been stuck at home on those days.
Btw, have you driven nearly as many cars as Jeremy Clarkson? He praised the GT-R like nothing else and put it on a pedestal. He loved how it drove and handled as well, but did not like its looks.
As for its looks, which are subjective, plenty of people like it. I find it very impressive-looking in person. The new upgrades will make the car EVEN more formidable.
10-04-2011, 09:26 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then you obviously have not. It's not just a matter of "surviving" or getting through the rain, but it's obvious that AWD provides more traction and is more stable in the wet or slippery conditions. People with AWD vehicles know what I'm talking about. It is simple physics/math that 4WD provides more actual driving contact patch than 2WD, while 4WD is less than 6WD, and so on and so forth. You needn't be a rocket scientist to understand such.
As for its looks, which are subjective, plenty of people like it. I find it very impressive-looking in person. The new upgrades will make the car EVEN more formidable.
As for its looks, which are subjective, plenty of people like it. I find it very impressive-looking in person. The new upgrades will make the car EVEN more formidable.
I'm not a rocket scientist but I was a jet engine (combustion) engineer. I also know a thing or two about vehicle dynamics and traction distribution (see my long post on the workings of a limited slip diff) and well and I am a scientist.
As for the looks, I've seen a number in person. Way to damn big in person. Not that it's a slow car but it does look fat. It's a bit like finding out that lineman can run!
10-04-2011, 11:00 AM
#36
Originally Posted by Steponme' timestamp='1317744617' post='21038231
Then you obviously have not. It's not just a matter of "surviving" or getting through the rain, but it's obvious that AWD provides more traction and is more stable in the wet or slippery conditions. People with AWD vehicles know what I'm talking about. It is simple physics/math that 4WD provides more actual driving contact patch than 2WD, while 4WD is less than 6WD, and so on and so forth. You needn't be a rocket scientist to understand such.
As for its looks, which are subjective, plenty of people like it. I find it very impressive-looking in person. The new upgrades will make the car EVEN more formidable.
As for its looks, which are subjective, plenty of people like it. I find it very impressive-looking in person. The new upgrades will make the car EVEN more formidable.
I'm not a rocket scientist but I was a jet engine (combustion) engineer. I also know a thing or two about vehicle dynamics and traction distribution (see my long post on the workings of a limited slip diff) and well and I am a scientist.
As for the looks, I've seen a number in person. Way to damn big in person. Not that it's a slow car but it does look fat. It's a bit like finding out that lineman can run!
10-04-2011, 11:53 AM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rockville' timestamp='1317749204' post='21038499
[quote name='Steponme' timestamp='1317744617' post='21038231']
Then you obviously have not. It's not just a matter of "surviving" or getting through the rain, but it's obvious that AWD provides more traction and is more stable in the wet or slippery conditions. People with AWD vehicles know what I'm talking about. It is simple physics/math that 4WD provides more actual driving contact patch than 2WD, while 4WD is less than 6WD, and so on and so forth. You needn't be a rocket scientist to understand such.
As for its looks, which are subjective, plenty of people like it. I find it very impressive-looking in person. The new upgrades will make the car EVEN more formidable.
Then you obviously have not. It's not just a matter of "surviving" or getting through the rain, but it's obvious that AWD provides more traction and is more stable in the wet or slippery conditions. People with AWD vehicles know what I'm talking about. It is simple physics/math that 4WD provides more actual driving contact patch than 2WD, while 4WD is less than 6WD, and so on and so forth. You needn't be a rocket scientist to understand such.
As for its looks, which are subjective, plenty of people like it. I find it very impressive-looking in person. The new upgrades will make the car EVEN more formidable.
I'm not a rocket scientist but I was a jet engine (combustion) engineer. I also know a thing or two about vehicle dynamics and traction distribution (see my long post on the workings of a limited slip diff) and well and I am a scientist.
As for the looks, I've seen a number in person. Way to damn big in person. Not that it's a slow car but it does look fat. It's a bit like finding out that lineman can run!
[/quote]
No, I wouldn't care to discuss choices made decades before my time and at a company I never worked for. Also, what you are concerned with is supersonic flow, not combustion. I only worked on the part where the fuel was burned in subsonic engines. On the other hand if you want to know want to know about stability of various grades of marine diesel in the Allison 501 engine I might be able to help. It's been almost 2 decades since I looked at the engine but I'm sure I could talk about some of the combustion rig testing and how I inferred flame stability based on combustor temperature profiles and emissions.
These days I'm out of gas turbines and have been for a while. Still, I think I've posted enough that few people would question my claims that I do engineering (and engineering science). Again, look at my LSD post.
10-04-2011, 11:57 AM
#38
Originally Posted by sparrow' timestamp='1317754819' post='21038842
[quote name='rockville' timestamp='1317749204' post='21038499']
[quote name='Steponme' timestamp='1317744617' post='21038231']
Then you obviously have not. It's not just a matter of "surviving" or getting through the rain, but it's obvious that AWD provides more traction and is more stable in the wet or slippery conditions. People with AWD vehicles know what I'm talking about. It is simple physics/math that 4WD provides more actual driving contact patch than 2WD, while 4WD is less than 6WD, and so on and so forth. You needn't be a rocket scientist to understand such.
As for its looks, which are subjective, plenty of people like it. I find it very impressive-looking in person. The new upgrades will make the car EVEN more formidable.
[quote name='Steponme' timestamp='1317744617' post='21038231']
Then you obviously have not. It's not just a matter of "surviving" or getting through the rain, but it's obvious that AWD provides more traction and is more stable in the wet or slippery conditions. People with AWD vehicles know what I'm talking about. It is simple physics/math that 4WD provides more actual driving contact patch than 2WD, while 4WD is less than 6WD, and so on and so forth. You needn't be a rocket scientist to understand such.
As for its looks, which are subjective, plenty of people like it. I find it very impressive-looking in person. The new upgrades will make the car EVEN more formidable.
I'm not a rocket scientist but I was a jet engine (combustion) engineer. I also know a thing or two about vehicle dynamics and traction distribution (see my long post on the workings of a limited slip diff) and well and I am a scientist.
As for the looks, I've seen a number in person. Way to damn big in person. Not that it's a slow car but it does look fat. It's a bit like finding out that lineman can run!
[/quote]
No, I wouldn't care to discuss choices made decades before my time and at a company I never worked for. Also, what you are concerned with is supersonic flow, not combustion. I only worked on the part where the fuel was burned in subsonic engines. On the other hand if you want to know want to know about stability of various grades of marine diesel in the Allison 501 engine I might be able to help. It's been almost 2 decades since I looked at the engine but I'm sure I could talk about some of the combustion rig testing and how I inferred flame stability based on combustor temperature profiles and emissions.
These days I'm out of gas turbines and have been for a while. Still, I think I've posted enough that few people would question my claims that I do engineering (and engineering science). Again, look at my LSD post.
[/quote]
I wasn't questioning if you were an engineer if thats what you thought. You don't have anything to prove to me, I was just interested in seeing what you had to say.
10-04-2011, 12:07 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rockville' timestamp='1317758016' post='21039033
[quote name='sparrow' timestamp='1317754819' post='21038842']
[quote name='rockville' timestamp='1317749204' post='21038499']
[quote name='Steponme' timestamp='1317744617' post='21038231']
Then you obviously have not. It's not just a matter of "surviving" or getting through the rain, but it's obvious that AWD provides more traction and is more stable in the wet or slippery conditions. People with AWD vehicles know what I'm talking about. It is simple physics/math that 4WD provides more actual driving contact patch than 2WD, while 4WD is less than 6WD, and so on and so forth. You needn't be a rocket scientist to understand such.
As for its looks, which are subjective, plenty of people like it. I find it very impressive-looking in person. The new upgrades will make the car EVEN more formidable.
[quote name='rockville' timestamp='1317749204' post='21038499']
[quote name='Steponme' timestamp='1317744617' post='21038231']
Then you obviously have not. It's not just a matter of "surviving" or getting through the rain, but it's obvious that AWD provides more traction and is more stable in the wet or slippery conditions. People with AWD vehicles know what I'm talking about. It is simple physics/math that 4WD provides more actual driving contact patch than 2WD, while 4WD is less than 6WD, and so on and so forth. You needn't be a rocket scientist to understand such.
As for its looks, which are subjective, plenty of people like it. I find it very impressive-looking in person. The new upgrades will make the car EVEN more formidable.
I'm not a rocket scientist but I was a jet engine (combustion) engineer. I also know a thing or two about vehicle dynamics and traction distribution (see my long post on the workings of a limited slip diff) and well and I am a scientist.
As for the looks, I've seen a number in person. Way to damn big in person. Not that it's a slow car but it does look fat. It's a bit like finding out that lineman can run!
[/quote]
No, I wouldn't care to discuss choices made decades before my time and at a company I never worked for. Also, what you are concerned with is supersonic flow, not combustion. I only worked on the part where the fuel was burned in subsonic engines. On the other hand if you want to know want to know about stability of various grades of marine diesel in the Allison 501 engine I might be able to help. It's been almost 2 decades since I looked at the engine but I'm sure I could talk about some of the combustion rig testing and how I inferred flame stability based on combustor temperature profiles and emissions.
These days I'm out of gas turbines and have been for a while. Still, I think I've posted enough that few people would question my claims that I do engineering (and engineering science). Again, look at my LSD post.
[/quote]
I wasn't questioning if you were an engineer if thats what you thought. You don't have anything to prove to me, I was just interested in seeing what you had to say.
[/quote]
D'oh! Sorry I was defensive :wave:
No, aside from the spike moves to keep incoming flow subsonic and that it was a pain to get it right I don't know much about the aero spike. Nothing I just said would be a shock to anyone reading stuff on the web about that motor. I do recall it was unusual but it didn't impress me as much as the GE engine designed for the Boeing SST. I saw one of those at GE's Evendale, OH plant. VERY impressive. It looks like a fighter motor but I could crouch-stand in the afterburner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE4
I think it was more impressive than even the GE90 (which was impressive!)
